The Long Sixth Century in Eastern Europe
The Long Sixth Century in Eastern Europe
The Long Sixth Century in Eastern Europe
General Editors
Note to Readers:
Kindly note that although Florin Curta is one of
the managing editors of the ECEE series he was NOT part of
the decision-making process with regard to this volume.
volume 72
By
Florin Curta
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1872-8103
ISBN 978-90-04-45677-8 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-45698-3 (e-book)
Acknowledgements vii
Abbreviations viii
List of Figures xii
Introduction 1
part 1
The Roman Orbit
part 2
Far Away from the Empire
part 3
Specific Trends
16 Property 247
17 Subsistence Economy 255
20 Social Change 293
Conclusion 311
Bibliography 321
Index 505
My research into the “long 6th century” in Eastern Europe began more than
a decade ago as I taught a graduate seminar on economy and society in Late
Antiquity and the early Middle Ages at the University of Florida. I would like
to thank the students for helping me understand how incorporating the evi-
dence of Eastern Europe (both inside and outside the Empire) could drasti-
cally change the conclusions reached by most historians whose works we read
in that class. I also owe thanks to Alan Stahl (Princeton University) and Lee
Mordechai (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) for inviting me to the FLAME
project (Framing the Late Antique and early Medieval Economy), the pur-
pose of which is to reconstruct the economy of Western Afro-Eurasia between
325 and 725 on the basis of an enormous number of coin finds. Participation in
the first FLAME conference (Princeton University, April 2016) and in a FLAME
session organized for the 53rd International Congress son Medieval Studies in
Kalamazoo (May 2018) provided many ideas about how to cast my arguments
more meaningfully.
Over the years, at other scholarly gatherings or during short visits to Europe,
I had the good fortune to discuss various aspects of this study with a number
of historians and archaeologists working on the same or similar topics. Among
them I should especially cite Audronė Bliujienė, Ádám Bollók, Jaroslav Jiřík,
Ioan C. Opriș, Andrew Poulter, Alexander Sarantis, and Tivadar Vida. The book
is unquestionably better for the comments and criticisms I have received from
scholars who read chapters or served as interlocutors in discussions about
my research. In particular, I would like to thank my former student, Andrei
Gândilă for encouragement and insights. Many thanks to Francesco dall’Aglio,
Danijel Dzino, and Andrei Soficaru for taking the time to read various sections
of the manuscript. Some of those scholars disagree with my interpretations,
and many gave me good advice that I did not heed, and to them, I offer particu-
lar thanks for their forbearance.
My greatest debt remains always to Lucia, the light of my life.
28 Mladshii Akhmylovo (Mari El Republic), grave 115, plan and associated artifacts.
Redrawn after Nikitina (1999) 225
29 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes. Base map from
Freeworldmaps.net (https://www.freeworldmaps.net/russia/ural-mountains/
map.html), insert from Ecoregion PA0608 (public domain, https://wikivisually
.com/wiki/Scandinavian_and_Russian_taiga) 233
30 Vis (Komi Republic), plan of the bog excavation of fish weirs with a wood
stake and a basket withy, blunt wooden arrow heads and a reconstruction of
the sled found in the excavation of the settlement. Redrawn after Burov (1983),
Burov (1984), and Burov (1995) 237
There has recently been a great deal of scholarly attention on Eastern Europe.
Historians of the modern era have turned the region into a vagina nationum:
the greatest mass migration in history and even the “making of the free world”
are directly related to Eastern Europe.1 Historians of the Middle Ages writing
in English have discovered that East Central Europe was a region of transfer, a
contact zone.2 A number of guides and companions are now available for those
interested in research in the medieval history of the region or of its several con-
stituent parts.3 There is a greater preoccupation with including Eastern Europe
into the history of the Continent, if not of Eurasia. Moreover, there is now a
book series entirely dedicated to the history of Eastern Europe in the Middle
Ages.4 In spite of occasional qualms, therefore, these are exciting times for the
study of medieval Eastern Europe.5
Missing from this promising picture is any comparable interest in Late
Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. The debates about the transition from
Antiquity to the Middle Ages have not so far incorporated the eastern and
southeastern parts of the European continent. There is no room for Eastern
Europe either in the Pirenne thesis or in any of its many reiterations. Despite
the recent publication of books and chapter-length studies dedicated to the
Balkan Peninsula and the adjacent regions beyond the rivers Danube and Sava,
no attempt has been made to reach synthesis at a macro-scale, and no effort to
compare and contrast the situation in Southeastern Europe with other parts of
the Mediterranean world between 400 and 700.6 Historians studying Eastern
1 Zahra (2016). For vagina nationum, see Jordanes, Getica 25, 60.
2 Nagy/Schmieder/Vadas (2019), 3. For East Central Europe as a region of transfer from
Byzantium, see Curta (2015). For an excellent study of kinship networks, see Raffensperger
(2018).
3 Tornow (2005); Curta (2006c); Clewing/Schmitt (2011); Berend/Urbańczyk/Wiszewski (2013);
Lübke/Hardt (2017); Brüggemann et al. (2018); Curta (2019); Mitthof/Schmitt/Schreiner
(2019). Moreover, there is now an online bibliography of the history and archaeology of
Eastern Europe between 500 and 1250, for which see https://brill.com/view/db/bhae (visit of
August 27, 2020).
4 “East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450,” for which see https://brill
.com/view/serial/ECEE (visit of August 27, 2020). Eastern Europe figures prominently in the
publication list of “ARC—Beyond Medieval Europe,” for which see https://www.aup.nl/en/
series/arc-beyond-medieval-europe (visit of August 27, 2020).
5 For qualms, see Berend (2016).
6 Wolff (2000); (Sanders (2004); Novak (2007); Sodini (2007); Tejral (2012); Aladzhov (2016);
Sarantis (2016); Gândilă (2018a); Pohl (2018); Ivanišević/Bugarski (2019); Vida (2019). See also
Kazanski (2013); Husár/Ivanič/Hetényi (2015); Liubichev/Myzgin (2020).
7 Curta (2013c). In both East Central and Southeastern Europe, the “arrival of the Slavs” marks
the beginning of the Middle Ages to such an extent that the adjectives “Slavic” and “medi-
eval” are used interchangeably; see Chybová (1998); Makushnykau (2002). In the archaeologi-
cal jargon in use in Prague and Kiev, a hillfort is “Slavic” not because Slavs have built it or used
to live in it, but because it can be dated with some degree of certainty to the Middle Ages.
8 Bóna (1976), 105; Braychevs’kyi (1994), 16; Pohl (2018), 62–68.
9 Wickham (2006), 5.
conclusion was that the transfer of resources from the empire to “feudalism”
took place because of the rise of the aristocracy. In other words, the transition
from Antiquity to the Middle Ages is a matter of social change dominated by
aristocratic needs and aspirations.
This book is meant to test that model, but goes much farther. In doing so, it
focuses on a vast area of the European continent situated between the lands
of modern Russia beyond the Arctic Circle to the north and Greece to the
south, and between the Czech lands to the west and the Ural Mountains to
the east. Leaving aside the almost complete neglect of this considerable part
(two thirds) of the European continent in the scholarly literature dealing with
Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, such a vast span of territory offers
great opportunities for comparison.10 The chronological interval considered
in this book covers a little less than two centuries (ca. 500 to ca. 680), which
explains the title (“the long sixth century”). This interval has been chosen for a
variety of reasons, the most important of which has to do with the transition
from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages. By the end of the 5th century, in the
aftermath of the collapse of the Hunnic polity, the Roman power was restored
in the northern Balkans, which again brought the frontier of the Empire on the
river Danube. The last century of Roman power in the Peninsula thus opened,
and with it, a number of transformations that mark this area as different from
all others around the Mediterranean that have been in the focus of Chris
Wickham’s Framing the Early Middle Ages. Moreover, after the withdrawal of
the Roman troops and administration from the peninsula (with the exception
of the coastal regions), the Balkans experienced a demographic collapse, with
large tracts of land left without any inhabitants.11 The late antique cities and
forts were abandoned and the population moved elsewhere, either as refugees
into the coastal areas still under Roman control, or as prisoners of war within
the Avar qaganate. No newcomers appear to have taken their places. There was
no “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans after ca. 620. This situation in the Balkan
Peninsula is therefore radically different from that of the other two peninsulas
in southern Europe (Italian and Iberian), but not unlike the situation in Britain
at the beginning of the 5th century. However, while in Britain both the popula-
tion and the political developments have stabilized by 700, in the Balkans, the
arrival of the Bulgars ca. 680 marked a new period of turmoil. Discontinuity
10 There are currently 21 countries in Eastern Europe, with 20 official languages—a good
measure of the region’s bewildering diversity.
11 Curta (2013c). See also Pletn’ov (2011); Crow (2014); Dzino (2017); Gjorgjievski (2020).
and the neighboring territories to the north of the river Danube, much of
Eastern Europe was not on the radar of the written sources pertaining to the
6th and 7th centuries. As a consequence, there have been no attempt to write
an economic and social history of this region of the continent, since few histo-
rians inclined to do so could keep up with the rapidly accumulating evidence,
and equally challenging interpretations of the archaeological material. Taking
up that task, for the first time, this book is based on an in-depth analysis of the
archaeological data combined with a critical approach to the written sources.
In an effort to write “thick descriptions” of the variety and ingenuity of human
creativity, I was inspired by the idea of seeking out the details of the way in
which “people, in historically specific contexts, used, manipulated and con-
fronted both texts and objects.”17
1 Written Sources
Literary sources produced in Eastern Europe are rare, but precious. The
Miracles of St. Demetrius, a collection of homilies offered as a hymn of thanks-
giving to God for His gift to the city, offers precious insights into the life of
Thessalonica between ca. 580 and ca. 680. The first 15 miracles which the saint
performed for the benefit of his city and its inhabitants are central to as many
sermons written by Archbishop John of Thessalonica during the first decade
of Heraclius’ reign (610–620). Six other miracles form Book II of the Miracles,
which was written by an unknown author at some point during the last two
decades of the 7th century. In addition to the coverage of several attacks on
the city by Avars and Slavs, the Miracles offer glimpses into the changes that
took place during the 6th and 7th century in one of the most important cit-
ies in the Empire. In that respect, and despite its preoccupation with miracles
and miraculous deeds, the collection is invaluable for its information on the
food supplies for Thessalonica during peacetime, as well as under siege; for
the city’s harbor and its trade connections with the outside world; and for the
17 Moreland (2003), 97. According to Moreland (2010), 57, any attempt to understand the
Middle Ages “must use the full range of evidence that exists from that past. This evidence
must be situated within a theoretical framework which allows the humanity of the past
to shine through and which does not smother that past with a reified present.” In writing
this book, I took this exhortation at heart, for what prompted my research were ques-
tions about a model—“the transformation of the Roman world”—which has as much
to do with Late Antiquity as with the European Union in the late 20th century. For simi-
lar observations associated with the value of archaeology for writing history, see Fazioli
(2017), 24–25.
Barbarian raids were the most prominent feature of 6th-century imperial poli-
tics in the Balkans. There is hardly any year within the first half of that century
without a mention of raids by people whom early Byzantine authors, writing
in the tradition of classical historiography, regarded as barbarians, without
28 Georgantzis (2011); Sarantis (2016), 49 and 51. For the mobility of the steppe horsemen, see
Curta (2016), 75–79. For Justinian’s political responses to raids from across the Danube,
see Ermolova (1999); Talevski (2015).
29 Madgearu (2001), 9–13; Patoura (2002); Ruscu (2008); Olster (1993). Politicking in the
6th- and early 7th-century Balkans was done especially by churchmen. See Pietri (1984),
45, 47–48, and 51–52; Blaudeau (2004); Wolińska (2007); Kunčer (2011).
of the Gepids.30 In the mid-6th century, the Gepids were in conflict with their
western neighbors, the Lombards. The Lombards had moved into the Middle
Danube region from the north at some point during the early 6th century.
Much like their Gepid counterparts, the Lombard kings maintained relations
with distant potentates. Wacho, the king who ruled in the 520s and 530s, had
close ties to the Merovingian rulers in Reims. His eldest daughter, Walderada,
became the wife of Theudebert’s son, Theudebald (547–555). Auduin, the
Lombard king who ruled from 547/548 to 560/565, married Rodelinda, the
daughter of last Thuringian king.31
Annoyed by Gepid depredations and by the impossibility of dislodging the
Gepid king from Sirmium, Justinian agreed to give the Lombards the annual
subsidies until then paid to the Gepids. In exchange, the Lombards became
a permanent threat both to Sirmium and to the neighboring Gepid settle-
ments. The Gepids were defeated by an allied Lombard-Roman force, and then
again, in 551 or 552, by Lombards alone.32 During the Lombard-Gepid con-
flict, a “no man’s land” functioned as a political and military frontier region,
which only political refugees could occasionally cross. For example, shortly
after the Lombards and the Gepids agreed to a truce in 549, a candidate to the
Lombard throne named Hildigis fled to the Gepids, followed by a multi-ethnic
retinue, which he later took with him to Italy, where he joined the army of the
Ostrogothic king Totila,33 By that time, however, the greatest danger for the
Roman system of defense in the Balkans did not come either from Gepid or
from Lombard renegades.
In 545, a great throng of Sclavenes crossed the river Danube, plundered the
adjoining country and enslaved a large number of Romans. Judging by the tes-
timony of Procopius of Caesarea, those Sclavenes lived on, and not too far from
the left bank of the Danube. Their raids, particularly in the early 550s, when the
Sclavenes reached as far south as Thessalonica and Dyrrachium (now Durrës,
in Albania), were devastating. However, no Slavic raids are mentioned between
551 and 578, which suggests that Justinian’s program of fortification in the
Balkans, which must have come into being by the mid-6th century, was quite
effective. When resuming in the 570s, the raids of the Sclavenes involved much
larger numbers of warriors, often under the leadership of just one chief, such
as a certain Ardagastus, who led a raid in 585 that went as far as the outskirts
30 Diculescu (1923); Nagy (1999); Kiss (2015), 124–28. For Gepid Christianity, see Margit Nagy
et al. (2000), 185.
31 Christou (1991), 59 and 62.
32 Christou (1991), 84, 91 and 95; Pohl (1996); Pohl (1997), 90; Bystrický (2017). See also
Strzelczyk (2014), 7–59.
33 Bystrický (2017), 36–37.
orders of the qagan appeared under the walls of Thessalonica on September 22,
586, but could not take the city under the protection of St. Demetrius.38 When,
in 592, the Roman defenses around the passes across the eastern Stara Planina
range of mountains were left unmanned, the Avars invaded the Black Sea coast
region and in only five days reached Drizipera (now Büyükkarıștıran near
Lüleburgaz, in Turkey). Near Heraclea, they encountered the Roman army,
which they attacked by night, and the remaining Roman forces locked them-
selves up inside the walls of Tzurullon (Çorlu, Turkey), only a dozen miles away
from the Long Walls defending the capital city of the Empire.39
However, beginning with the mid-590s, the Romans went on offensive.
Until Maurice’s fall in 602, with some interruptions, Roman armies incessantly
waged war in the territories north of the Danube River, sometimes against the
Slavs, other times against the Avars. Among several generals, Priscus distin-
guished himself through a very aggressive approach. In 595, his troops crossed
the Danube in the Iron Gates sector, and two years later crossed again and
defeated a much superior Avar force in a series of encounters, killing almost
the entire Avar army and the qagan’s four sons at its command. When, in 601,
the Avars were desperately attempting to recuperate their control of the Iron
Gates region, the commander in chief was not the qagan, but a general named
Apsich. He organized a quick campaign into the Lower Danube region, but
large numbers of his troops defected to the Romans, an indication of the pre-
carious situation in which the power of the qagan was in the aftermath of
Priscus’ successful campaigns.
For a long time, historians have associated the rebellion that broke out in
602 against Maurice among the troops on the Danube frontier under the com-
mand of a centurion named Phocas with the crumbling of the Roman defense
in the Balkans and a general invasion of the peninsula by Slavs and Avars.40 In
reality, the Roman troops were still waging war successfully both on the Avars
and on the Slavs when Emperor Maurice’s order to his army to pass the winter
in Sclavene territory sparked the mutiny that would eventually bring Phocas
to the imperial throne. Moreover, after overthrowing Maurice in 602, the army
returned to the Danube front and continued to wage war against Slavs and
Avars. No evidence exists either of Avar or of Slavic raids during the reign of
Phocas, but marauding expeditions restarted during the first years of Heraclius’
reign (610–641). By 620, occupation on most, if not all forts in the northern and
central Balkans completely ceased, as the emperor withdrew all troops from
38 Iatrou (2009).
39 Hurbanič (2015), 391–97.
40 Some still do: Custurea/Talmațchi (2015).
the Balkans to meet the dangers on the eastern frontier. Taking advantage of
the vacuum of power thus created, the Slavs, together with the Avars attacked
Thessalonica again. Although the city resisted, in an attempt to appease the
Avars, Heraclius raised the stipends to 200,000 gold coins and gave his own
son as hostage.41 The Avars, however, put Constantinople under siege in 626,
in cooperation with the Persian armies on the other side of the Straits. The
attack that the Slavs under Avar command launched on their canoes in the
Golden Horn waters met the superior forces of the Byzantine fleet. The mili-
tary failure grew quickly from debacle into disaster.42 Conflicts between Avars
and Sclavenes seem to have resulted from the failed siege, and the subsequent
decades witnessed some of the worst political and, possibly, social convulsions
in the history of the Avar qaganate. In the early 630s, civil war broke inside
the qaganate between an Avar and a Bulgar “party.” The exact reasons for the
conflict are not known, but it must have been associated with the consider-
able blow to the prestige of the ruling qagan that was brought by his defeat
under the walls of Constantinople. The serious crisis opened by the civil war
led to the migration to Bavaria of 9,000 Bulgar families, no doubt supporters
of the losing party. They were slaughtered at the order of the Frankish King
Dagobert, and only 700 families managed to escape to a certain duke of the
Wends named Walluc, who probably ruled in what is now Austrian Carinthia
and northern Slovenia.43 Other, more belligerent Wends—the preferred name
for Slavs on the western fringes of the qaganate—had by then established a
powerful polity farther to the north or northwest. Their leader was a Frankish
merchant named Samo, who ruled over the Wends for 35 years, and managed
to defeat King Dagobert himself.44
The troubles at the center of the Avar power reverberated also in the East
European steppe lands. A Bulgar lord named Kubrat rose against the Avars,
established a powerful polity on both sides of the Sea of Azov, and allied him-
self with Emperor Heraclius.45 Shortly after his death, that polity was rapidly
conquered by the Khazars, who began building their own empire in the steppe
lands. A group of Bulgars from those lands meanwhile migrated to the Lower
Danube region, ca. 670. From there, the Bulgars began raiding those parts of
the eastern Balkans that were still under Byzantine control. Initially, because
of the concomitant attacks of the Arabs who besieged Constantinople between
41 Hurbanič (2007).
42 Hurbanič (2016) and Hurbanič (2019).
43 Nikolov (2013); Mingazov (2017).
44 Polek (2006); Kardaras (2010–2011).
45 Stepanov (1995); Ziemann (2010); Galkina (2011).
674 and 678, Emperor Constantine IV tried to ensure good relations with the
new barbarians at the Empire’s northern frontier. However, shortly after his
victory over the Arabs, he organized an expedition against the Bulgars, dur-
ing which the Byzantine fleet blocked any passage across the Danube from
north to south. The campaign went awry when the emperor decided to return
to Mesembria (now Nesebăr, Bulgaria) together with his retinue and a part
of the fleet. A rumor spread that the emperor was fleeing, and in the deba-
cle, the Bulgars led by Asparukh crossed the Danube and reached the Black
Sea coast near Varna. Following their victory of 680/1, they remained in the
newly conquered lands (Dobrudja and what is now northeastern Bulgaria),
subdued the local Slavic populations and began building a new polity,
early medieval Bulgaria.46
Much more abundant than the textual evidence for the history of Eastern
Europe as a whole is that from material sources. As in Chersonesus, archaeo-
logical excavations in Athens, Corinth, and Salona began in the 19th century,
but research specifically directed towards Late Antiquity cannot be dated
before the 1920s and the 1930s.47 Initially, the focus was on basilicas and for-
tifications, but an early interest in economic issues and social structures was
already apparent in the Soviet excavations in the Crimea. In Bulgaria, such
concerns became apparent in the 1970s and 1980s primarily in relation to mili-
tary sites on the right bank of the Danube River.48 The timing of such concerns
is not accidental.
In most parts of Eastern Europe, the rise of (early) medieval archaeology
coincides with, and was ultimately caused by the imposition of the Communist
regimes under Soviet aegis, if not control. As a consequence, archaeology was
46 Ziemann (2007), 161–79. The existence of the pre-Bulgar Slavic populations in northeast-
ern Bulgaria has been recently contested; see Komatarova-Balinova (2016).
47 The excavations of the American School of Classical Studies in Corinth began in 1896,
but late antique and early medieval finds were not recorded before 1920. The archaeo-
logical exploration of the Agora of Athens began in the 19th century with the Greek
Archaeological Society, but the first late antique finds came to light during the School’s
excavations that started in 1931. Ejnar Dyggve’s excavations in Salona began in 1922; see
Dyggve (1951). For the history of the archaeological research in Chersonesus, see Iashaeva
et al (2011), 43–54. See also Terry/Eaves (2001); Duval/Jeremić/Popović (2010).
48 Böttger (1974); Iurukova (1976); Henning (1986), 100–12. It is important to note that, of
all categories of archaeological material, the early interest in economic issues privileged
amphorae and coins. See also Patoura (1983).
organized along the lines of the Soviet school of “material culture history”
and received a degree of institutional support that it had never experienced
before. Considerable long-term investments with no parallels anywhere else
in Europe made possible large-scale explorations of several key sites, some of
which resulted in total excavation, following the principles first championed
by the Soviet school of archaeology.49 The earliest horizontal excavations of
medieval settlements were published in Soviet Russia in the 1930s.50 By direct-
ing the attention of archaeologists to the lives of ordinary people, the Marxist
paradigm encouraged the development of settlement archaeology (as opposed
to the excavation of cemeteries which had until then been the almost exclusive
focus of research). The result of that shift in emphasis was the large-scale exca-
vation of 6th- to 7th-century villages such as Popina (Bulgaria), Dunaújváros
(Hungary), and Březno (Czechoslovakia).51 Similarly large-scale excavations,
some of which continued after 1989, have brought to light some of the largest
settlements known from 6th- to 7th-century Europe.52 The analysis of finds
from those excavations formed the basis for the first attempts to write eco-
nomic and social history (almost exclusively) on the basis of archaeological
data.53 The growth in the 1960s and 1970s of cemetery archaeology, especially
in Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, led to a quick increase in the vol-
ume of data, to such an extent that entire chronological gaps in the knowl-
edge of the early Middle Ages have been virtually eliminated by 1990 primarily
because of archaeological research. Some of those cemeteries are very large
(e.g., Zamárdi, in Hungary, with over 2,000 burials), others have several bar-
rows (e.g., Baliulai, in Lithuania, with 16 burial mounds), some with multiple
burials each (e.g., elongated barrow 6 in Rõsna-Saare, in Estonia, with seven
separate cremations).54
For the last 50 years or so, archaeology has been instrumental in “writing
history” for entire periods or areas that are otherwise poorly covered in the
written sources, if at all. For example, only archaeological excavations have
shed light on the social and economic organization of those parts of East
Central Europe (Moravia, Lower Austria and western Hungary), which was
49 Klein (2012); Lozny (2016). The impact of the Soviet school of archaeology in satellite
countries after 1945 is currently a matter of debate. See Stamati (2015); Neustupný (2016).
50 Artamonov (1935).
51 Văzharova (1956); Pleinerová (1959); Bóna (1972).
52 Baran (1986); Gojda/Kuna (1986); Mitrea (2000).
53 Kurnatowska (1972); Dostál (1976); Kurnatowska (1978); Beranová (1980); Beranová (1984;
Beranová (1986); Herrmann (1986).
54 Bárdos (2000), 76; Kliaugaitė/Kurila (2012); Aun (1980), 369.
occupied in the 6th century by the Lombards.55 Nothing is known from the
written sources about the northwestern part of present-day Russia during the
6th century, but there are several cemetery and settlement sites dated to that
period and much can be said about social organization and economic struc-
tures based just on that kind of evidence.56 Only archaeological excavations
and, more recently, numismatics have provided information about the sudden
involvement of the taiga region of Eastern Europe in long-distance trade net-
works across Eurasia.57
Archaeological sources, however, are not without their own problems. In
the absence of wooden remains (of the appropriate species of trees, and with
a sufficient number of rings for dendrochronological analysis), dating is often
a serious problem. The recent surge in the use of radiocarbon analysis has only
partially alleviated that problem, for standard deviations cover an interval of
60 years for any calibrated dating results. Bayesian statistics may be used to
obtain explicit estimates, but for that one needs multiple results from a large
number of samples.58 By contrast, dendrochronology has a great impact on
research, because of the ability to assign precise dates (down to a particular
season or even month of the year) to timber structures. This has changed radi-
cally the understanding both of settlement chronology and of the impact of
climate change.59
That many more ordinary settlements than high-status sites have been
excavated is undoubtedly because of the primarily Marxist orientation of
the earlier decades of archaeological research, especially the 1950s and the
1960s. On the other hand, the prevailing understanding of archaeology as a
historical discipline favored the cultural-historical approach, which led to an
obsessive preoccupation with ethnicity and the rapid politicization of the
archaeological research. For a long time, almost every archaeological site in the
European part of the Soviet Union was attributed to the Slavs, a stance revived
in Putin’s Russia.60 Conversely, 6th- to 7th-century settlements in southern
and eastern Romania, though excavated in large numbers and, in some cases,
The book has four unequal parts dedicated to the historiography of the prob-
lem and the geography of the region, the “Roman orbit,” the world (far) beyond
it, and the specific trends of the economic and social developments in Eastern
Europe. Chapter 1 offers a critical review of Chris Wickham’s model of the
“transformation of the Roman world,” with a special emphasis on the “peas-
ant mode of production” and the way in which the model accounts for parts
of Balkan Peninsula now in Greece. Chapter 2 is an introduction to the his-
toriography of medieval Eastern Europe and to the geography of that part of
the Continent. The emphasis on landscape modification is meant to highlight
the minimal impact of the former on the economic and social developments
of the period under consideration in this book. By contrast, the discussion of
proxy data pertaining to climate change and of their interpretation serves as
a caveat against environmental determinism. Research in this particular field
is still in its infancy, and conclusions drawn at a local or even regional level
cannot apply to the whole of Eastern Europe. Different parts of the Continent
experienced the climate change taking place in the late 5th or early 6th century
in different ways. No one-to-one correlation can so far be established between
climate change and the economic and social shifts taking place in Eastern and
East Central Europe during the “long sixth century.”
The following seven chapters (3 to 9) are dedicated to those shifts inside
the Balkan Peninsula, Crimea, and the adjacent regions along the Middle and
Lower Danube and in the steppe lands north of the Black Sea. The main goal
of those chapters is to highlight changes taking place within territories directly
ruled by Romans (the Balkan Crimean peninsulas), or occupied by barbar-
ian clients, allies or enemies of the Empire (the Carpathian Basin, the lands
north of the Lower Danube, and the steppe lands north of the Black Sea).
Two regions are covered in pairs of separate chapters—the Balkan Peninsula
and the Carpathian Basin. In the case of the former, chapter 3 deals with the
last century of Roman power (500 to ca. 620), while chapter 4 is dedicated to
the situation in the Balkans following the withdrawal of the Roman army and
administration (620 to ca. 680). In the case of the Carpathian Basin, chapter 6
deals with the Roman clients (Gepids and Lombards), while chapter 7 is dedi-
cated to the first century of Avar power (570 to ca. 680). Each chapter of the
section entitled “The Roman orbit” uses five themes—property, subsistence
economy, crafts, forms of exchange, and social change—to explore regional
diversity and to highlight specific developments. The same set of themes
are also used as guidelines for the next six chapters (10 to 15) of the section
entitled “Far away from the Empire.” Each one of them focuses on a region of
East Central and Eastern Europe, from Poland and the Baltic lands to the west
to the taiga belt next to the Ural Mountains to the east, running through the
forest-steppe and forest belts, as well as through the central parts of present-
day Russia. As all those regions were outside the radar of the written sources in
the 6th and 7th centuries, there is a much greater emphasis on the archaeologi-
cal data and their interpretation in the light of the five themes employed for
the section dedicated to the Roman orbit. The main purpose of the 13 chapters
(3 to 15) in the middle of the book is therefore to provide a basis for comparison.
The five themes guiding the analysis of the historical and archaeological
information are the focus of the last section of the book entitled “Specific
trends.” Each chapter in this section is dedicated to one of the themes and is
based on a comparative analysis of the data presented in the previous chap-
ter within the theoretical framework of economic anthropology. Concepts are
introduced, such as swidden cultivation, embedded production, attached spe-
cialists, wealth finance, and third-type transfers, in order to explain the specific
developments and the contrasts identified between regions. Various strands
of evidence are then brought together in the conclusion, which addresses the
issue of whether the model of the “transformation of the Roman world” can
apply to Eastern Europe.
The resulting, overall picture is different from both the standard Marxist
interpretation, which was the rule in most countries in Eastern Europe until
1989, and the neo-Marxist model of analysis offered by Chris Wickham for
Europe and the Mediterranean between ca. 400 and ca. 800. Traditional
Marxists saw a transition from a slave-owning to a feudal mode of production
in those territories that had belonged to the Roman Empire, or the imposi-
tion of the so-called “tributary” or Asian mode of production outside the for-
merly Roman lands. In both, the collapse of the Roman Empire—as a state
and an instrument of exploitation—was a crucial argument. Chris Wickham,
on the other hand, put a great emphasis on the continuing power of the state,
when describing the “Mediterranean world-system” fueled not by commercial
enterprise, but by fiscality and the enormous demands of commodities such
as wine, grain and oil generated by Rome and Constantinople. Outside the
Empire, in such remote places as Denmark and Ireland, the change was in fact
a transformation of small-scale “tribal” states into larger kingdoms. Crucial for
my decision to move away from both models is the incontrovertible evidence
of discontinuity, as well as the survival of urban settlements on the southern
rim of the region (the northern coast of the Black Sea, and the coastal areas of
the Balkan Peninsula). Exactly how the urban aristocracy was able to survive in
those coastal centers, and even to maintain a certain degree of social distinc-
tion manifested in such lofty titles as proteuontes and archontes is illustrated
by the second book of the Miracles of St. Demetrius. The extraordinary rich-
ness of finds from the cemetery excavated in the early 20th century on the
Hospital Street in Kerch’ is the archaeological correlate of those social claims
to prominence.66
While there is considerable evidence for rural communities in Eastern
Europe around 600, there is also evidence of powerful aristocracies outside
and far away from the cities surviving in the coastal regions. The rich burials
in the Ufa region of present-day Bashkortostan, the burial mounds in eastern
Lithuania, as well as the formidably furnished, warrior graves in Sambia and in
Avar-age Hungary are a clear testimony that in Eastern Europe, much like in
the rest of the Continent during the 6th and 7th centuries, considerable social
differences were maintained in ranked societies. At the same time, a number
of archaeological phenomena in Eastern Europe that could hastily be linked
to “peasant-mode” societies have no equivalent in the rest of the continent.
There is simply nothing in the whole of Europe like the 7th-century, agricul-
tural settlement in Roztoky, near Prague, with its over 300 sunken-floored
buildings.67 Nor is there any analogue for the later settlements of specialized
production—blacksmithing in Zamárdi, non-ferrous metallurgy in Iur’evskaia
Gorka, or pottery production in Kantserka.68 The “peasant-mode” societies of
Eastern Europe, if that is what they were, seem to have been much more com-
plex than Wickham’s model would suggest.
Such features are in contrast, on the other hand, with the evidence of
communal burial in the so-called long barrows of northwestern Russia and
southeastern Estonia, or the communal centers of craft production and prob-
ably feasting, such a Haćki and Szeligi in Poland, or Zymne in Ukraine.69 In
Eastern Europe, there are multiple degrees of shade between the “worlds of
the villa on the one hand and the castle on the other.”70 There is also plenty
of archaeological evidence for the understanding of the role of exchange net-
works in the period of transition from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages.
Long-distance exchanges were not necessarily commercial around AD 600,
although the persistence of commercial exchanges even beyond that date, and
well into the 7th century, cannot be denied for the Black Sea area.71 Bow fibu-
lae, weapons, and stirrups may have traveled across Eastern Europe by means
of non-commercial exchanges, which imply an interpretation of the social
66 Shkorpil (1913).
67 Kuna et al. (2013).
68 Islanova (1997); Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2011); Gallina (2018).
69 Dulinicz 2011; Mikhailova (2014b).
70 Wickham (2006), 516.
71 Golofast (2003); Alekseenko (2008).
Much has been written in recent years about the continuity between Antiquity
and the Middle Ages. Few are those who would now challenge the model of
the “transformation of the Roman world,” which was established in the 1990s
through a five-year research program generously funded by the European
Science Foundation.1 The results were published in fourteen volumes of a
special book series edited by such prominent scholars as Walter Pohl, Chris
Wickham, Ian Wood, Neil Christie, Richard Hodges, Evangelos Chrysos, and
Miquel Barceló.2 None of those books, however, had a greater impact on the
current state of research on the transition from Late Antiquity to the early
Middle Ages than Chris Wickham’s large monograph, Framing the Early
Middle Ages.3 The book is regarded as the most serious attempt to demon-
strate “how post-imperial developments of different regions of the Empire had
more to do with their specific pre-imperial history than with their fate in Late
Antiquity.”4 Wickham used the “archaeological evidence to establish a richer,
more complex, and nuanced non-catastrophist reading of the evolution of the
early Middle Ages out of the dissolution of the late Roman empire” (original
emphasis).5 Because of its emphasis on modes of production, Framing the
Early Middle Ages offers a way to understand the transformation in economic
and social terms.
The key variable in the model presented in Wickham’s book is tax.6
According to Wickham, the Late Roman Empire created a very powerful taxa-
tion mechanism to feed the state’s ever-increasing expenses. Moreover, the
1 For dissenting voices, see, however, Ward-Perkins (2006) and Heather (2009).
2 The series was published between 1997 and 2004 by Brill under the title “Transformation
of the Roman World” (see https://brill.com/view/serial/TRW, visit of August 19, 2020). The
phrase may have been inspired by White (1966). The concept has been recently developed
and somewhat modified in Mathisen/Shanzer (2011).
3 Wickham (2006).
4 Rummel (2013), 389, citing Wickham (2006), 831.
5 Escalona (2011), 26 with n. 56; Banaji (2015), 9. Wickham (2006) is now regarded even as a
good framework for the analysis of the domestic architecture in early medieval rural settle-
ments of the Iberian Peninsula. See Tejerizo García (2014), 299 and 326.
6 Cossentino (2007), 123 with n. 28 calls the tax system “il maggiore pilastro concettuale” of
Wickham (2006).
then used to pay taxes.11 In other words, the axis of the later system was not the
state anymore, but land ownership:
Despite the use of the Weberian ideal type, this is in fact a model of Marxist
inspiration, and one could hardly miss the allusion to the “feudal mode of pro-
duction” contained in the description of the rent-based system and the “politics
of the land.”13 But Framing the Early Middle Ages is not just about the transi-
tion from a slave-based to a feudal mode of production. Wickham insists that
with every new step towards the decline of taxation, elites became more vul-
nerable, and ultimately more regionalized—“aristocracies hung out to dry.”14
In Western Europe, subsequent developments followed one of three possible
paths. In Britain, a dramatic collapse in the 5th century led to the wholesale
disappearance of the aristocracy, which re-emerged on a completely new basis
in the 8th and 9th centuries. In the Frankish territories north of the river Loire,
a powerful class of aristocrats is already visible in the 6th century. In Italy, the
11 As Cossentino (2007), 123 notes, the emphasis on taxation (and its decline) represents a
characteristic feature of the so-called “Birmingham school” of (primarily Marxist) histo-
riography, to which John Haldon also belongs. Like Wickham, Haldon believes that the
“ruralisation” of the early Byzantine society led to dramatic transformations, particularly
to the shift of the state’s fiscal concerns from cities to village communities, which became
the main units of assessment by the later 7th century. See Haldon (2000), 229.
12 Wickham (2006), 58. Paolu Delogu, in Giardina/Cammarosano/Delogu (2006), 152, sees
the contrast between an ideal-type tax-based state and a land- (or rent-based) state as
“un’oscillazione fra il momento empirico e la pulsione sistematizzante.”
13 Wickham’s approach is denounced as Marxist by Gurevich (2008). Gurevich’s was the
most vituperating critique of all. Gurevich (who died one year after the publication of the
Framing of the Middle Ages) accused Wickham of turning Marx’s Capital “upside down”
with his promotion of the “peasant mode of production.”
14 Banaji (2007), 257.
rapid loss of economic coherence in the 6th century was accompanied by the
destruction of the Late Roman aristocracy both by war and by fragmentation.15
Beyond regional variation, however, slave plantations, peasant farming, and
wage labor are all different ways of organizing labor power, in short, “modes of
production” in a Marxist sense of that phrase.16 To the classic Marxist trio (slave-
based, feudal, and capitalist modes of production), Wickham adds a fourth
element—the “peasant mode of production,” in which “landlords or the state
do not take surplus in a systematic way.”17 The “peasant mode of production”
is based on the ideas of the Soviet agrarian economist Aleksandr V. Chaianov
(1888–1937) concerning the organization of the peasant economy. Of particu-
lar significance for Wickham’s concept is Chaianov’s consumption-labour-
balance principle, according to which peasants have no incentives to produce
a surplus.18 Like him, Wickham believes that peasants “do not work so hard.”19
In other words, the “peasant mode of production” is a lull between the tax-
driven slave-based mode of production and the rent-based, feudal mode of
production. Unlike both of them, the peasant mode of production existed on a
zero-growth level of historical development, which made it attractive to both
post-Roman and non-Roman societies. The transition period was one in which
the peasant mode of production operated as a social and economic equalizer
between those regions that had, until then, been within the Empire, and those
that had never been part of it. In fact, Framing the Early Middle Ages makes a
very strong case for an expansion of the peasant mode of production through
the early medieval period, as a direct consequence of the decline of taxation.
The weakening of the state empowered the peasantry, although it also cre-
ated room for powerful aristocrats. Outside the empire, aristocrats rarely, if
ever gained sufficient power to challenge seriously the economic foundations
of the peasant mode of production. One version of a ranked, peasant-mode of
society is that in which a ruler is not the owner of the land, but the leader of
free men tied to him through mutual obligations and loyalty. “Free peasants
in such tribal societies owe military service and tribute, but are economically
autonomous, which forces rulers to ‘give back’ in the form of elaborate hospi-
tality or feasting.”20
Despite the leveler of the peasant mode of production, both before and after
the year 800 that mode of production was replaced by feudalism. The peas-
ant mode of production and the feudal mode of production co-existed for a
while in a vast patchwork of micro-regions reflecting the economic fragmenta-
tion of Western Europe.21 The historical moment in which the peasant mode
of production entirely lost ground to the dominant feudal mode is outside
the chronological interval considered in the Framing the Early Middle Ages,
which suggests that Chris Wickham sees the peasantry as the agent of histori-
cal change during the transition from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages.
However, he also sees the aristocracy as the driving force behind the economic
and social changes taking place during that period. According to him, it was
aristocratic demand that eventually drove Europe and the Mediterranean into
the feudal mode of production. Conversely, it was not only the decline of the
state, but also the rise of regional aristocracies that made room for new forms of
settlement. According to Wickham, in western Europe villages were invented
in the early Middle Ages. Only the eastern, Greek-speaking parts of the Roman
Empire had known village life in any identifiable sense before c.600.22 By con-
trast, in Western Europe, villages came into being as a byproduct of the transi-
tion to a peasant mode of production.
The model advanced by Chris Wickham in Framing the Early Middle Ages
has been widely accepted. One of the reasons for its success is that it provides
a useful basis both for generalization, and for comparison. Wickham’s reliance
on the archaeological data, particularly ceramics, gives his arguments a force
and depth that make them appealing to both historians and archaeologists. In
fact, because of this model, historians and archaeologists have finally found a
common platform for dialogue. This is why Wickham’s model was especially
attractive, and triggered much scholarly discussion in Spain and Italy, two
countries in which the field of medieval archaeology has long been divorced
from historical studies.23 Wickham’s “peasant mode of production” is a funda-
mental premise for Alfonso Vigil-Escalera Guirado’s work on 5th-century rural
settlements in central Spain.24 Building upon Wickham’s ideas, Alexandra
Chavarría has proposed that instead of the disappearance of late antique elites,
historians and archaeologists need to turn their attention to the evidence of
militarization of aristocracies. As a consequence, she advanced the idea that
“castles” (in the sense of hillforts) in northern Italy, Slovenia, southern France,
and northern Spain were built in the 5th century at the initiative of the state in
collaboration (rather than in contrast) with the local aristocracies and, in some
cases, with the Church.25 The state, in other words, was still a formidable pres-
ence in the 5th century in all those regions. On the other hand, economic and
cultural changes at the end of Late Antiquity took place within strong peas-
ant communities, and could not therefore be attributed to elites alone. In the
Framing the Early Middle Ages, northwestern Iberia is just another example
of a “tribal society” operating under the peasant mode of production. New
research has engaged creatively with Wickham’s model to make sense of the
archaeological evidence of social inequality and elites.26 A few commentators
have noticed that Framing the Early Middle Ages contains contradictory views
on the relations between various modes of production. Wickham, for exam-
ple, claims that the ancient (or tributary) mode of production, based on taxes,
and the feudal mode of production (based on rent) are “sub-types of the same
mode of production, in that both are based on agrarian surplus extracted, by
force, if necessary, from the peasant majority.”27 Elsewhere in the Framing of
Early Medieval Europe, the feudal mode of production appears as “the normal
economic system of the ancient and medieval periods.”28 Moreover, Wickham
also describes the post-Carolingian age as a return of feudal dominance.29
Needless to say, if the feudal mode of production is a sub-type of another, then
23 This is true even for those countries in the Mediterranean area that Wickham almost
completely ignored, but in which historians and archaeologists have equally kept disci-
plinary boundaries between them; see Tente (2016), 35.
24 Vigil-Escalera Guirado (2015).
25 Chavarría-Arnau (2011), 123. Chavarría-Arnau (2013), 157 has also criticized the idea, ulti-
mately derived from Wickham, that villages in Hispania could have come into being in
Late Antiquity without the intervention of the central power.
26 Wickham (2006), 40–41 and 227–30; Quirós Castillo (2016), 12.
27 Wickham (2006), 60.
28 Wickham (2006), 535.
29 Wickham (2006), 270.
it cannot be at the same time the “normal” economic system of both Antiquity
and the Middle Ages.30
Criticism of Framing the Early Middle Ages has typically focused on what
Wickham neglected or chose to ignore: settlement patterns and the changes
taking place in the agrarian landscape, as well as the ethnic connotations,
particularly in reference to barbarians.31 Wickham’s idea that the “domestic”
pottery has no relevance for the study of economy has encouraged a number
of fundamental studies aiming to prove the contrary.32 Wickham’ reticence
to deal with money is attributed to a particular view of the Roman monetary
economy that prevailed in England in the 1970s and 1980s.33 Some believe that,
like John Haldon, Chris Wickham had been profoundly influenced by the work
of Michael Hendy.34 That, at least, was the source for the idea that the drastic
transformations of the 7th century were the result of the considerable losses
that the Empire suffered in terms of territory and wealth.35 The numismatic
evidence suggests more economic dynamism in the western provinces of the
Byzantine Empire than in Asia Minor, but that contradicts Wickham’s model,
because it implies that in the 7th century the state (at one of its weakest points
in Byzantine history) did not have a key role in sustaining the level of mon-
etary economy.36 Wickham’s efforts to minimize the economic significance
of slavery has also been exposed for ignoring the evidence of wide-spread
use of slaves in the post-Roman West.37 Both Paolo Delogu and Brent Shaw
bemoan Wickham’s rejection of population dynamics as a possible explana-
tion for the changes taking place during the transition from Late Antiquity
to the early Middle Ages: the “whole subject of the historical demography of
30 Giardina/Cammarosano/Delogu (2006), 127. For a similar critique, see Banaji (2009), 71.
For a parallel debate on the modes of production, see the contributions of John Haldon,
Vicent García, Eduardo Manzano Moreno, and Manuel Acién Almansa in Historia 58,
no. 3 (1998), 797–970. For other contradictions in Wickham’s Framing, see Graca (2008),
291–94.
31 Giardina/Cammarosano/Delogu (2006), 150–51.
32 Vigil-Escalera Guirado/Quirós Castillo (2014), 378 with n. 33. Conversely, Paolo
Cammarosano, in Giardina/Cammarosano/Delogu (2006), 150 does not believe that any
single category of the archaeological record, such as pottery, can be sufficient for gauging
the complex economic developments of the past.
33 According to Banaji (2015), 9, Wickham’s is a “closed monetary circuit” model.
34 Cossentino (2007), 123.
35 Wickham (2006), 125; Hendy (1985), 620. By contrast, Haldon (2000), 240–41 uses Hendy
(1985), 637–38 to argue that one could explain the transformations of the 7th century as
a demonetization of the Byzantine economy in reference to the fiscal cycle and the redis-
tribution of coin.
36 Cossentino (2007), 130.
37 Banaji (2015), 161.
Mediterranean lands in Antiquity cannot be swept entirely off stage and left
undiscussed.”38 Wickham curiously believes that the demographic contraction
is not a cause, but a consequence of the changes taking place in the mode
of production. The demographic decline resulted from the slowing down of
the state and patron pressure on peasants, who now could use the increasing
freedom and prosperity to work less, and have fewer children in order to enjoy
life—an interpretation that owes as much to Chaianov’s consumption-labour-
balance principle as it reflects the aspirations of the 21st-century middle class
in Britain.39 No scholar has so far pointed to Achilles’ heel in Wickham’s model:
for all its Marxist inspiration, Framing the Early Middle Ages has very little to
say about production. The substantivist stance ultimately encourages an
image of the early Middle Ages as a world of exchange and consumption (such
as feasting) almost completely divorced from production.40
John Haldon and Walter Pohl expressed regrets that Framing the Early Middle
Ages did not deal with the Balkans, because Wickham’s idea that the peasantry
had much to gain from the reduced burden of obligations would perfectly apply
to the Slavs (so Pohl).41 According to Haldon, the pattern of state involvement
in re-structuring urban and defensive centers in the Balkans, which is already
visible in the 5th century and continued through the 6th century and even the
early 7th century, served as a model for similar, but later state-led changes in
Asia Minor.42 Most authors concerned with the transition from Late Antiquity
38 Giardina/Cammarosano/Delogu (2006), 156–57; Shaw (2008), 94, who points out that the
number of aristocrats in the Late Roman Empire was too small to be responsible for the
level of demand “that Wickham needs to sustain the immense long-range transport of
basic bulk commodities that he sees at the heart of the system.” Only very large numbers
of individual consumers could have produced that level of demand.
39 A very similar argument appears in Haldon (2000), 249, who explains the absence of
African imports (amphorae and Red Slip wares) in the interior of sixth-century Greece
in terms of the “resistance to imports [that] may be found in a more or less autarkic and
highly localized peasant economy, in which the market potential for imports was limited.”
40 Moreland (2000), 20: “even some accounts of early medieval economic processes writ-
ten from an explicitly Marxist perspective, still ascribe the same determinacy to elite
exchange”; see also Chavarría-Arnau (2011), 123. For the confusion between “modes of
production” and “modes of exploitation,” see Stahl (1992), 58.
41 Haldon (2008), 331; Pohl (2011), 60. Meanwhile, the chapter dedicated to the (early) Slavs
in the first volume of the New Cambridge Medieval History, covering the period from
c. 500 to c. 700 [Kobyliński (2005)] lacks any discussion of economic or social issues.
42 Haldon (2000), 240; for a similar argument about fortified sites, see Dunn (1994). As a
matter of fact, Haldon (2007) has nothing substantial on the Balkans. On the other hand,
Haldon believes in an “almost complete absence of bronze coins from all excavated sites
to the early Middle Ages ignored the Balkans.43 Peter Sarris has nothing to say
about the region in his book on the economy and society of the 6th-century
empire, which is primarily concerned with Egypt.44 The same is true for Jairus
Banaji and Michael Decker’s books on agriculture in Late Antiquity.45 Michael
McCormick deliberately leaves out the entire region of Eastern Europe, which
he calls the “Slavlands.”46 The tone for such attitudes has been set earlier by
the Transformation of the Roman World program sponsored by the European
Science Foundation. That program promised to deal with the evidence “from
Central Europe … much of it unknown or unconsidered in the West until
recently”. The lands east of the Elbe—McCormick’s “Slavlands”—“needed to
be placed in the reckoning.”47 Less than a decade before the extension of the
European Union to Eastern Europe, such programmatic ideas were meant to
instill hope. To this day, however, they remain an empty promise.
Framing the Early Middle Ages contains a few oblique references to the
Balkans, the close examinations of which may explain Wickham’s decision to
leave the region out of his analysis. According to him, there were many vil-
lages in the central and northern Balkans during the 5th and 6th centuries, but
recent studies have proved the contrary.48 By contrast, according to Wickham,
the southernmost part of the Balkans now within Greece “had a more ‘western’
in Asia Minor and the Balkans after the early 660s,” an idea that contradicts the existing
evidence, for which see Curta (2005a).
43 Zerbini (2013), 58: “The Balkans have for long remained—and, to a certain extent, remain
so today—at the margins of the debate concerning Late Antiquity in general, and the late
antique economy in particular.”
44 Sarris (2006), 117 and 121 mentions Thrace and Greece, respectively, but only in relation
to earlier, 4th- and 5th-century developments. Whitby (2000), 718 mentions “substantial
mineral wealth” in the central Balkan region, but nothing else about economic or social
issues.
45 There is nothing about the Balkans or the Crimea in Banaji (2007). Decker (2009) con-
tains several references to Greece, but none about the agriculture in the region during the
6th century.
46 Davis/McCormick (2008), 7, where the “Slavlands” are one of the “vast and dynamic areas
of Europe whose transformations owed and brought so much to early medieval civiliza-
tion.” McCormick (2001) mentions Bulgaria, Greece and the “Slavland” only in relation to
9th-century developments. McCormick (2003), p. 313 has doubts that Eastern Europe was
“at the centre of European history.”
47 Wood (1997), 219.
48 Curta (2001a); Dinchev (2002); Sanders (2004); Rashev/Dinchev/Borisov (2005). For the
debate surrounding the 6th- and early 7th-century hillforts in the Balkans (whether forti-
fied villages or not), and studies published after the Framing the Early Middle Ages, see
chapter 3.
pattern, with villas and isolated farms.”49 That must be the reason for which
the only part of the Balkan Peninsula that gets any coverage in the Framing
the Early Middle Ages is Greece. The Balkans appear in Wickham’s book as a
term of comparison for western Europe. Indeed, “radical de-Romanization and
tribalization” is how Wickham describes what happened in the 7th century
in the Balkans, and those are also attributes of his description of post-Roman
Britain.50 Nonetheless, he declares that he has decided to leave the Slavic lands
out, “both in the Roman empire (in the Balkans) and outside it,” because of
his “linguistic weaknesses,” an oblique reference to the presumed abundance
of specialized literature in languages other than English, French, German, or
Italian.51 In reality, Wickham’s attitude towards the Balkan region (and Eastern
Europe as a whole) looks more like a curious mixture of lack of familiarity with
the fundamental literature and a need to find a good “mirror” for comparison
with developments in western Europe. To Wickham, Eastern Europe is not the
other, but the outer Europe.52 His decision to leave out Eastern Europe may in
fact be responsible for an equally puzzling silence. To this day, the main thesis
of Wickham’s book has not been cited by any historian or archaeologist from
the region, not even by those who reached similar conclusions on the basis of
a very different research agenda.53
53 E. g., Bileta (2011), 100–21. Ančić (2011), 243 with n. 53 cites Wickham’s operational defini-
tion of the aristocracy, but only for its cautious approach, not for the conclusions drawn
on the basis of its use. Budak (2017), 184 with n. 4 cites Wickham’s book just as an exam-
ple of how neglected Dalmatia and Croatia are in “overviews and synthesis of European
history.” Among scholars that study the late antique and early medieval history of the
Balkans, but who live outside that region, only Curta (2013), 146 and Dzino (2014), 133
[as well as Dzino (2017), 157] have cited the book.
insisted on the role of religion in the definition of boundaries. To him, the his-
tory of Eastern Europe had profound roots in Byzantium, and the knowledge
of Byzantium was key to its understanding.
Byzantium was also a key component in the definition of Southeastern
Europe. That phrase appeared only on the eve of the Congress of Berlin (1878),
and was initially used by scholars interested in comparative linguistics, partic-
ularly in what is now known as the Balkan Sprachbund, the most famous exam-
ple of language contact.4 In Austria, the phrase was quickly adopted by both
statesmen and diplomats to refer to the entire region between the Carpathian
Mountains, the Dniester River, and the Aegean, Black, and Adriatic Seas—a
region of vital importance for the expansion of the Austrian-Hungarian
Empire around 1900. The first course of Southeast European history was
in fact offered in 1912 at the University of Vienna by a Romanian, Ion Nistor
(1876–1962), later to become a renowned historian of the Middle Ages. A few
years later, in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars and the Treaty of Bucharest
(1913), another Romanian historian, Nicolae Iorga (1871–1940), established the
Institute of Southeast European Studies. Later, he also launched a periodical,
Revue historique du sud-est européen (1922), and began to iron out the suppos-
edly distinctive features of the region going back to the Byzantine rule over the
entire Balkan Peninsula.5
The early decades of the 20th century also witnessed the emergence of
another phrase: East Central Europe. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), the
first president of Czechoslovakia, wrote of a “peculiar zone of small nations”
between Germany and Russia, and later called that East Central Europe.6 In
1935, Imre Lukinich (1880–1950), a professor of late medieval and early mod-
ern history at the University of Budapest, established the periodical Archivum
Europae Centro-Orientalis. During World War II, only a few volumes were pub-
lished, and in 1944, the periodical stopped. Meanwhile, Oskar Halecki began to
employ Masaryk’s idea shortly after coming to the United States as a refugee
from the region at that time occupied by the Nazis. Echoing Masaryk, he placed
medieval East Central Europe between the Holy Roman-German Empire and
Kievan Rus’. To him, East Central Europe stretched from Finland in the north
to Greece in the south.7 By excluding Russia from his notion of East Central
4 Drace-Francis (2003), 277. For the Balkan Sprachbund, see Mišeska-Tomić (2006).
5 Curta (2006c), 2–4.
6 Hayashi (2008). There are echoes of Masaryk in Hodža (1942), 3–8, who in the early 1940s was
still writing of “these small nations of Central Europe,” a region “between Russia, Germany,
and Italy.” However, Hodža traced the origin of Central Europe to the early 19th century, and
not to the Middle Ages.
7 Halecki (1950), 125–41; Halecki (1952), 3–7.
Europe, Halecki may have reacted to the political divisions of the early Cold
War period.8 Since he did not pay any attention to the phrase Eastern Europe,
and seemingly denied a European identity to Russia, the notion of East Central
Europe implied that the Continent had a west and a center, but no east.9 It is
only recently that scholars have become aware that the demarcation of Eastern
Europe as reading of history backwards in time is little more than an attempt
to create historical justifications for modern divisions “in the same way that
historical identity has been used for nation building.”10
In present-day Ukraine and Russia, “Southeastern Europe” does not refer
to the Balkan Peninsula, but to the southeastern regions of the former Soviet
Union.11 Meanwhile, the notion of “East Central Europe” has no appeal
among historians and archaeologists working on Late Antiquity, who prefer
to employ the phrase “Central Europe,” even when referring to Hungary or
Poland.12 Historians and archaeologists dealing with Late Antiquity tend to
equate Eastern Europe with Russia, while Russian scholars commonly write of
Northeastern Europe or the northwestern part of Eastern Europe, two phrases
rarely, if ever employed by scholars writing in English.13 Such terminology
implies an extension of Eastern Europe all the way to the Ural Mountains to
the east, and the White Sea to the north.
In this book, the phrases Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and East
Central Europe are used in a primarily and purely geographic sense, and
in no way as political divisions (Fig. 1). In this respect, the vast area of the
European continent situated between the Czech lands to the west and the
Ural Mountains to the east, and from beyond the Arctic Circle to Greece on
a north-south axis may be best described as the land mass between 36 and
70 degrees north latitude, and from 12 to 60 degrees east longitude. If one
divides that land mass arbitrarily into two slightly unequal slices, then East
Central Europe is the western half, between 12 and 35 degrees east, and Eastern
8 Berend (2016), 11. The shadow of the Cold War still looms large over Jenő Szűcs’s stud-
ies on the “three regions of Europe,” despite his attempts to establish a regional identity
for East Central Europe [Szűcs (1983)]. On the other hand, not all historians writing in
English at the beginning of the Cold War were eager to embrace Halecki’s terminology.
Francis Dvornik, who came to the United States shortly after Halecki, included Russia in
his view of the European Middle Ages. See Curta (2005c), 2 and 21 with n. 6.
9 Okey (1992), 104.
10 Raffensperger (2014), 853.
11 Gorelik (2002); Volodarets’-Urbanovych/Skyba (2011).
12 Pohl (2003); Buko (2012); Odler (2012).
13 Noonan (1999); Podosinov (2000); Akhmedov/Furas’ev/Shchukin/Belocerkovskaia
(2007); Polgár (2009); Mikhailova (2017). For Northeastern Europe and the northwestern
region of Eastern Europe, see Savel’eva (1996); Islanova (2016).
figure 1 Principal geographical features mentioned in the text: 1—Apuseni Mountains; 2—Black Sea;
3—Bohemian Forest; 4—Carpathian Mountains; 5—Central Russian Uplands; 6—Danube
River; 7—Dinaric Alps; 8—Dnieper River; 9—Don River; 10—Mezen River; 11—Moravian
Heights; 12—Niemen River; 13—Northern Dvina River; 14—Northern European Plain;
15—Pechora River; 16—Pindus Mountains; 17—Plain of Hungary; 18—Rhodope Mountains;
19—Stara Planina Mountains; 20—Sudeten Mountains; 21—Tisza River; 22—Ural Mountains;
23—Ural River; 24—Valdai Hills; 25—Vistula; 26—Volga; 27—Volga Heights; 28—Western
Dvina River.
Europe is the eastern half, between 35 and 60 degrees east. The western half
could then be subdivided latitudinally along the 45th degree north to distin-
guish Southeastern Europe located to the south from that parallel. The consid-
erable land mass demarcated in such a manner represents two thirds of the
entire Continent. Its vast extent is only matched by its incredible variety. The
western part (both in East Central and in Southeastern Europe) has one of the
most complicated mountain range systems in Europe, with the Carpathians
forming a loop on the eastern side of the river Danube and sweeping in a
southeast direction towards that river’s delta. The lands inside the semicircle
of the mountains form the Carpathian Basin divided into three unequal parts
by the rivers Danube and Tisza flowing on a north-south direction. Transylvania
is the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, separated from the Plain of Hungary
by the Western Romanian Carpathians (Apuseni).
The landscape of Southeastern Europe is also defined orographically by four
chains running radially from the center of the Balkan Peninsula—the Dinaric
Alps to the northwest, the Pindus to the south, the Rhodope to the southeast
and the Balkans (Stara Planina) to the east. The latter are separated from the
southern Carpathians (also known as the Transylvanian Alps) by the fertile
plain of the Lower Danube. Two lower ranges of mountains run in a northwest-
ern direction from the westernmost end of the Carpathians—the Bohemian
Forest and the Sudeten, with the Moravian Heights between them. From those
mountains and the Carpathians to the south to the Baltic Sea to the north,
East Central Europe consists of a vast lowland corridor—the North European
Plain, which extends eastwards all the way to the Ural Mountains. Another
lowland corridor extends on a west-east direction from the Danube to the
Aral Sea, and beyond. Those were the steppe lands of Eastern Europe, located
on the northern shores of the Black and Caspian Seas and divided by several
major rivers, the most important of which are the Dnieper, the Don, the Volga,
and the Ural. Some parts of this region (the so-called Caspian Depression) are
below sea level, with marshlands and patches of semi-arid desert. The Central
Russian Uplands and the Volga Heights are the only elevations of Eastern
Europe, between the North European Plain and the steppe lands to the south.
Because of them, several rivers flow through the North European Plain and
into the neighboring seas. The most important rivers flowing to the north are
the Vistula, the Niemen, the Western Dvina (emptying into the Baltic Sea), the
Northern Dvina, the Mezen, and the Pechora (emptying into the White Sea).
The band-like arrangement of the geographic features in Eastern Europe,
however, is rarely employed in historical works. Historians and archaeologists
alike prefer to use biomes and ecotones, which have an equally band-like dis-
tribution: the steppe belt (the westernmost segment of the Great Steppe of
Eurasia) is between 200 and 600 miles wide; the forest-steppe belt immediately
to the north; and the forest belt, a very broad band of wooded area extending
to the north all the way to Finland and the White Sea, into the taiga. There are
only few lines of communication between those three belts, the most impor-
tant of which is the Volga, the longest river of Europe, which springs in the
Valdai Hills, on the northern edge of the Central Russian Uplands, and flows
into the Caspian Sea through a very large delta (which was, nonetheless, much
smaller in Antiquity and the Middle Ages than it is now). Because the Dnieper
and the Western Dvina also rise from the northern sector of the Central Russian
Uplands, the three rivers played a major role as axes of communication, trade,
and political centralization in the early Middle Ages.
Very little of this landscape of Eastern Europe changed in the 6th and
7th centuries. The only exceptions are the coastal regions, especially the river
deltas, particularly those of the Volga, the Danube, and the Niemen, which
are the largest in Europe. While the Volga Delta grew very large only in recent
times, deposition in the Niemen delta began in the 10th century from Rusnė
(southern Lithuania), where the river splits into two branches, the Atmata
and the Skirvytė.14 The entire area of the Niemen delta now within Lithuania
was therefore under water during Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages.
Although there is clear evidence of a human occupation of the spit closing
up the Curonian Lagoon to the west, most sites dated between the 5th and
the 7th century appear farther inland, at a considerable distance from the
modern shoreline.15 Equally significant is the geological history of the Danube
Delta. The present-day aspect of its southern part is the result of an expansion
along the Dunavăț branch, which is most likely the Peuce arm known from
ancient sources. That expansion began shortly before AD 600 as a result of
the combined effect of neotectonics (sinking processes) and wave reworking.
The delta lobe thus formed as downdrift barrier-marsh plain of the older Sf.
Gheorghe lobe to the north covered a vast area in Dobrudja now under the
waters of the lakes Razim and Golovița.16 The development of the Dunavăț
deltaic lobe seems to have been accompanied by shallower waters in the off-
shore zone, particularly near the early Byzantine city of Histria (now on the
western shore of Lake Sinoe). This may have hindered boat circulation on the
north- and eastward navigation routes, and some have even suggested that
the city abandonment after ca. 620 was caused by the growth of the southern
lobe of the Danube Delta.17 Others, however, maintain that late antique Histria
suffered from gradual flooding caused by the steady subsidence of the deltaic
area (in the so-called “Histria Depression”).18
Floods are also associated with landscape changes in the interior of Eastern
Europe. During the 5th and 6th centuries, the region saw forest restoration and
increasing precipitation, both of which are connected to floods recorded in
river channel sediments containing subfossil oak. Sedimentation in the Upper
Dniester region in western Ukraine (near the Polish and Slovak borders) con-
tinued into the seventh century. The oxbow lake deposits identified in the val-
ley of the river Strviazh (a right-hand tributary of the Dniester) are dated by
means of dendrochronology to the 6th century and represent flood accumu-
lation. The region of the Upper Dniester valley would not experience floods
of such magnitude before the late 10th century.19 Alluvial deposits have also
been identified further to the west, in the upper valley of the Vistula River near
Cracow. The dendrochronological analysis of the subfossil oak trapped in those
deposits indicates flood accumulation between ca. 425 and ca. 600. No sur-
prise, therefore, that all settlement sites known from that period are aligned on
the edge of the loess terrace, just above the flood plain.20 Greater precipitation
levels have also been identified for the late 5th and 6th century farther to the
northwest, in the region of the lower Warta and Oder rivers of central-western
Poland. Unlike the situation in the upper Vistula and upper Dniester valleys,
the lower Warta and Oder region seems to have been completely depopulated
during the sixth century.21 It is tempting to see those observations as confirm-
ing the existence of a so-called “early medieval cold period,” otherwise known
as the “Vandal Minimum.”22 Some in fact regard the climate change taking
place at the beginning of the 6th century, or shortly before that, as a Central
European phenomenon.23
However, the precise dating made possible by dendrochronology indicates
(repeated) episodes of flooding, not a continuous trend. Conversely, the results
of palaeoecological and geoarchaeological studies of sedimentary sequences
from lakes and bogs cannot be dated with the same precision and are therefore
not suited for direct comparison with the evidence from alluvial deposits.
Despite such caveats, paleoclimatological studies carried out at higher degrees
of longitude have clearly led to very different conclusions. Peat records from
the Verevainu Mire near the Keava bog (central Estonia) show a progressive
clearance of the landscape. Pollen evidence for arable farming in the area
increased through the 5th and 6th centuries, along with the evidence of micro-
scopic charcoal possibly indicating slash-and-burn agriculture. The evidence
from Verevainu Mire strongly suggests deforestation and destruction of veg-
etation, as well as an increasing intensity of agricultural practices, all made
possible by a warmer climate.24 This is now backed by observations based on
peat records from the Usviatskii Mokh bog, in the valley of the Western Dvina
near Tver (northwestern Russia). During the 6th century, the average annual
temperature in that area rose considerably, while the level of precipitation
dropped. This coincided with a settlement boom in the valley of the Western
Dvina, in itself a clear indication of demographic growth.25 Higher annual
temperatures may also be surmised on the basis of a study of pollen and char-
coal deposits in peat layers of Lake Kis-Balaton (located next to the western
end of Lake Balaton, in Hungary). During the 5th and 6th centuries, the region
had extensive vineyards, which completely disappeared after the mid-7th
century.26 The rainier days of the late 5th and 6th centuries were associated
with milder and warmer temperatures in the steppe belt of Eastern Europe as
well, as indicated the sea level rise observed in the Caspian Sea.27
That the climate change taking place in the late 5th or early 6th century
did not affect the whole of Eastern Europe in the same way should come as
no surprise. After all, even for a considerably smaller area, such as the Italian
Peninsula, “it is always wise to keep regional differences in mind, and it may
be decisive in matter of climate and weather.”28 While most scholars work-
ing on Western and Southern Europe are quick to have recourse to climate
catastrophism when in need of a ready-made explanation of economic shifts
in the post-Roman period, few in Eastern or East Central Europe have so far
embraced environmental determinism.29 Judging from the current state of
research, which is still in its infancy, there is in fact little to no evidence that
the climate changes taking place in the 5th and 6th centuries had any signifi-
cant impact upon economic and social developments. Either under the influ-
ence of Marx’s fundamental idea that humans subjugate nature by their labor,
or because in post-Communist Europe the “resilience theory” has a particu-
larly strong appeal, archaeologists and historians studying the early medieval
history of Eastern Europe have more often than not preferred social or eco-
nomic explanations.30
28 Squatriti (2010), 819, citing Dutton (2008), 168–69.
29 The most prominent exception is the Estonian archaeologist Andres Tvauri, according to
whom the climatic catastrophe of 536 (probably caused by “an immense volcanic erup-
tion” or a comet striking the Earth) led to significant cooling of air temperature, a serious
famine, and “mass fatalities”. See Tvauri (2012), 36; Tvauri (2014), 48. The Russian archae-
ologist Iurii Shevchenko has postulated an ecological crisis in order to explain the 5th- or
6th-century migration of the Slavs out of their primitive land in southern Belarus and
northern Ukraine. However, according to him, the prime mover was not climate change.
Instead, Shevchenko’s ecological crisis is entirely man-made: podsolization (caused by
slash-and-burn agriculture) and epizootics (itself caused by the depletion of soils of basic
metals, especially cobalt). The “cobalt deficiency” led to an ecological catastrophe, which
led to migration. See Shevchenko (2002), 139–42, 143, 149–51, and 199; Shevchenko (1997).
For a recent example of climate catastrophism as explanation for the collapse of the late
antique rural economy in the West, see Cheyette (2008), 163: “the climatic downturn that
began around 500 CE wiped the slate clean and what began to emerge two hundred years
later was completely new.”
30 Redman/Kinzig (2003), 14: “Resilience theory seeks to understand the source and role of
change, particularly the kinds of change that are transforming, in adaptive systems.”
1 Cassiodorus, Variae XII 22, 106; transl., 513. For the description of Istria in Cassiodorus’ letter,
see Matijašić (1988). For the date of the letter, see Novak (2007), 61.
2 Cassiodorus, Variae XII 22 and 23, 106. For possessores as aristocrats owning the land, but
not directly involved in trade with agricultural products, see Novak (2007), 47. Merchants
(negotiatores, naukleroi) are mentioned in 6th-century epitaphs from Salona and Odessos;
see Marin et al. (2010), 540–42 and Beshevliev (1964), 66–67.
3 Codex Iustinianus X 27.2, 407–08. The reason was that the number of coloni had substan-
tially diminished as a consequence of barbarian invasions. In other words, with a drastically
shrinking tax base, the money collected from taxes was insufficient for maintaining the large
number of troops stationed in Thrace. As a consequence, Anastasius imposed the coemptio
not only on cultivators, but also on merchants, which exposed cultivators to the abuses of
both tax collectors and merchants. See Velkov (1962), 58; Gorecki (1989), 225.
4 The first novel (32) of 535 was addressed to Agerochius, the governor of Haemimons.
Although at first glance it appears to apply to that province alone, its stipulations were
repeated in novel 33 of that same year as if pertaining to “Thrace and all its provinces,” to be
extended to Justinian’s homeland (Illyrica patria). See Novellae 32 and 33, 240.
retaining cattle, sheep, and slaves as securities, and even confiscating lands as
interest. Peasants were thus forced to forfeit their lands; some fled and some
died of starvation, the general situation being described as worse than after a
barbarian invasion.5 It is not clear whether the “peasants” owned their lands, or
owned them only partially, and rented the remainder. At any rate, there must
have been an acute shortage of labor in the Balkans. Only seven years later,
another law of Justinian forbade the use of soldiers (stratiotai) or foederati
for work on one’s estates, a clear sign that few “peasants” have remained
for the job.6 In 545, the novel 128 introduced the epibole to the fiscal law, in
order to cope with the demographic instability of the countryside upsetting
the process of tax collection.7 Every farmer was now burdened with liability
for taxes from the lands abandoned by the next-door neighbors.8 Justinian’s
successor, Justin II granted tax exemptions in 566 for peasants, hired work-
ers, tenants, and landowners in Moesia Inferior and Scythia Minor, while in
575 Tiberius II forbade the collection of taxes for four years from farmers or
taxpaying landowners.9
What is the meaning behind this string of imperial edicts? Some believe
that the laws prove the existence of a class of peasant smallholders and of
farming as a primary economic activity in the Balkans.10 However, no evidence
of smallholdings has so far been found anywhere in the Balkans.11 To be sure,
Justinian’s novel 65 of 538 refers to the estates and vineyards of the bishopric of
Odessos.12 On the opposite side of the Balkan Peninsula, there are several men-
tions in the papal correspondence of estates in Dalmatia, both on islands and
5 Novellae 34, 241; Sarantis (2016), 201. The law required creditors to return the land and the
securities, while at the same time setting interest rates at 1/8 of each measure of grain
furnished, or one siliqua per solidus.
6 Novellae 116, 549–51. For the interpretation of this law as applying to the Balkans as well,
see Tăpkova-Zaimova (1960).
7 Novellae 128, 639–40.
8 Gorecki (1989), 225.
9 Novellae 148 and 163, 722 and 750. According to Popescu (2005), 379, the main reason for
the measure taken in 575 was poverty, as farmers could pay neither their dues to the land-
owners, nor taxes to the state.
10 Dinchev (2002), 161; Sarantis (2016), 200.
11 Two inscriptions from Silivri and Șarköy, respectively (both in the European part of
Turkey) refer to a certain Zemocartos, whose properties they apparently marked [Velkov
(1962), 62]. However, it remains unclear who Zemocartos was, what was his social posi-
tion, and what kind of properties he owned.
12 Novellae 65, 339. An inscription found near Sliven, in Bulgaria, refers to an episkepsis,
a state or church estate (Velkov, “Les campagnes”, p. 60 with n. 164).
figure 2 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes (ancient names in italics)
on the coast, each with multiple farms.13 It is unlikely that any of those were
smallholdings. Moreover, the lands of the bishopric of Odessos were in the
environs of that city, while the papal estates could not have been too far from
Salona (Fig. 2).14 The villae rusticae that had once dotted the Balkan landscape
were all gone by the mid-5th century, together with the large estates for which
they had served as centers.15 All rural villas that have been dated to the 6th cen-
tury are in fact earlier foundations with a 6th-century occupation, for which no
13 Škegro (2004), 432; Nikolajević (1971), 284–92. By the time Procopius of Caesarea wrote
his Wars, there were still large herds of horses near Aproi, in Thrace. They grazed on
“imperial pastures.” most likely a domus divina (Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VIII 27.8, 338
and 340; transl., 525).
14 Škegro (2004), 436.
15 Poulter (1992), 122; Rashev/Dinchev/Borison (2005), 353. For an excellent survey of coun-
tryside villas dated between the 2nd and the 5th century, see Henning (1994).
16 For an early 5th-century villa discovered in Paliokastro, near Oraiokastro (on the north-
ern outskirts of Thessaloniki), which was still occupied in the 6th century, see Marki/
Akrivopoulou (2003). Similarly, at Findspot 500 in the Berbati Valley, a Roman villa was
still occupied at much reduced scale after its abandonment; see Hahn (1996), 438. The
site at Akra Sophia (near Corinth) was identified by means of a field survey, but Gregory
(1985), 418 has hastily interpreted the finds as a “large and sumptuous villa of early
Byzantine date.” This interpretation has been uncritically reproduced by Avramea (1997),
p. 127, and Slavko Ciglenečki (2014), 241. For the 6th-century transformation of Roman
villa sites, see also Begović/Schrunk (2001).
17 Birk et al. (2014), 7. According to Baron/Reuter/Marković (2019), 116, silos in the Lower
Town at Caričin Grad consisted primarily of cleaned grain with very low weed content.
Nonetheless, culm and husk of an unspecified cereal have been identified in two houses
in the Upper Town. An almost identical profile is revealed by the paleobotanical analyses
of seeds from Gamzigrad (near Zaječar, eastern Serbia); see Medović (2008).
18 Contra: Baron/Reuter/Marković (2019), 119, who believe that the evidence from some
silos suggest the mixed, local cultivation of rye and bread wheat. However, the authors
acknowledge the great similarity between the cereal spectra from sites in the submon-
tane environment (Caričin Grad and Gamzigrad) and those in the fertile Danube valley
(Iatrus-Krivina). They explain such similarity by assuming similar “environmental condi-
tions,” but the same does not seem to apply to the faunal profiles of those sites, which
are radically different. Moreover, Baron/Reuter/Marković (2019) completely ignore the
very different soil conditions: Caričin Grad is located in a region of brown forest soils,
which because of acidity and saturation may be good for vineyards, but not for the cul-
tivation of cereals. See the Soil Map of Serbia, available online at https://esdac.jrc.ec
.europa.eu/images/Eudasm/RS/russ_x83.jpg (visit of November 3, 2020). According to
Marković/Reuter/Birk (2019), 38, the species cultivated locally either inside or outside the
city walls were typically garden vegetables, such as beets and leeks, as well as peas, lentils,
and bitter vetch.
19 Borojević (1987).
Nicopolis ad Istrum (Nikiup, near Veliko Tărnovo, in Bulgaria), the main cereal
was millet, which could have well been grown on small plots close to or even
inside the fort.20 Consumption of millet has also been established on the
basis of isotopic analysis for the population buried in the cemetery excavated
in Sourtara Galaniou (near Kozani, northern Greece).21 Elsewhere in Greece,
there is evidence for both agricultural production and peasant settlements. For
example, the paleobotanical studies of samples from the ash stratum inside a
Hellenistic tower refurbished and occupied during the 6th century revealed
that the inhabitants of the farmhouse in Pyrgouthi near Prosimna (Argolis,
Greece) ate emmer and bread wheat, barley, and oats.22 An ardshare and a
sickle suggest that at least some of those crops were grown locally.23
However, the agricultural production went beyond subsistence levels.
Greece certainly produced an agricultural surplus, which was exported out-
side Greece. That much results from a brief mention of imperial granaries by
Procopius of Caesarea.24 The same author tells the story of how, in 533, in order
to prevent heavy losses among his troops inflicted by food poisoning from the
rotten bread they had brought with them from Constantinople, Belisarius
ordered the “bread of the country” around Methone (Messenia, southwestern
Greece) to be delivered to his army.25 In 551, the Ostrogoths captured on the
coast of Epirus “some of the ships which were carrying provisions from Greece
for the army of Narses.”26 Greece exported more than just grain. Kilns for the
production of Late Roman 2 (LR 2) amphorae have been identified between
20 Poulter (2007b), 77; Buysse (2007), 280. On the neighboring site at Dichin, samples
taken from the charred seeds found in a 6th-century context include barley and rye, as
well as wheat and millet; see Poulter (2019), 25. At Iatrus (Krivina, near Ruse, northern
Bulgaria), the diet of the soldiers consisted of oats and peas; see Hajnalová (1982), 232; and
Hajnalová (1991).
21 Bourbou (2009), 234; Bourbou et al. (2011), 578. The very low percentage of infectious con-
ditions in the population of Sourtara Galaniou suggests fairly good living conditions and
nutritional status; see Bourbou/Tsilipakou (2009), 127. For similar conclusions drawn on
the basis of the analysis of a small cemetery excavated in Gorenji Mokronog (near Nove
Mesto, Slovenia), see Leben-Seljak (2003), 407–10.
22 Hjohlman/Penttinen/Wells (2005), 320 and 324. There are also seeds of Persian wheat
(durum), which would indicate that corn was brought to Pyrgouthi from the outside,
most likely the Black Sea region, and cleaned on site.
23 Hjohlman/Penttinen/Wells (2005), 230 and 250; 229 fig. 93.
24 Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings IV 2, 234–35. Kosso (1993), 148 points out that grain lev-
ies being an important part of the regular taxation in the province of Achaia (southern
Greece) is an indication of production beyond subsistence level.
25 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars III 13.20, 122; transl.,174; Anagnostakis (2002), 157–58;
Germanidou (2014), 194.
26 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VIII 22.32, 286; transl., 514; Gregory (2000), 114.
Ermioni and Portochelion (in Argolis), and a shipwreck with a cargo of the
same type of amphorae is known from the vicinity of Portochelion. Given that
LR 2 amphorae were commonly used for the transportation of wine or olive
oil, their local production implies the production of those agricultural goods
as well.27 Wine and olive presses, complete with reservoirs, collections tanks,
olive mills, and storage areas have been discovered during excavations in the
episcopal complex at Louloudies near Katerini (Pieria).28 An olive oil press was
found in the urban milieu, at Philippi.29 Wine presses are also known from
the countryside. A wine press, either of the beam or of the screw type, was
found in the easternmost room of a 6th-century house excavated in 1878 in
Olympia.30 Carbonized olive wood and grape pips are further indications of
both olive oil and wine production in Pyrgouthi.31
No site in the regions of the Balkans located to the north from Greece has
so far produced any comparable evidence. Conspicuously absent are rural,
open settlements like Olympia or Pyrgouthi. According to Procopius, Justinian
“made the defenses so continuous in the estates (choria), that each farm
(agros) either had been converted into a stronghold (phrourion) or lies adja-
cent to one that is fortified.”32 At first glimpse, the implication is that peas-
ant settlements were now adequately protected, but turning a farm into a
stronghold is not exactly going to stimulate agricultural production.33 In fact,
Procopius describes how, at Thermopylae, local peasants “suddenly changed
their mode of life, and becoming makeshift soldiers for the occasion,” kept
guard on the defenses, instead of tilling the earth.34 Procopius thus indicates
27 Opaiț (1984), 317; Abadie-Reynal (1989b), 51–3; Hayes/Petridis (2003), 529; Curta (2011), 40.
28 Gerousi (2013), 35 and 36 fig. 23. The only other case of a wine press associated with an
episcopal center is that of Byllis (Albania); see Beaudry/Chevalier (2014), 210; Chevalier/
Beaudry (2018), 444 and fig. 6. According to Anastasios (2016), 186 and fig. 292, the
(arch)bishopric of Thessalonica owned a number of water mills near modern Lakkia,
to the east from the city. For the archaeology of 6th-century watermills in Greece, see
Germanidou (2014).
29 Zachariadis (2014), 705. Another wine press has recently been discovered in Odessos
(Varna, Bulgaria); see Iotov (2018), 227 and 236 pl. II. A wine merchant from Alexandria
is mentioned in an inscription found in Tomis (Constanța, Romania), but it is not clear
whether he was buying or selling wine there; see Barnea (2005), 22–23.
30 Völling, (1996), 404. A large hoard of coins and agricultural implements found in 1877 in
Olympia includes five billknives—tools that were typically used in viticulture; see Völling
(1995), 425–41; pl. 97a. For the “Byzantine village” in Olympia, see also Gutsfeld (2013).
31 Hjohlman/Penttinen/Wells (2005), 245 and 251.
32 Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings IV 1, 228–29.
33 Procopius even gives an example of a village entirely transformed into a stronghold, due
to the emperor’s munificence (Buildings IV 1, 304–05).
34 Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings IV 2, 234–35; Curta 2001a, 205.
that the unexpected consequence of Emperor Justinian’s policies was that agri-
cultural occupations were now abandoned, albeit temporarily, until regular
troops could be found to replace the “makeshift soldiers for the occasion.” The
evidence of Procopius is corroborated by other sources. According to Agathias,
when Zabergan’s Cutrigurs invaded the Balkans in 558, they quickly reached
Thrace after crossing many deserted villages in Moesia and Scythia Minor.35
The only evidence for the survival of a significant peasant population comes
from the hinterland of Constantinople. According to Theophylact Simocatta,
at about 15 miles distance from Heraclea (Perinthus) there was a village with a
large population that supplied the imperial armies with food.36 Elsewhere, the
existence of open settlements with exclusively agricultural functions remains
doubtful. While it is true that the archaeology of Late Antiquity in the Balkans
has typically focused on urban centers, much has been done in recent decades
for the study of the countryside. Notwithstanding such efforts, the evidence for
rural settlements after ca. 500 is remarkably scanty: a single-roomed house at
Kurt Baiâr, near Slava Cercheză (Dobrudja, Romania) and the remains of two
others at Novgrad, not far from Iatrus, in northern Bulgaria.37 In the absence of
open settlements, could the numerous hillforts in the Balkans have been forti-
fied villages? Some believe indeed that the hillforts offered shelter to the urban
and rural populations fleeing the lowlands under the continuous threat of bar-
barian raids.38 Others refuse to treat fortified sites either as refuges or as purely
military, primarily because of the evidence of women and children inside the
forts. According to such views, the empire could not possibly have administered
all those sites. Those were therefore villages, the agrarian character of which is
further betrayed by finds of agricultural implements.39 To others, there is no
identity or even similarity between the hilltop sites in the northern Balkans,
which were temporary refuges, and those “regularly built fortifications on the
frontier, which more obviously performed a military role.”40 However, agricul-
tural implements found on hilltop sites in the central and northern Balkans
have often been misdated, as many of those sites were reoccupied in the 9th
and 10th centuries. In several cases, the tools in question are to be associated
with the early medieval, and not with the late antique phase of occupation.41
On the other hand, mattocks and pick-axes, such as found in abundance in late
antique hoards together with sickles and billknives fit very well into the picture
of small-scale cultivation of crops inside or immediately outside the walls of
the fort. The evidence of the written sources further substantiates that conclu-
sion. According to Theophylact Simocatta, in 583, when attacking Singidunum
by surprise, the Avars “encountered the majority of the city’s inhabitants
encamped in the fields, since the harvest constrained them to do this; for it
was summer season and they were gathering their subsistence.”42 Whether or
not the garrisons of the many 6th-century forts were made up of “makeshift
soldiers for the occasion,” by AD 500 there were certainly fewer peasants in
the Balkans than in 400, and virtually no peasants at all by 600. The author of
the Strategikon—a military treatise written around 600—recommended that
when campaigning north of the Danube River, in Sclavene territory, Roman
troops should not destroy provisions found in the surrounding countryside,
but instead ship them on pack animals and boats “to our country.”43
That Roman soldiers had to rely on food supplies captured from the enemy
suggests that there was no large-scale production of food in or around the
fortified sites in the Balkans. The analysis of faunal remains from Iatrus has
shown that the soldiers in the garrison relied heavily on hunting for meat
procurement.44 Animal bones have also been found on other sites, but few
have been analyzed by zooarchaeologists.45 On sites in Dobrudja, bones of
cattle are predominant.46 By contrast, in faunal assemblages in the interior of
the peninsula, at Caričin Grad, sheep and goats dominate.47 Sheep and goats
were also the most common animals at Pyrgouthi.48 Judging by the age of
slaughter, most animals were used for secondary products, not for meat. Those
products may have in turn become the raw materials for local industries. A
weaving shop, for example, was found outside the city walls of Thessalonica,
with many loom weights inside it. It remains unclear what was the origin of
the raw material, possibly wool.49 There was also a tannery in the city cen-
ter, and a partially preserved inscription contains an edict with restrictions
on imports of tannage and penalties for those breaking the law.50 It is there-
fore possible that raw materials for the local leather industry in Thessalonica
came from outside the Balkan Peninsula as well. This was definitely the case
for furriers mentioned in epitaphs from Odessos, Edessa, and Thessalonica.51
It may also apply to the textile industry attested by epitaphs of cloth carders
and linen salesmen in Edessa and Thessalonica.52 Weaving, however, was defi-
nitely a household industry, as indicated by finds of loom weights in forts, or
even among grave goods in associated cemeteries.53 As a matter of fact, there
is little evidence of organized workshops inside forts, despite attempts to turn
finds of slag or occasional moulds and anvils into the material culture corre-
lates of smithies and jeweler’s shops, respectively.54 A metallurgical workshop
figure 3 Butrint (Albania), view towards the southern wing of the Triconch Palace, where
blacksmithing was practiced in the 6th century
Photo by the author
was found to the north of the Baths of Galerius in Gamzigrad (near Zaječar,
in eastern Serbia), complete with a smelting furnace and two blacksmith fur-
naces full of iron objects, slag, and an anvil.55 However, this was an exceptional
find, for the 6th-century settlement on the site of the imperial palace com-
plex at Felix Romuliana was located in the middle of the mining district of
eastern Serbia.56 The only other furnaces for smelting ores are known from
the environs of Caričin Grad and from Louloudies.57 Blacksmithing was prac-
ticed during the second quarter of the 6th century in the southern wing of the
Triconch Palace in Butrint (Albania; Fig. 3), where, in addition to hammerscale
and charcoal deposits, archaeologists found a furnace that had been repaired
tower at Sadovsko kale. Similarly, Dinchev (2001), 229 believes that ironworking is archae-
ologically documented for the late 5th and 6th century at Gabrovo, Shumen, Sadovsko
kale and elsewhere. Curta (2001c), 162–63 interpreted house 3 in Svetinja as a smithy.
However, Curta (2017a), 448 abandons that interpretation in favor of “a repair workshop
or a storage room.”
55 Petković/Živić (2006), 135–48; Živić (2009).
56 Petković (2009); Petković (2011), 269. For mining in central Serbia, see Ivanišević (2017),
96. Little is in fact known about mining in the 6th-century Balkans and no mine has been
so far explored archaeologically.
57 Petković (1938), 83; Marki (1995), 198–99.
multiple times. The activity appears to have been seasonal, with structures
being abandoned in the winter to be repaired or rebuilt during the following
season.58 Exactly what was produced in the Butrint smithies is unclear, but it
is important to note that no agricultural implements are associated with any
of those smithies. It is unlikely that such tools were manufactured locally. A
cargo of a shipwreck discovered near Nin and dated to the 6th century strongly
suggests that such implements may have in fact been brought from some other
province outside the Balkan Peninsula.59
A metalworking shop with a circular kiln was found in Thessalonica. The
associated finds include masses of clay and bronze (or copper), two cru-
cibles with metal residue inside, and several stone and clay moulds for cast-
ing spherical buttons, rings, amulets, and crosses with Greek inscriptions.60
No crucibles have been found in the postern of the Upper City in Caričin Grad,
but on the basis of only three stone moulds for casting belt fittings, the struc-
ture has been hastily interpreted as workshop, much like the row of buildings
next to the western portico of the South Street in the Lower City, where more
steatite moulds have been discovered together with ceramic moulds for cast-
ing fibulae with bent stem and with two models made of lead. Furthermore,
another workship has been identified in the Lower City at Caričin Grad on the
basis of bronze dies for strap ends and belt fittings, crucibles and goldsmithing
tools.61 While casting seems to have been a popular technology, dies, which
imply the use of snarling, were just as common on 6th-century military sites in
the Balkans.62 The only other artisanal activity archaeologically documented
on those sites is ceramic production. Most kilns for tiles and bricks operated
to meet local building demands.63 However, some, at least, of the kilns for pot-
tery seem to have produced for larger areas. This is particularly true for Greece,
58 Bowden et al. (2011), 87–88 and 96; Bowden (2011), 311. More smelting furnaces are known
from rooms 22 and 24 of the Triconch Palace; see Bowden et al. (2011), 105.
59 Henning (1987), 60.
60 Antonaras (2016), 158 and 160 fig. 220.
61 Ivanišević (2018), 712–18. For other finds from the urban environment, see Daskalov,
(2012), 113 and 114; 256 fig. 86/3. Moulds are also known from forts: Dănilă (1983), 559;
Daskalov/Dimitrov (2001), 70 and 69 fig. 1/3; Uenze (1992), pl. 9/6; Aladzhov (1995), 225
fig. 30; Oanță-Marghitu (2006), 347 and pl. I/4; Daskalov (2004), 91–2.
62 Vinski (1968), 109; Vitlianov (1993), 166 and 170; 167 fig. 1; Iotov (1998), 72 and 74 fig. 1/2, 3;
Daskalov/Dimitrov (2001), 70 and 69 fig. 1/2; Ivanišević (2010), 770 fig. 19/8; Iotov (2013),
427–29 and 436 pl. 8. Snarling is a metalworking technique that consists in embossing
the ornament from underneath or inside a thin metal surface by means of hammering it
against a die.
63 Irimia (1968); Radu/Stănică (2012); Angelova/Băchvarov (2013), 565; Antonaras (2016), 110
and 111 fig. 107; Iotov/Kharizanov (2017). According to Milchev/Koicheva/Dimitrov (2003),
the kilns for tiles and bricks that were built in the 3rd century in Kramolin (near Sevlievo,
in northern Bulgaria) were still in operation in the 6th century.
where during the 6th century local potters imitated ceramic fashions originat-
ing in Egypt or the eastern Mediterranean and the very popular lamps from
North Africa.64 In the northern Balkans, kilns have been found both inside and
immediately outside military sites. They produced a wide variety of ceramic
forms, but no detailed study of fabrics and no provenance analysis have so far
been carried out to establish the distance at which the locally produced pot-
tery could have travelled to meet the demand at other military sites.65 Several
lamps were produced with moulds found in one of the towers of the hillfort
in Kranevo (near Varna, Bulgaria), and some of the mould-linked specimens
have been found on sites located at some distance from each other.66 However,
it was not only lamps that traveled. Lamp moulds have been found in room 4
on the second level of the Building with Mosaic Pavement excavated in Tomis
(Constanța, Romania). The archaeological context in which they were dis-
covered strongly suggests commercial associations: produced elsewhere, the
moulds in question had been brought to Tomis by sea and were about to be
shipped to another destination, where they would have been used for the pro-
duction of lamps.67
One of the most conspicuous differences between cities and forts in terms of
artisanal production is glass working. There is no evidence of secondary glass
working on any of the military sites in the northern or northwestern Balkans.68
Glassworkers are known from epitaphs discovered in Athens and Salona, but
no such workshops have been found in any of those cities.69 A glass- and met-
alworking shop was discovered in the ruins of a Roman building at Philippi.
64 Karivieri (1998), 424 and 426; Petridis (2010), 90–91; Schauer (2010), 32; Curta, (2016),
59; Vionis (2017), 145. For the pottery workshop next to the precinct of the sanctuary in
Delphi, see Petridis (2003), 443–46; Petridis (2010), 36–38, 40, 45–53, and 55–95. For a
typology of ceramic kilns found in Greece, see Raptis (2012 and Hasaki/Raptis (2016).
65 Janković (1986), pp. 105–07. A kiln for pottery was found next to the triangular tower on
the eastern curtain at Silistra [Durostorum; Pencheva (2013)]. At Novae, one kiln was
found to the northwest from the episcopal residence, another just outside the northern
curtain. See Biernacki/Klenina (2014), 151; Tomas (2015).
66 Curta (2016f), 86–7 and 94; Toncheva (1952.
67 Curta (2016f), 78–79.
68 Gomolka (1976), 40 has advanced the idea of glass-working workshops in Thrace, but
without any archaeological arguments. Perko (2005), 70 affirmed the existence of a glass
workshop in Kranj, which was however rejected by Milavec (2015), 280. Šiljeg (2009)
announces the discovery of a glass workshop in Mala Luka, on the island of Krk (Bay of
Kvarner, Croatia), but without much detail.
69 Stern (2012), 56–57 and 57 with n. 29; Marin et al. (2010), 574. A glass-working shop is
believed to have existed in one of the small rooms set up in the corridors of the Peribolos
of Apollo in Corinth, but no information has been published to confirm that interpreta-
tion [Avramea (1997), 113].
This may well have been the shop in which the stained glass windows were
produced, which adorned the second building phase of both basilica C and
the extramural basilica.70 Three glass-making workshops have been found in
Louloudies, one of which had a circular furnace.71 Another three workshops
are known from Thessaloniki. One of them was identified by means of test-
ing droplets, clay masses with layers of glass (possibly parts of a furnace) and
many fragments of stemmed beakers, deep bowls, lamps, and funnel-mouthed
vessels.72 Another had three furnaces, one of them with five consecutive phases
of use and repair. Wasters, a very large quantity of testing droplets, and tubular
endings of blown glass gathers strongly suggest that glass was produced there
by dip mould blowing.73 In addition to the same types of glass vessels, there
were also fragments of windowpanes and gems.74 No comparable evidence
exists for the central and northern Balkans. At Caričin Grad, the existence of
a glass workshop in the southeastern tower of the Lower Town has been hast-
ily proposed on the dubious basis of vitrified bricks and a ceramic crucible.75
Glass finds are known from several military sites in the northern and north-
eastern Balkans, but without evidence of local workshops, it is likely that the
glassware was brought there from elsewhere. The types of glass vessels and
lamps found on those sites are not different from those associated with glass
workshops in Louloudies or Thessaloniki, but analyses performed so far using
the combined method of proton induced X-rays and gamma rays (PIXE-PIGE)
demonstrate that the glassware from various sites in the Balkans is of one of
two types (Foy’s 2.1 and 3.2 groups) produced in Egypt.76 In other words, what-
ever the workshops in Philippi, Louloudies, and Thessaloniki produced, it was
only for strictly local use, and not for sites farther into the interior.
The picture drawn so far seems to be one of a fundamental polarity of the
Balkan Peninsula: an economy of subsistence in the northern part, and a
77 Metcalf (1976); Hahn (2000), pp. 38–39 and 64–65. For a cautious approach to those esti-
mates of mint output, see Gândilă (2018b), 431 and 441.
78 Gândilă (2018b), 431 and 434.
79 Gândilă (2018b), 435.
80 Gândilă (2018b), 444 and 468–69.
81 For example, at Argos, for which see Abadie-Reynal (1989a), 155–56. For the definition of
ARS and PRS, see Vroom (2005), 32–38.
82 Western coast: Dvoržak Schrunk (1989), 94; Shkodra-Rrugia (2008); Reynolds (2010), 97;
Cirelli (2015), 107–08. Eastern coast: Mocanu (2012). Sodini (2000), 194 is therefore wrong
when claiming that Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese were the only regions in the
Balkans that were open to ARS.
83 Bikić/Ivanišević (2012), 43–44. According to Borisov (1988), 106, PRS appear at Karanovo
(near Sliven, in central Bulgaria), but there is no indication of chronology.
substantiates an older idea that the ARS was linked to the kind of long-distance
trade that moved the grain annona to the regions of greater concentrations of
troops, while the PRS was more of a local commodity, which moved from har-
bor to harbor in what may have been a regional network of trade.84 That the
demand for red-slipped wares increased during the 6th century results from
the examination of ceramic percentages from sites in Greece.85 Red-slipped
wares imitating ARS or PRS were also produced locally, in Athens, during the
first decades of the 6th century, as well as in Boeotia, during the second half of
that century.86 A response to a relatively high demand in the 6th century for
fine pottery, imitations did not move, however, too far beyond the center of
production, often in a relatively restricted area of distribution.87
Equally revealing is the evidence of amphorae. Late Roman 1 (LR 1) speci-
mens produced in Cilicia, near Antioch, in Cyprus, as well as in Rhodes were
used for transporting wine or dried goods such as frankincense, myrrh, or mas-
tic. They were the commonest of all amphorae at Argos, in Greece, at Durrës,
in Albania, at Constantinople, and on many military sites in the Balkans.88
LR 2 amphorae were produced in the Aegean, but also in the southern Argolid.
They transported wine or olive oil. Such amphorae are very common on 6th-
century sites in Greece, as well as in forts from the northern parts of the Balkan
Peninsula.89 Types produced in Palestine (Late Roman 4–6), which were
84 Abadie-Reynal (1989a), 157. The PRS predominates on such sites as Philippi in Greece or
Murighiol in Dobrudja [Sodini (2000), 188).
85 At Demetrias (near Volos, in Thessaly), during the last phase of occupation, 80 percent
of all fine, red-slipped wares were PRS. No ARS or PRS forms were found on the site that
could be dated later than the middle of the 6th century. By contrast, in Corinth, the quan-
tity of both ARS and PRS increased during the second half of the century, and ARS forms
of a later date (Hayes 104, 105, 107, and 109) have been found in deposits dated as late
as the middle or the third quarter of the 7th century. See Sodini (2000), 181–82; Bonifay
(2005), 570; Warner Slane/Sanders (2005), 274.
86 Hayes/Petridis (2003), 533; Vroom (2005), 40–41.
87 Boeotian red-slipped wares have been found in Corinth [Warner Slane/Sanders (2005),
284], and local imitations are known from Argos [Aupert (1980), 417–18].
88 Opaiț (1984), 320; Abadie-Reynal (1989b), 51–56; Hayes (1992), 64; Alfen (1996); Opaiț
(2004), 8–10; Shkodra (2005), 136.
89 Steckner (1989), 64–65; Abadie-Reynal (1989b), 51 and 53; Mackensen (1992), 241; Opaiț
(2004), 10–12; Chatziioannidis/Tsamisis (2013); Heath et al. (2015); Curta (2016a), 308–11.
According to Opaiț (2004), 105, the reason for the large number of LR 1 and 2 amphorae in
the Balkans is the enormous demand of olive oil for the troops stationed in the Danube
region, given that the annual consumption per soldier may have been as high as 20 liters.
According to Auriemma/Quiri (2007), 40–41, LR 2 amphorae appear only sporadically
on the western coast of the Balkan Peninsula. However, the shipwreck from Lastovo (off
the northwestern coast of the island of Premuda, Croatia) had a cargo of LR 2 amphorae
[Perko (2005), 56–57]. Wickham (2006), 781 believes that the capillary distribution of LR 2
common in the Western Mediterranean area and in Gaul, where they certainly
transported wine, are restricted to sites in Greece, such as Argos and Corinth,
and have not so far appeared in the interior of the peninsula.90 The polarity
of this distribution of amphora finds has been explained in terms of different
networks of exchange. Like ARS, amphorae of the LR 1 and 2 types transported
annona commodities primarily for the army, while the Palestinian amphorae
indicate “free-market commerce.”91 The association between the state-run
distribution of the annona and LR 2 amphorae follows also from plotting on
a map the most important sites in the Balkans that have produced remains
of such amphorae (Fig. 4).92 There are only a few finds on the western coast
and in the central region of the Balkan Peninsula, and none whatsoever in the
northwest. The western and northwestern parts of the Balkans are in fact not
devoid of amphora finds. On the contrary, that seems to be the almost exclu-
sive area of the small, elongated type known as spatheion, which originated
from North Africa and was used for transporting wine, olive oil, or fish sauce.93
By contrast, most sites with LR 2 amphorae are in the eastern and northeast-
ern Balkans, which suggests that those amphorae entered the interior mostly
from the Black Sea coast, and that the Danube operated as the main line of
distribution for most forts in the region. This confirms the recently advanced
idea of two different distribution networks, one originating in North Africa,
the other in the Aegean.94 If so, it is perhaps worth noting that the region of
the Balkans that lacks both LR 2 amphorae and spatheia is right in the center
of the peninsula—Macedonia.95 The reason for this curious absence may well
be that Macedonia was supplied from Thessalonica with all necessary goods,
which traveled in other types of containers than LR 2 amphorae or spatheia. At
any rate, that network of exchange was not tied to any state-run distribution
amphorae in the Aegean is the sign of a commercial network. That does not apply, how-
ever, to the distribution of such amphorae in the northern Balkans.
90 Touchais (1982), 542 fig. 25; Abadie-Reynal (1989b), 54; Warner Slane/Sanders (2005), 278.
For a rare example of a Late Roman 5 from the northern Balkans, see Swan (2007), 261.
91 Abadie-Reynal (1989a), 159; Karagiorgou (2001).
92 Curta (2016a), 310 fig. 1.
93 Mackensen (1987), 258; Mackensen (1992), 250–51; Knific (1994), 220; Perko (2005), 66;
Modrijan (2011), 143. Together with ARS, African amphorae continued to reach the west-
ern coast of the Balkan Peninsula during the 7th century. See Bushi/Xhaferaj (2018), 908.
Spatheia have now been documented both in the northern and in the eastern Balkans as
well: Swan (2007), 261; Shtereva (2009), 86–87.
94 Reynolds (2004), 241.
95 For the concentration of forts in Macedonia, see the map published several times by
Milinković (2007), 170 fig. 6; Milinković (2016), 507 fig. 1; Milinković (2017), 24 fig. 7. For a
6th-century, LR 1 amphora from Pčinja, see Georgiev (1985), 207 fig. 4.
figure 4 The distribution in the Balkans of 6th- to early 7th-century Late Roman 2 amphorae:
1—Adamclisi; 2—Argos; 3—Butrint; 4—Cape Kaliakra; 5—Cape Shabla; 6—Capidava;
7—Caričin Grad; 8—Celei; 9 - Constanța; 10—Corinth; 11—Dichin; 12—Durrës; 13—Garvăn;
14—Golemannovo Kale; 15—Histria; 16—Jurilovca; 17—Kladovo; 18—Koper; 19—Montana;
20—Murighiol; 21—Nikiup; 22—Odărci; 23—Pernik; 24—Piran; 25—Provadiia;
26—Pyrgouthi; 27—Rifnik; 28—Shkodra; 29—Sliven; 30—Stari Kostolac; 31—Tulcea;
32—Varna
network. Marble from Thasos was shipped only to Macedonia and central
Greece to be used for buildings, and the trade with Thasian marble could
well mirror the general layout of the distribution network for most forts in
Macedonia.96 But where did the LR 2 amphorae made in the Argolid go? It has
recently been noted that in the 6th century, a new type of settlement appeared
in the coastal regions of Greece and on the islands, a type for which there is no
parallel anywhere else in the Balkans. Those settlements (aptly called empo-
ria) had a population that lived primarily on land as farmers (either owners
of small plots or tenants), but at the same time engaged in activities at sea,
especially trade and fishing, as well as various crafts. There is clear evidence
of commercial contacts with distant regions in Diporto (on Makronissos, in
the Bay of Domvrena), Chinitsa (in the Argolid Bay), and Kephalos (off the
southern coast of the Ambracian Gulf).97 There is nothing in that archaeo-
logical record of long-distance contacts that would point to the northern or
northwestern Balkans. Such settlements may have operated as local markets,
and as major distribution centers for much larger markets in the empire, but
judging from the evidence available so far, they were not designed to supply
the poor provinces in the north. Without a systematic study of the fabrics of
all known LR 2 amphorae from the Balkans, it is also impossible to gauge the
contribution of Greece to the relief provided in the 6th century to the northern
parts of the peninsula.
From where did that relief then come? The distribution of LR 2 amphorae
in the eastern Balkans overlaps with that of 6th- to 7th-century seals, many of
which are associated with the quaestura exercitus that Justinian introduced
in 536.98 That administrative unit combined territories at a considerable dis-
tance from each other, such as the northernmost Balkan provinces (Moesia
inferior and Scythia minor) with some islands in the Aegean Sea, Caria, and
Cyprus, all ruled from Odessos (present-day Varna, Bulgaria) by a prefect. The
only link between those disparate territories was the sea and the navigable
Danube. Since Cyprus, the Aegean islands, and Caria represented the most
important naval bases of the empire, but were also among the richest prov-
inces, the rationale behind this new administrative unit was to secure both
militarily and financially the efficient defense of the Danube frontier.99 The
main responsibility of the quaestor exercitus was the collection and distribu-
tion of the annona for the army in Moesia Inferior and Scythia Minor. He redi-
rected taxes collected in Caria, Cyprus, and the Aegean islands towards the
troops stationed in those two provinces, either in cash (to pay the soldiers)
or, more likely, in kind.100 This new arrangement was meant to alleviate the
problems of the provinces in the northern Balkans which had large numbers
of soldiers stationed on their territory, but a rapidly declining population that
could neither pay taxes nor support the troops coming to its defense. The
appearance of coins struck in the mint of Alexandria on the eastern coast of
the Balkan Peninsula points to the same direction: shipments of annona from
the prosperous provinces overseas moved large amounts of goods to the main
ports of the Black Sea.101 But how was the annona then distributed farther to
the remotest military sites in the northern Balkans?
A great many 6th-century hoards of bronze coins have been found on mili-
tary sites in the northern Balkans. The accumulation of bronze in those hoards,
particularly in those dated to the last two decades of 6th and the first decade
of the 7th century, is almost exclusively associated with the military.102 Unlike
hoards in other parts of the empire, several of those in the northern Balkans
include not only coins, but also balances and weights. Such artifacts, as well
as the presence in the Balkans of hoards of gold (each with no more than 10
coins) point unmistakably to payments of donativa in gold.103 Soldiers took the
golden coins to the imperial campsor (money changer) attached to their unit
in order to get small change in copper coins. Such a scenario is primarily based
on the evidence of a funerary inscription found in Makriköy (now in Bakırköy,
in the European part of Turkey). The inscription mentions a certain John,
son of Hyakinthos, who “followed the expedition” as imperial campsor and
died somewhere in the Balkans, probably while on campaign, on August 21,
544.104 The campsor must have carried large amounts of bronze coin with him,
which he may have obtained directly from the mint. It is unlikely, however,
that he carried with him anything but large denominations—folles (worth
Lydus, On Powers II 29, 127). See Torbatov (1997); Curta (2002); Gkoutzioukostas (2008);
Gkoutzioukostas/Moniaros (2009).
100 Deligiannakis (2016), 89–90.
101 Gândilă (2016), 146.
102 Curta/Gândilă (2011–2012), 94–95.
103 Both balances and weights served for verifying the purity (and therefore value) of the
metal, as gold coins were struck in different denominations (solidi, semisses, and trem-
isses) and in gold of different purity (20, 22, and 24 carats). For weights see Minchev
(2008).
104 Asdracha (1998), 494–96. John was most likely employed in a scrinium of the comes
sacrarum largitionum.
40 nummia) and half-folles (worth 20 nummia). The only way soldiers could
have obtained smaller denominations, especially pentanummia (worth 5 num-
mia) and minimi (the smallest denominations) was at the market. However, the
analysis of the distribution of coins inside the hillfort at Odărci (near Dobrich,
Bulgaria) has demonstrated that there was no market inside the fort, and
that exchanges involving coins took place inside warehouses for the annona
products.105 In the absence of prices, it is impossible to assess the velocity of
money, but all payments seem to have been local, without coins moving too
much from one site to another.106 That, at least, is the conclusion one can draw
from the uniform monetary profile of the northern Balkans, characteristic of
which is the predominance of higher denominations.107 In that respect, the
northern Balkans are in stark contrast with the monetary economy of Greece,
which was dominated by small change, particularly Carthaginian nummia and
Vandalic minimi, along with Constantinopolitan nummia struck for emper-
ors of earlier centuries. This has rightly been interpreted as a sign of a healthy
monetary economy dominated by a multitude of low-value transactions.108
While in Greece, 22 out of 28 hoards with the latest coins struck between 491
and 565 are of minimi, such coins are rare in the northern Balkans.109
With no large-scale cultivation of crops, marketplaces or a diversified mon-
etary mass, the world of the northern Balkans was not one of fortified villages,
but one of strongholds maintained and supported by the state. Coins, in that
respect, served primarily to facilitate exchanges resulting from the state-run
distribution of food and goods. Hoarding, therefore, may be an indication that
hoard owners hoped to leave the Balkans at some point, together with their
savings, to invest in or purchase from markets elsewhere in the empire. That
hilltop sites in the Balkans were in fact connected with economic networks
through which small denominations of the bronze currency circulated (typ-
ically to serve urban markets) explains not only the occasional presence of
minimi—a feature of the monetary economy of Greece—but also the non-
retrieval of so many hoards of bronze coins. The monetary value of the bronze
figure 5 The value of 35 hoard collections from Greece, calculated on the basis of the
exchange rate between gold and copper in operation at the time every one of the
constituent coins was minted (Total Value), and at the time the latest coin was
struck (Value at “closing”), respectively: 21—Petrochorion; 22—Boeotia;
26—Adam Zagliveriou; 30—Athens (first find of 1933); 31—Athens (second
find of 1933); 32—Corinth (find of 1971); 34—Eleusis; 35—Kenchreai (find of
1963); 39—Thebes; 42—Laurion; 43—Spata; 45—Thasos (find of 1957);
47—Agios Nikolaos; 49—Mantinea; 50—Nemea (find of 1979); 53—Koutsi;
54—Megara; 56—Zogeria (find of 1995); 57—Athens (find of 1971); 59—Athens
(find of 1936); 61—Agia Kyriaki; 66—Athens (find of 1908); 67—Eleusis (find
of 1893); 68—Isthmia (find of 1954); 69—Kleitoria; 70—Priolithos Kalavryton;
71—Pellene (find of 1936); 73—Chalkis; 77—Pellene (find of 1982); 80—Nea
Anchialos; 81—Politika-Psachna; 82—Thasos; 83—Solomos (find of 1938);
84—Thasos (find of 1979); 89—Delos
110 Curta (2011c), 80–82 points to the considerable difference between the total value of
hoard collections calculated on the basis of the exchange rate between gold and bronze
in operation at the time of every one of the constituent coins, and that at the time of the
latest coin.
111 For a comparison between hoards in the Balkans and prices in the empire, see Curta,
(1996), 170–73. For an attempt to gauge labor wages on the basis of coin hoards, see
Mikhailov (2010).
affected especially “saving hoards” buried in Greece with the latest coins struck
in the late 570s or early 580s. Soon after that, there is a sharp break in coin accu-
mulation in Greek hoards. Moreover, no hoards are known so far from Greece
with latest coins struck between 585 and 605.112 This, however, is precisely the
period during which a relatively large number of hoards appear in the north-
ern Balkans. The most likely explanation is that troops until then stationed in
Greece were moved to the northern Balkans as part of the military campaign
that Emperor Maurice launched at that time against the Slavs and the Avars.
However, in the Lower Danube region, there was no large-scale production of
food, the surplus of which could create the basis for the organization of mar-
ketplaces. With no peasants in villages, the soldiers in forts of the northern
Balkans had to make do with the public dole. In the early 7th century, some
troops returned to Greece, as suggested by a new series of hoards of bronze
and gold coins. After ca. 620, however, most troops were withdrawn from the
Balkans. Troops and coins were after that restricted to the coastal areas around
Thessalonica, Corinth, and Athens.
112 Curta (2011c), 84 and 94–95 with n. 19 notes that coins struck between those years are also
rare as single finds.
1 Haldon (1997), 103 and 114. The idea that cities in the Balkans succumbed to barbarian inva-
sions was first challenged by Howard-Johnston (1983), an article conspicuously absent from
the bibliography of Haldon’s book.
2 Haldon (1997), 114. According to Haldon, other cities survived as “closed fortressess,” such as
Odessos, “at the mouth of the Danube,” Durostorum, and Bononia. Odessos (near present-
day Varna) is some 140 miles (about 230 km) away from any mouth of the Danube. As Pletn’ov
(2008), 41–86 has demonstrated, the ancient city was abandoned in the late 6th century, and
medieval Varna grew nearby at a much later time; see also Pletn’ov (2014). There are no traces
of a 7th-century occupation in Bononia (present-day Vidin, in northwestern Bulgaria). Finds
of copper and silver coins struck for the emperors Heraklonas, Constans II, and Constantine
IV, and the latter’s seal strongly suggest a Byzantine military presence in Durostorum (Silistra,
in northern Bulgaria). However, there is no evidence that the ancient city still operated as a
“closed fortress.” See Barnea, (1981); Oberländer-Târnoveanu (1996), 100, 104 and 120. To be
sure, Haldon’s views on the matter have evolved. To Brubaker/Haldon (2011), 536, instead of
an exception, Thessaloniki appears as a “continuous” city, with a “very considerable degree of
continuity in infrastructure and use of space.”
3 Kazhdan (1954). For the political circumstances in which this thesis was formulated, and for
its critique, see Curta (2016e), 141–62.
4 Aladzhov (2016).
figure 6 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes (ancient names in italics)
most likely around 620. Moreover, while discontinuity is clear in the case of
sites in the interior, there is clear evidence of continuity on a few coastal sites.5
The local bath in Mesembria (Nesebăr, on the Black Sea coast) was still
in operation in the late 7th century, as indicated by the events of 680, when
Emperor Constantine IV abandoned the campaign against the Bulgars to go
to Mesembria for treating his gout in the thermae of the city (Fig. 6).6 The Old
Metropolitan church was rebuilt in the early 620s, as attested by two graffiti
5 For discontinuity on urban sites in the interior, see Velkov (1965), 33–36; Iankov (1987);
Dancheva-Vasileva (2009); Topalilov (2012), 66.
6 Chimbuleva (1988); Iordanov (2014), 60.
on the eastern wall of the sanctuary, and on the western face of the southeast-
ern pillar, respectively. Both were scratched by masons working on rebuild-
ing the superstructure. One of them contains the date June 10, 618.7 Coins of
Constantine IV and Justinian II have been found in various parts of the mod-
ern city of Nesebăr, and two hoards are known, one of gold (with the latest coin
struck between 681 and 685), the other of bronze coins (with the latest coin
struck between 685 and 695).8 This is a clear indication of continued contacts
with the capital of the Empire, a conclusion substantiated by finds of Glazed
White Ware, the staple import from Constantinople.9 New excavations have
brought to light the city’s 7th-century cemetery.10 Similarly, a few diagnostic
finds have been published from the excavation of the 7th-century cemetery on
the small island of Sv. Kirik off Sozopol, less then 17 miles (27 km) across the
Bay of Burgas.11
In Thessaloniki, the surviving mosaics in the basilica of St. Demetrius honor
7th-century civic authorities as well as prominent citizens who supported
the restoration of the church after a great fire and a barbarian attack.12 The
Church of St. Sophia in Thessaloniki was destroyed, possibly by an earthquake
in the 620s, but then rebuilt on the same spot. Its impressive dome belongs to
a second building phase, which has been dated by means of an inscription to
690/1.13 The existence of many construction sites in the city is also betrayed
by a lime kiln, apparently used for melting into lime the marble elements of
ruined monuments in the forum.14 That forum was preserved intact well into
7 Stanev/Zhdrakov (2009).
8 Iordanov (2014), 60; Iurukova (1980); Penchev (1991).
9 Curta (2016e), 152.
10 Bozhkova et al. (2006); Kiiashkina/Marvakov/Dimova (2008); Marvakov/Giuzelev/
Gospodinov (2013).
11 Daskalov (2012), 67; 234 fig. 64/2, 6, 10, 11; 235 fig. 65/4; 236 fig. 66/11. Excavations inside
the city of Sozopol have revealed the Church of St. George, a large dome-in-cross church,
probably built in the late 7th or early 8th century, with a rich marble ornamentation and
frescoes; see Drazheva (2005), 236.
12 Robertson Brown (2010), 231. The mosaics on the northern and eastern sides of the south-
ern apse pier show St. Demetrius between two churchmen and a state official with scep-
ter and mappa, perhaps the chief benefactors of the rebuilt church. For the 7th-century
mosaics, see Mentzos (2010). For the portrait of the state official, see Fourlas, (2010);
Gkoutzioukostas (2015); Mastora (2016).
13 Bouras (2006), 62; Kazamia-Tsernou (2009), 334–40 and 353–81. As Mavropoulou-Tsioumi
(2014), 30 points out, the inscription at the base of the dome is incomplete, only the
4th indiction is legible, together with AM 6 … This has commonly been interpreted as
690, but more recently, as 840 (AM 6349). For the 7th-century structural restoration of the
Church of the Acheiropoietos, see Raptis (2017).
14 Antonaras (2017a), 113.
the 8th century, much like the city’s street grid.15 Nonetheless, there were many
open spaces inside the city that were reserved for vegetable gardens.16 Grain
supplies came from the outside, and were stored both in private houses and
in public granaries. A large amount of grain was sold in 676 from the public
granaries to private merchants at a price of 1/7 nomisma per modius (12.8 kg),
a transaction that brought the city a hefty profit of over 7,800 gold coins, the
equivalent of over 700 tons of sold grain.17 At least one industry was well and
thriving in 7th-century Thessaloniki, as indicated by the imperial decree of
689, through which Emperor Justinian II granted all profits from the city’s salt-
pans to the Church of St. Demetrius in order to help with its running costs.18
In Athens, the Erechtheion was turned into a three-aisled basilica in the early
7th century, at the same time as the conversion into churches of the Temple of
Hephaistos in the Agora and the Temple of Artemis Agrotera by the Ilissos.19
The tetraconch in the Library of Hadrian was rebuilt as a three-aisled basilica
during the second half of the 7th century, possibly for Constans II’s visit of
662/3.20 The old colonnade of the Stoa of Attalos was subdivided into rooms.
In room 6, hundreds of terracotta roof tiles recovered from fallen debris of the
house destroyed at some point in the 630s were piled in neat rows for possible
re-use. These alterations have been coin-dated to the reign of Constans II.21
Although detailed archaeological evidence exists for just four cities so far,
it is quite clear that at least four other urban centers established in Antiquity
continued to exist in the 7th and subsequent centuries—Dyrrachium (Durrës),
Zadar, Trogir, and Pola (Pula).22 Mesembria, Sozopol, Thessaloniki, and Athens
were central places with dependent territories and nodes in economic net-
works, with more or less autonomous administration responsible for such
public works such as the restored Old Metropolitan church in Mesembria or
the new Church of St. Sophia in Thessaloniki.23 The economic base of each
one of those sites appears to have been sufficiently diversified to create a sur-
plus that could stimulate manufacturing activities and secure the participa-
tion of each site in interregional exchange systems. One only needs to think
of the saltpans in Thessaloniki, but the presence of coins and Glazed White
Ware in Mesembria implies participation in interregional exchange networks.
The most conspicuous feature of all those sites is the preservation of the old
street grid, which suggests that in all known cases some central authority was
still present that was capable to prevent encroachment into the main roads
and to regulate traffic.24 As Chavdar Kirilov aptly put it, cities survived where
the state continued to be present or where it had control over the neighboring
areas.25 More importantly, all sites appear to have possessed concentrations
of population, as well as social hierarchies. Perhaps the most salient posi-
tion in that respect is that of Thessaloniki, the best example in the Balkans of
the change that Wolf Liebeschuetz called a shift “from government by curia-
les to government by notables.”26 There were wealthy people in 7th-century
Thessaloniki, who together with the local clergy and the state officials formed
the social network that dominated the city.27 The “notables” hid the Sclavene
chieftain Chatzon, and the “powerful” participated in the city government. In
that capacity, they were largely responsible for the massive sale of grain that
led to the famine of 677.28
Notables also played a key role in 7th-century Istria. On the basis of an early
9th-century exceptional document, the placitum of Rižana (804), historians
have attempted to reconstruct the economic and social make-up of the Istrian
peninsula during the 7th century. According to the placitum, some coloni lived
in Neapolis (now Novigrad, on the western coast of Istria, Croatia), others in
the countryside, but they all paid taxes (telos) to the state agent, the cancel-
larius, and to the tribune. The latter was typically a landowner, a member
of the class of iudices with juridical and military powers over the hinterland
of the city in which they resided.29 The tribune collected the taxes and had
under his command a number of domestici, vicarii, and locoservatores. By the
late 7th century, the tribune was the most powerful person in each urban com-
munity, with the privilege of granting immunity from military requirements
and taxes to free men, who relied on his protection and worked in his service
in war and in peace.30 The wealth of the 7th-century elites in Istria was based
on rents derived from agriculture, pastoral farming, and fishing; from service
in the military and provincial administration; and from involvement in com-
merce and trade or production of goods.
A distribution map of all settlements known or supposed to have been in
existence in the Balkans during the 7th century shows that the central part
of the Peninsula is devoid of any sites whatsoever.31 Unlike urban settlements
that are typically on the coast, most rural settlements are located in the north-
ern region. Garvan is on the right bank of the river Danube, just across from
the Paraschiva isle, less than 25 miles (40 km) to the west from Silistra. Zhivka
Văzharova’s excavations carried out between 1964 and 1980 brought to light
120 features—dwellings, kilns, and workshops.32 Eleven houses and a kiln
belong to what the excavator believed to be the earliest phase of occupation,
which she dated to the 6th and 7th century. The absence of any datable metal
finds makes it impossible to verify her chronology. Whether house 12 is of a
7th- or late 6th-century date, clay pans and handmade pottery were associated
in house 59 with a fragment of combed ware thrown on a tournette, which
strongly suggests a date after ca. 600.33 The absence of any amphora remains
or pieces of metalwork (fibulae, buckles) of Roman production or inspiration
may also indicate a date later than the 6th or early 7th century.34 Four houses
and the kiln produced fragments of quern stones bespeaking the consump-
tion of cereal foods. In the absence of any tools or paleobotanical samples, it is
impossible to tell whether the cereals in question were cultivated locally. Five
houses produced clay weights for the fishing net. Almost all houses in Garvan
also produced bone or antler awls, one per each house.35 Awls and skates
figure 7
Garvan (Bulgaria), house 89,
plan with selected artifacts
from the associated assemblage:
handmade pottery, whetstones,
spindle whorl, and bone needle.
Redrawn after, and with photos
from Văzharova (1986)
such as found in houses 68 and 80 imply the raising of animals, and animal
bones have been found in significant quantity in the pit in front of the oven
in houses 80 and 84.36 Unfortunately, no zooarchaeological study exists so far
for the bone material in Garvan, so nothing is known either about the spe-
cies or about the age of the animals represented in those faunal assemblages.
Eight out of eleven houses dated to the 7th century also produced whetstones,
which served for sharpening knives, such as found in several of those same
houses.37 Together with knives, whetstones, awls, and fishing net weights, the
assemblages from 7th-century dwellings in Garvan included spindle whorls.38
House production of (presumably) woolen textiles is also betrayed by a bone
needle found in house 89 (Fig. 7).39 There was a crucible in house 59, which
36 For skates, see Văzharova (1986), 140 and 153; 141 fig. 143/3; 151 fig. 156/3. For animal bones,
see Văzharova (1986), 153 and 155.
37 For whetstones, see Văzharova (1986), 90, 99, 123, 128, 153, and 155; 89 fig. 73/2; 91 fig. 76/3;
99 fig. 86/5; 123 fig. 120/2; 130 fig. 128/2; 152 fig. 157/3; 154 fig. 160/6.
38 Văzharova (1986), 86, 90, 99, 123, 136, 140, 160, and 182; 84 fig. 66/3; 91 fig. 76/6; 99 fig. 86/2;
123 fig. 120/6; 138 fig. 138/5; 139 fig. 139/2; 141 fig. 143/2; 159 fig. 17/2; 183 fig. 196/2.
39 Văzharova (1986), 160 and 159 fig. 167/4.
was associated with slag.40 Slag has also been found in houses 66 and 80, but
no other traces of metalworking appear in any of them.41
A similar picture results from excavations carried out on the neighboring site
at Popina between 1955 and 1961. Handmade pottery, including clay pans, awls,
whetstones, and spindle whorls remind one of the assemblages in Garvan, but
there are no weights for the fishing net that could be dated, with any degree of
certainty to the 7th century. At least one of the few houses that could be dated
to that century has not one, but three ovens (one of stone and two of clay),
which suggests more than one phase of occupation, with possible repairs and
modifications.42 There were many animal bones in a pit inside that house, but
no specific details about species and age are known. In house 10, a rectangular
pit by the southern side contained no less than eight whetstones, and eight
awls have been collected from the floor of the building, which may well have
been a workshop (Fig. 8).43 A platform paved with stones to the north from the
oven of another house may be interpreted as a working area, but no tools have
been found in the associated assemblage.44
Farther to the west, the site at Mihajlovac (near Negotin, eastern Serbia) is
located across the Danube from the island of Ostrovu Mare. The salvage exca-
vations of 1981 and 1982 uncovered 4,100 square feet of land and unearthed
eight features, all dwellings. The associated assemblages are made up of both
hand- and wheel-made pottery.45 The former includes a fragment of a clay pan,
while the latter is represented by such things as a lid and a fragment of an
amphora, both suggesting a late 6th- or early 7th-century date. There were clay
weights for the fishing net in the houses excavated in Mihajlovac, much like
in Garvan. However, unlike Garvan and Popina, where no weapons have been
found, no less than three battle axes are known from Mihaljlovac. All three
have good parallels in Avar-age, 7th-century assemblages.46 The imprint of a
cereal seed (millet?) on the bottom of a handmade pot suggests the local cul-
tivation of crops.
The 1977 rescue excavations on the western side of the Ostrovu Mare
island revealed a number of features, some of which have been wrongly inter-
preted as cremation burials (but are more likely sunken-floored buildings).
Only one house has been published, as well as the pottery remains from the
figure 8
Popina (Bulgaria), house 10, plan with
selected artifacts from the associated
assemblage: whetstones, awls, and
spindle whorl. Redrawn after, and with
photos from Văzharova (1965)
47 Stîngă (1978), 123; 120 fig. 6; and 122 fig. 8; Boroneanț/Stîngă (1978), 87 and 89; 88 fig. 1. For
the cemetery at Balta Verde, see Berciu/Comșa, (1956), 403–05.
48 Kerman (2011); Guštin/Tomaž (2017); Cipot (2010).
Croatia, along the southern bank of the Drava (the region known in Croatia
as Podravina), both upstream and downstream from its confluence with the
Mura.49 Many of those sites have been dated to the early Middle Ages by means
of the associated pottery and a relatively large number of radiocarbon dates.
The largest number of such dates are from charcoal samples collected in Nova
Tabla, a site located only 2 km to the south from Murska Sobota, on the shore
of Lake Soboska. More than half (55.6 percent) of all dates concern the earliest
phase of occupation of the site, features of which cluster in the central part of
the excavated area.50 Most calibrated dates point to a 7th-century date for the
first occupation phase of the settlement.51
Dašenka Cipot’s 2003 rescue excavations in Popava (near Lipovci, to the
southeast from Murska Sobota) discovered 41 refuse pits. Given that cremated
human bones have been found in its filling, it remains unclear whether SE7/
SE24 was a settlement feature. At any rate, the filling produced remains of
combed ware thrown on a tournette and handmade pottery, including a frag-
ment of a clay pan. In addition, there was a golden earring with grape-shaped
pendants, with good analogies dated to the 7th century. The radiocarbon date
for the assemblage is BP 1445 ± 24 (1σ cal. AD 602–642, 68.3% probability; 2σ
cal. AD 572–649, 95.4% probability).52 Farther to the southeast, Luka Bekić’s
excavations in Nedelišće, near Čakovec (to the north from the river Drava,
near the Slovenian-Croatian-Hungarian border) brought to light another 7th-
century settlement. Two settlement features have been radiocarbon dated,
one to 616 ± 21, the other to 649 ± 7.53 The assemblage associated with the lat-
ter included both handmade pottery and pottery thrown on a tournette with
combed decoration, as well as whetstones and spindle whorls. There were
cattle bones in the assemblage, in addition to a cattle bell.54 Even farther to
the southeast in the Podravina, recent excavations on the northern side of the
village of Torčec (near Koprivnica, northern Croatia) have brought to light a
sunken-floored building with a ceramic assemblage that includes clay pans, as
55 Ivančan (2010), 47–48 and 75 fig. 79; 253 pl. 33; 254 pl. 34; 255 pl. 35; 256 pl. 26; 257 p. 37.
56 Magdič (2017), 446 with fig. 4.
57 Pavlović (2012), 325.
58 According to Pavlović (2013), 453–54, the only indication of consumption of cereal foods
is the fragment of a quern stone found in feature SO 108.
59 Magdič (2017), 447 and 454. Such a conclusion is strengthened by the bone assemblage
from the house discovered in Nedelišće, and the associated cattle bell.
60 Guštin (2008), 54 with figs. 2–5.
61 Trough-like settlement features such as discovered in Nova Tabla and other sites northern
Croatia are known from Avar-age settlements in the Carpathian Basin. See Milo (2014),
49–56; Stanciu (2017), 62–68.
are in fact the first open, non-fortified settlements in the Balkans in more than
150 years. Moreover, the economic profile of the small communities living in
those villages is different from those in Prekmurje and Podravina, but simi-
lar to the model of “itinerant agriculture” advanced for the lands north of the
river Danube in the 6th century (see chapter 7).62 Although they most likely
relied on the cultivation of crops, those people also raised animals and prac-
ticed fishing by means of cast nets. Those were self-sufficient, small communi-
ties living in what in the early 7th century must have been the borderlands of
the Avar qaganate and its sphere of influence. That such settlements have so
far not been found in the rich agricultural lands between the Drava and the
Sava rivers, or across the Stara Planina Mountains, in Thrace, strongly suggests
that the expansion of rural communities into the borderlands of the qaganate
was under the control of the Avar elites. According to Theophanes, when the
Bulgars crossed the Danube in 681, they subdued the Slavic tribes in the area
of “Varna, as it is called, near Odyssos and the inland territory that is there.”
They then resettled two of those tribes—the Severeis along the frontier with
the Empire, and the “so-called Seven Tribes” on the frontier with the Avars.63
Whether or not they can be in any way associated with those tribes, the rural
settlements at Popina and Garvan are the only archaeological evidence that,
outside coastal cities such as Mesembria (Nesebăr), the Bulgarian lands in the
northern Balkans were inhabited at all before the Bulgar migration.
A distribution map of all isolated burials and cemeteries dated with some
degree of certainty to the 7th century shows a clear cluster of sites on the
northern boundary of the Balkans, which is directly comparable to that of
rural settlements.64 However, unlike settlements, cemeteries and isolated buri-
als appear in great numbers along the western coast of the Peninsula, from
the Peloponnese to Istria, with a prominent cluster in northern Albania. In
Macedonia, burial assemblages are typically associated with ruins of old
churches.65 For example, at Sv. Erazmo, on the northern shore of Lake Ohrid,
there were 124 graves inside and outside the ruins of a 6th-century basilica.
62 Curta (2001c), 276 with n. 57. Much like in the lands north of the river Danube, no parts of
plows have been found on any 7th-century site in the northern Balkans, even though the
consumption (and perhaps cultivation) of cereals is betrayed by finds of querns and the
occasional inclusion of cereal seeds in the fabric of the local handmade pottery.
63 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, 359; trans. 499. See also Beshevliev (1967); Pletn’ov
(2008), 103–108; Pletn’ov (2011).
64 Curta (2013c), 214 fig. 13.
65 At Shurdhah, in Albania, graves were placed on the southern side and around the apse
of a church; see Spahiu and Komata (1974), 316. In Šas (near Ulcinj, in Montenegro), two
burial chambers were found next to the church of the Holy Virgin; see Janković (2007), 27
and 29–32; 26 fig. 11; 30 figs. 17–18; 31 fig. 19.
Some cut through the mosaic pavement in the nave, others were directly on
top of the mosaic pavement. The earliest graves cluster in the southern aisle
and are dated to the 7th century by means of such diagnostic artifacts as fibu-
lae with bent stem, earrings with star-shaped pendant, torcs, and semicircular
pendants with open-work ornament. Later graves dated to the early 9th cen-
tury appear in the nave and in the northern apse.66 Seventh-century burials,
some of them with weapons, are also known from Athens and Corinth.67 In one
of them, an agricultural implement (mattock) was deposited next to a lance
head, two arrowheads, and a belt buckle.68 Weapons have also been found in
several cemeteries in northern Albania—swords, arrow and lance heads, and
battle-axes.69 But the Albanian cemeteries also produced evidence of continu-
ity of late antique practices.70 For example, a significant number of graves in
the large cemetery excavated in Kruje (north of Tirana) produced wheel-made
jugs, some with painted ornaments resembling late 5th- to early 7th-century
pottery from southern Italy.71 Even more interesting is the deposition of old
artifacts (such as the 4th-century crossbow brooch from grave 6 in Kruje) and
the (secondary) burial in prehistoric mounds (as in Klos, central Albania). Such
practices point to concerns with connecting with the past, a phenomenon doc-
umented on several sites in southeastern Albania and northern Greece during
the 8th and 9th centuries (see chapter 20).72 Equally significant is the homoge-
neity of the burial rites. From southern Greece to Istria, 7th-century cemeter-
ies in the western Balkans may be easily distinguished from others by means
of a few specific traits: stone or brick cists; furnished burial; the occasional
66 Malenko (1976), 222 and 232–34; 223 fig. 2; 224 fig. 3; 231 fig. 13; 234 fig. 14; Malenko (1985),
288–89 and pls. V–XIII; Babić (1995), 161; Maneva (2006); Filiposki (2010).
67 Travlos and Frantz (1965); Ivison (1996). For burials in 7th-century Greece, see also Curta
(2016c).
68 Davidson (1937), 230 and 232; 231 fig. 2J.
69 Degrand (1901), p. 264; Nopcsa (1912), 198 fig. 85; Anamali/Spahiu (1963), 17 fig. 6; 19 fig.
8/1, 2, 4 and 21 fig. 7; Spahiu (1964), 78 fig.; Anamali (1971), 217; pl. I/1, 3; II/2; III/6; VII/1–3;
XII/4; XIV/6; XV/8; Kurti (1971), 269 with pl. I; Anamali/Spahiu, (1979–1980), 54; Spahiu
(1979–1980), 29–30 and 37–38; 38 fig. 9; pls. I/4; II/1, 2, 7; II/4, 12, 13; IV/2, 4, 6, 10, 12; V/4, 5,
11, 12, 14, 16, 17; Doda (1989), 149 and 150; 170 pl. VII/1–7; 173 pl. X/3, 6, 9, 10. See also Agolli
(2006) and Bowden (2014), 353 and 354–55.
70 Nallbani (2004a); Curta (2013b).
71 Anamali/Spahiu (1963), 23 pl. V/3–4, 6, 9–11; 26 pl. VI/1, 3–12; 27 fig. 9; 28 fig. 10; Arthur
(1998); Arthur/Patterson (1998), 517. One-handled, small jugs with painted ornament also
appear in 7th-century assemblages in the Crimea and in Crete.
72 Anamali/Spahiu (1963), 34 fig. 13; Kurti (1971). See also Nallbani (2003), 115; Nallbani
(2006); Nallbani (2007), 59–60; Curta (2016d).
73 Weapon burials appear in Istria as well. See Marušić (1967), 337 and 342 pl. III/4; Marušić
(1984), 35 pl. VI/6; Torcellan (1986), pp. 64, 72–74, and 77; pl. 9/8; pl. 11/3, 4; pl. 25/10;
pl. 26/9, 10, 12, 13; pl. 28/4, 8, 11; pl. 32/13. For 7th-century cemeteries in Istria and their rela-
tions to (fortified) settlements, see Miclaus (2002).
74 Nallbani (2004b), 487.
75 Spahiu/Komata (1974); Karaiskaj (1989).
76 Nallbani (2017), 339–40. Nallbani suggests that responsible for the population growth
were refugees from the northern parts of the Balkan Peninsula.
77 Elsewhere in the Balkans, forts that continued to be occupied into the 7th century are
located only in coastal areas. For example, the second occupation phase inside the fort
at Dokos—an islet in the Argolid Bay—is coin-dated to the reigns of Constans II and
Constantine IV. According to Kyrou (1995), 113, the Church of St. John the Theologian and
the adjacent cemetery with cist graves must be attributed to that phase, but no further
details exist either about the building or about the graves. At Isthmia, a group of rooms in
the northwestern corner of the Bath have been built in rough masonry. One of them had
a cooking hearth, another had an apsidal structure at the south end. The associated quern
stones bespeak the rural character of the occupation. See Gregory (1993a). The ceramic
material from those rooms is similar to that found on the southern side of the northeast-
ern gate together with a coin struck for Constans II in 655/6. See Gregory (1993b), 41, 85,
and 123.
78 A couple of billknives are known from Komani, for which see Ippen (1907), 17 fig. 26/11;
Spahiu (1971), pl. II/4. For billknives and mattocks from Shurdhah, which have been ten-
tatively dated to the 7th and 8th centuries, see Spahiu (1976), pl. VIII/1–3.
79 Spahiu (1993).
80 For finds of the latest variant of the Phocaean form 10 (dated to the mid-7th century)
from Split, see Dvoržak Schrunk (1996), 285. According to Ferluga (1993), 452 the 7th
century witnessed a “diminution, not interruption” of commercial exchanges across the
Mediterranean.
81 The iron and lead contents of the Lezhë beads are close to the so-called Slavic potash rich
high lead glasses, whereas they are clearly distinct from other medieval central European
lead glasses; see Neri/Gratuze/Schibille (2018), 2, 4, 8, and 10.
82 Curta (2014), 58 and 88 fig. 1.
83 Curta (2005a), 118; Curta (2014), 89 fig. 2.
early 660s.84 The large number of copper coins indicates the existence in
Athens and Corinth of local markets of low-price commodities, such as food in
small quantities, serving a population that had access to both low-value coin-
age and sea lanes linking Greece to Constantinople.85 It has been suggested
that those were the oarsmen or the sailors of the imperial navy. Such troops
could rely on constant supplies of fresh food at certain points along the coast,
but exactly where and how that food was produced in sufficiently large quan-
tities to be sold on the market remains unknown. At any rate, such markets
may have opened to monetary exchanges only upon demand. Only 30 coins
of Emperor Constantine IV are known from Athens, a small fraction of the
total number of coins struck for Constans II that have been found on the site.
Without the presence of the imperial court and fleet, Athens was just as iso-
lated as the communities that buried their dead in northern Albania.
84 Hendy (1985), 662. While the emperor’s stay in Athens must have been a major event,
Constans II’s portrait also appears on one of the five control stamps on the back of a
silver plate found in Rakhovica (near Sevlievo, northern Bulgaria). The stamp represents
Constans II and his son, the future emperor Constantine IV. As such, the stamp must be
dated between 659 and 668, which is also the date for the plate. See Gerasimov (1966),
218–219; 217 figs. 3–4. It is difficult to explain the presence of this piece of Byzantine
silverware so far to the north, especially in the absence of any contextual information.
However, it is possibly that the plate reached northern Bulgaria somewhat later, perhaps
under the reign of Constantine IV, under the guise of a gift for a Bulgar chieftain.
85 In Greece, most single finds of coins struck after 630 and before 711 have been found on
sites located immediately on the coast or at a short distance from it, as well as on nearby
islands. A Byzantine presence only in the coastal region in eastern Greece and on some
islands in the Aegean is further substantiated by finds of seals. Among the few that can be
dated with any degree of certainty to the 7th century, only one is known from Athens, and
another from Chinitsa (an islet in the Argolid Bay). See Curta (2014), 92 fig. 5; Avramea
(1996), 20; Koltsida-Makri (2011), 251.
According to the story of the holy fathers and bishops of Chersonesus pre-
served in Old Church Slavonic translation in the late 10th- or early 11th-
century manuscript known as Codex Suprasliensis (or Retkov Miscellany),
Aitherios, the missionary whom Ermon, Patriarch of Jerusalem (283–314) sent
in the early 4th century to Chersonesus to turn its inhabitants to Christianity
never reached that city. Due to adverse winds, his ship landed instead on an
island named Alsos, “in the region of the river Dnieper,” where Aitherios fell
ill and died. Later, the Chersonites erected a column on his tomb to com-
memorate one of their first seven bishops.1 The legend of the seven bishops
of Chersonesus was most likely compiled in Chersonesus in the 7th century
on the basis of independent texts, one of which was the now lost vita of
St. Aitherios. That the island of Alsos is mentioned in both the Greek and the
Old Church Slavonic versions of the legend has been interpreted as an indica-
tion that even in the 7th century, the inhabitants of Chersonesus were familiar
with the geography of the northern coast of the Black Sea, particularly with
the estuary of the Dnieper.2 That interpretation is based in fact on a much later
source, the treatise On the Administration of the Empire attributed to Emperor
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, according to which “from the Dnieper river
to Cherson is 300 miles, and between are marshes and harbours, in which the
Chersonites work the salt.”3 In fact, the rhetorically elaborate text of the legend
of the seven bishops of Chersonesus may have drawn from literary sources,
not from contemporary concerns with the geography of the Dnieper estuary in
the 6th or 7th century. Moreover, in Antiquity, the Chersonites extracted salt
from much closer sources, namely the beds in the northwestern part of the
Herakleian Peninsula, the triangular headland on the southwestern coast of
figure 9 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes (ancient names in italics)
the Crimea, where the city of Chersonesus was located (Fig. 9).4 However, there
is more than meets the eye to the history of Aitherios and the Alsos island.5
Archaeological sources suggest that during the 6th and 7th centuries,
Chersonesus was a major center for the commercialization of salted fish and
fish sauce (garum). Both were products of a flourishing fishing industry, which
relied primarily on the biannual migration of large shawls of anchovies to
the shallow coastal areas in the northern Black Sea region, where the rivers
Dnieper and Don brought fresh water to the sea.6 Chersonesus was definitely
not the only center of the fishing industry which experienced something of a
boom in the 6th century. In Bosporus (Pantikapaion, present-day Kerch), the
fishermen and the traders of fish and garum lived not far from the port, at the
foot of Mount Mitridat. The excavations carried out there in 2007 and 2008
brought to light three houses of fishmongers, one of which had a fish-salting
4 Čechová (2014), 230. According to Sorochan (2013), 205, the salt pans in the western part of
the Heracles Peninsula produced over 2,200 tons of salt annually.
5 For the historiography of 6th- to 7th-century Chersonesus and the Crimea, see Jastrzębowska
(2001; Ushakov (2013); Khrushkova (2017).
6 European anchovies in the Black Sea migrate in the summer to the north, especially to the
shallow waters of the Sea of Azov, to feed and to breed, and then return to the deep waters in
the winter.
cistern.7 Eight such cisterns have also been found at Tiritake, a rural settlement
about seven miles south of Bosporus.8 Each of those cisterns was 102 cubic
meters (about 641 barrels) large, but typically shallow, and therefore meant
for the salting of large and expensive fish—sturgeon, mullet, kalkan (Black
Sea turbot), or zander.9 By contrast, the fish-salting vats in Chersonesus were
deep (as much as three meters), and of much smaller capacity, between 25 and
30 cubic meters (157–189 barrels).10 As a consequence, those installations were
not for salting the fish, but for producing fish sauce (garum) on the basis of
anchovies, as confirmed by bones found on the bottom of many vats.11 Out of
all 101 vats so far known from Chersonesus, only 19 percent may be certainly
dated to the late 6th or early 7th century, but fish-salting cisterns continued
to be built in the city through the 10th century.12 The production of fish sauce
(and salted fish) had two annual cycles, which depended upon the fishing sea-
sons (Fall and Spring). Given that 1 cubic meter of fish weighed between 0.8
and 0.9 tons, the estimated production of salted fish per year was between
1,240 and 1,590 tons.13 Such figures are of course estimates based on the num-
ber of fish salting vats known so far as having been in operation during the 6th
and 7th centuries, but it is important to remember that only about a third of
the ancient city of Chersonesus has been excavated, and that the number of
vats in existence may have therefore been considerably larger. At any rate, even
the current estimates suggest a massive involvement of the local population in
7 Aibabin (2013), 60; and Aibabin (2019). For another fish-salting facility discovered during
the 2007–2009 excavations on the opposite side of Mount Mitridat, on the site of the
modern museum of history and archaeology, see Zin’ko/Zin’ko (2017). See also Aibabin
(2017).
8 Marti (1941). For Tiritake in the 6th and 7th centuries, see also Sazanov (2004); Zin’ko
(2008).
9 Romanchuk (2005), 102–103. Each vat in Tiritake produced between 88 and 90 tons of
salted fish.
10 Romanchuk (2005), 103; Čechová (2014), 230. Kroll (2010), 66 notes that fishbones found
in 6th- to 7th-century assemblages from the southern part of Chersonesus indicate
local consumption. Those were very different species than those targeted by the fishing
industry—brill, thornback ray, sturgeons.
11 Čechová (2014), 231.
12 Most vats built in the 6th century were located on the southern side of the city, in the
area of the ancient theatre. See Romanchuk (1977), 19 and 26; Aibabin/Zaseckaia (2003),
49–50; Sorochan (2013), 204 with n. 12 (vats 6, 30–33, 52, 55, 56, 68, 69, 72, 76, 92, and
97–101). Some vats were dated on the basis of bricks with monograms employed in the
construction, others on the basis of coins or artifacts found in the filling. See Romanchuk
(1973). For late 6th- and early 7th-century deposits in the fillings of the fish-salting vats in
Chersonesus, see Golofast (2007) and Sazanov (2014).
13 For a somewhat lower estimate (1,091 tons), based on a smaller number of vats presum-
ably in operation during the 6th and 7th century, see Aibabin/Zaseckaia (2003), 50.
both fishing and fish-salting industry.14 This production was definitely meant
for the market in Constantinople and beyond, and not for local consumption.15
As late as 655, in one of his letters sent from exile, Pope Martin I (649–655)
mentioned salt in the context of ships coming into the harbor of Chersonesus
with cargoes of grain.16 The ships that carried the grain to Crimea most likely
returned with cargoes of salt.
There is no cluster of vats in any particular area, but they are instead scat-
tered across the city, each built next to a private residence.17 In the absence
of written sources, nothing is known about the social organization of produc-
tion. However, the distribution of vats in the city suggests that the fishing and
fish salting industry was a family business. Free members of the family may
have been involved, along with hired workers and slaves. At any rate, the fact
that after a while vats were backfilled cannot be interpreted as an indication
that any such “family firm” went out of business, for in all known cases, the
reason for backfilling seems to have been to make room for new buildings.18
As a matter of fact, the 6th century, particularly its second half, as well as
the early decades of the 7th century saw a building boom in Chersonesus.19
The development of fishing and the fish salting industry must have stimulated
14 Sorochan (2013), 207. To fill one vat completely, one needed the catch from about 30
boats, each manned by two or three persons. According to Romanchuk (2005), 106, to fill
a vat, a single person needed 80 to 90 days of labor.
15 According to Sorochan (2013), 205, the annual production was worth some 7,000
gold coins. Albrecht (2016), p. 359 suggests that the Chersonite trade with garum for
Constantinople took advantage of the interruption of deliveries from Spain during the
6th century. On the other hand, the demand from troops stationed in the region cannot
have been that important, given that, unlike the Balkans, the number of armed forces
in the Crimea remained relatively small, even after the creation of the office of duke
of Chersonesus during the last third of the 6th century. See Sorochan (2014); Sorochan
(2008); Khrapunov (2011).
16 Narrationes, 226 (Latin) and 227 (English translation). Martin’s letters survive only
in the 9th-century Latin translation from Greek by the papal librarian Anastasius
Bibliothecarius. See also Borodin (1991), 179; and Neil (2010), 181. For Pope Martin I’s exile
in Chersonesus, see also Shestakov (1908); Sorochan (2004); Domanovskii (2016).
17 Romanchuk, Studien, p. 103.
18 Čechová, “Fish products”, p. 231.
19 Romanchuk (2006); but see Romanchuk (2018). No less than 10 basilicas were built in
Chersonesus during the 6th and 7th centuries. See Beliaev (1989); Biernacki/Klenina,
(2006). The idea of a “building boom” in late 6th- and early 7th-century Chersonesus has
been rejected by Biernacki (2009), 145–46 on the basis of the chronology of the architec-
tural elements and details in the basilicas dated to that period.
figure 10
Cherson(esus), dies for the production of
belt mounts. Redrawn after Aibabin (1982a)
the growth of a number of other crafts, but the archaeological evidence for
that is so far meager.20
Crucibles, slag, casting moulds, and dies have been discovered between
1910 and 1912 in two buildings (XI and 26) of district III in the northeastern
part of the city (Fig. 10).21 A glass-working shop signaled by finds of testing
droplets and slag is known from districts XXV and XXVIII in the northern part
of the city.22 Exactly what was produced in that workshop remains unknown,
but some have argued that all stemmed goblets found in 6th- and 7th-century
assemblages in Chersonesus have been brought to the city from elsewhere in
the Empire.23 The same cannot be true for the entirety of the enormous quan-
tity of ceramic material resulting from excavations in the city and dated to
that same period, even though no kiln has so far been found in Chersonesus
that could be compared to those known from the Balkans (see chapter 3).24
Most slipped wares in use in Chersonesus during the first three quarters of
the 6th century came from workshops in the Black Sea region, the exact loca-
tion of which remains unknown.25 Beginning with the last quarter of the 6th
and throughout the first half of the 7th century, the dominant tableware in
the city were the Phocaean Red Slip (PRS) and African Red Slip (ARS) wares.26
All three ceramic categories appear also in Bosporus (Kerch), Phanagoria
(near Sennoi, on the eastern shore of the Taman Bay), and on several rural
settlements in the Kerch Peninsula (Zolotoe Vostochnoe, Zelenyi Mys, Tiritake,
Zenonov Chersonesos, Ilyraton, Il’ichevka, and Kepoi).27 Their development
and chronological relations are very similar to those established on the basis
of the detailed study of ceramic assemblages from Chersonesus, which sug-
gests that, unlike the Balkans, the demand for fine pottery was not restricted
to urban areas. Moreover, the commercial trends in the late 6th and early 7th
one single jeweler was responsible for their production; see Shablavina (2007) and
Shablavina (2005).
22 Aibabin/Zaseckaia (2003), 49; Sedikova/Iashaeva (2004), 35; Sorochan (2013), 215–16. The
great number of glass pitchers and beakers found in burial assemblages throughout the
Peninsula—in the hinterland of Chersonesus (Sakharna Golivka), in the interior (Bakla
and Skalyste, near Bakhchesarai) or on the southern coast (Suuk Su, near Hurzuf)—are
very likely of local production. See Borisova (1959), 187 and fig. 10; Veimarn/Aibabin
(1993), 6 with 8 fig. 3/8; 39 with 38 fig. 22/23; 41 with 44 fig. 26/2; 68 with fig. 45/1; 95 with
94 fig. 66/24; Aibabin/Iurochkin (1995), 130 and 235 fig. 30/4; Repnikov (1907), 117. Glass
pitchers and jars are also known from Kerch and may have also been produced locally,
but whether in Pantikapaion or in Chersonesus remains a question without answer. See
Shkorpil (1913), 18–21; Zaseckaia (1997), 447–48 and 474 fig. 18/9–11. Only chemical analy-
ses and hopefully the discovery of more glass-working shops may clarify the problem.
23 Golofast (2001) and Golofast (2009), 315.
24 Several 6th- to 7th-century kilns are known from eastern Crimea (Kerch and Il’ichevka)
and the Taman Peninsula (Phanagoria). See Ivashchenko (1997), 74 and 75 figs. 1–2.
25 Those were the so-called Pontic Red Slip wares of form 7, for which see Ushakov (2015), 66
and 68 fig. 2/2, 3.
26 Romanchuk/Sazanov (1991). For PRS in Chersonesus, see Golofast (2002). For the pres-
ence of slipped wares in Chersonesus long after 600, see Sazanov (1992).
27 Sazanov (1994). According to Smokotina (2011), the percentage of ARS in 6th-century
assemblages in Bosporus is rather modest. For amphorae found in the courtyard of a
house in Tiritake, see Zin’ko (2008), 329 and 335–36.
century seem to have affected the entire peninsula in basically the same way.
This could only mean that the presence of fine pottery was directly associ-
ated to the explosion of the fishing and fish-salting industry.28 The analysis of
amphora finds bespeaks the far-reaching ramifications of the trade network to
which Crimea was now connected. A large deposit of broken trade amphorae,
tableware and other pottery was found in 2006 at the foot of Mount Mitridat in
Kerch. The vast majority of the containers in that deposit are of Aegean origin,
with amphorae carrying wine being the most important.29 Unlike the Balkans,
the dominant type of amphora in ceramic assemblages in the North Black Sea
region is Late Roman 1 (LR 1). In Kerch, the importance of that amphora began
to increase during the second quarter of the 6th century, when it reached
20 to 25 percent of all the ceramic material in some assemblages.30 After the
mid-6th century, however, for about a century or so, most common on all sites
in the northern Black Sea were amphorae from Crete.31 Whether wine, oil, or
dry substances, goods in bulk packed in amphorae continued to move from
the eastern Mediterranean to the northern coast of the Black Sea, most likely
through the mediation of Constantinople.32 It is important to note that the
evidence of contacts with other, neighboring regions around the Black Sea
during this period is comparatively insignificant.33 Much more important was
the network of distribution, whether by trade or by other means, that brought
foreign goods to communities in the interior, where elements of the latest
28 This may even be true for Hermonassa (near Taman, on the eastern shore of the Kerch
Strait). Both PRS and ARS have been found in excavations on the site, but the precise
chronology of their presence on the site remains unclear. Chkhaidze (2005), 149 mentions
glass finds in the same context.
29 Fedoseev et al. (2010). There were also amphorae of Levantine origin found together with
PRS. For another assemblage of similar structure, see Smokotina (2008). For deposits of
the same date in Chersonesus, see Sazanov (2000b).
30 Smokotina (2014). For a cargo of LR 1 amphorae on a shipwreck discovered near Cape
Plaka (near Partenit, on the southestern coast of the Peninsula), see Waksman et al.
(2014), 919–22. For amphorae in the Black Sea region, see also Sazanov (2007); Sazanov
(2016).
31 Sazanov (2014).
32 To Jordanes, writing in Constantinople in the mid-6th century, Chersonesus was the place
to which “the avaricious traders bring in the goods of Asia” (Jordanes, Getica V 37, 63;
transl., 60). As Diller (1952), 110 has pointed out, Jordanes is the first author to call the city
by its medieval name—Cherson, instead of Chersonesus.
33 Only one amphora of Pontic (presumably Crimean) origin dated to the 6th or 7th century
has so far been found in the lands along the western shore of the Black Sea; see Paraschiv
(2006), 41. For Constantinople as a relay for the distribution to Crimea of Danube lamps
originating in the Balkans, see Curta (2016f), 87 and 89–90.
34 Khairedinova (2010). Exemplary in that respect is the piece of silk decorated with figura-
tive patterns, which was found in a burial chamber on the southern side of Great Agora in
Chersonesus, next to basilica 28; see Sorochan (2013), 245–46 and 246 fig. 92. That goods
of Constantinopolitan origin reached the interior through markets in Chersonesus results
from the occasional presence of coins from the mint of Chersonesus in burial assem-
blages in the region—one struck for Justin II and found in Luchyste (in the mountains
above Alushta, in southern Crimea), the other struck for Maurice and found in Koreiz
(near Yalta, on the southern coast). See Aibabin/Khairedinova (2009), 110–16 and pl. 113/1;
Repnikov (1906), 36–37. See also Aibabin/Zaseckaia (2003), 50.
35 Cattle bones have been found in two burial chambers of the cemetery excavated in
Skalyste; see Veimarn/Aibabin (1993), 122 and 126. Another burial chamber from the same
cemetery produced sheep bones deposited inside a ceramic bowl [Veimarn/Aibabin
(1993), 125]. A similar context (the bone of a sheep inside a ceramic bowl) has been
documented in an inhumation grave from a cemetery excavated near Yalta; see Turova/
Chernysh (2015), 139. A single vertebra of a sheep (or a goat) was found near the elbow of
a teenager in burial chamber 79 from the cemetery excavated in Luchyste; see Aibabin/
Khairedinova (2014), 126. Bird (possibly fowl) bones have been found, together with egg
shells, on the floor of the burial chamber 7 in Verkhn’osadove (near Sevastopil’); see
Ushakov/Filippenko (2001), 23. Egg shells are also known from Skalyste [burial chamber
494; Veimarn/Aibabin (1993), 125]. There is also evidence of fishing (in the form of fishing
hooks) in three separate burial assemblages of the cemetery excavated in Suuk Su (now
in Hurzuf, on the southern coast of the Peninsula): Repnikov (1907), 109 and 119–120; 147
fig. 129a–b. For textile remains, see Veimarn/Aibabin (1993), 95 and 118; Repnikov (1932),
159; Bemmann et al. (2013), 40 and pl. 2/34.
36 Schreg/Herdick/Albert (2013); Albrecht (2016), 373. For Mangup, see Gercen (2001);
Gercen (2003); Gercen et al. (2015). For Eski Kermen, see Kharitonov (2004). For Chufut
Kale and Bakla, see Aibabin (2017), 20–22.
seems to indicate the rapid integration into the hierarchical system of the late
6th-century empire.37 By contrast, next to nothing is known about the urban
elites of Chersonesus and Bosporus, the owners of fish-salting vats and those
who profited from the booming trade with other parts of the empire.38
The importance of that trade results from the fact that throughout the 6th
century, as well as later, Chersonesus had a currency of its own, which was most
likely meant to meet the demands of the market economy in the city.39 The
single denomination was struck, initially for Emperor Justin I, at the size and
weight of the 4th-century centenionalis and therefore circulated most likely
as an equivalent of a five-nummia piece.40 At some point before the middle of
the century, the monogram of the city appeared on the reverse, and later the
name Cherson(esus) replaced the name of the emperor.41 This has been rightly
interpreted as a recognition of the special, autonomous status of the city on the
periphery of the Empire. However, it would be a mistake to interpret the pecu-
liar coinage of Chersonesus in terms of the supposed isolation of the city. Both
Egypt (as a province) and Thessalonica (as a city) had their own currencies
in the form of special denominations struck specifically for the local markets
(see chapter 3). The small denominations that appeared in Chersonesus and a
number of other sites in the Crimea, must therefore be regarded as a response
to the demand of instruments of exchange for numerous transactions of small
value, in itself a sign of a vibrant market economy, and ultimately of prosper-
ity. That prosperity clearly continued well into the 7th century, as indicated by
coins that were struck for (if not also in) Chersonesus in the name of Emperor
37 Soupault (1996). For Mangup as the residence of a local chieftain with military attribu-
tions, see Albrecht (2016), 374. For the society in the interior as a form of “military democ-
racy,” see Furas’ev (2009), 224. High status appears to be marked primarily in female, not
male burials; see Khairedinova (2002).
38 The only burials in Kerch’ and in its environs that have been attributed to members of
local elites are graves of warriors; see Kazanski (2018).
39 Hahn (2000), 39 and 106–07; Choref (2013); Choref (2015), 29–38. It remains unclear
whether the coins were struck at a local mint in Chersonesus or elsewhere (perhaps in
Constantinople).
40 Studitskii/Butyrskii (2000); Choref (2013), 176–77 and 180; Choref (2015), 24–29; Rivera
et al. (2015), 184–200. Four hoards of 4th-century nummia so far known from the Crimea
suggest that, much like in Greece, low denominations (some of which may have been
minted locally) were in circulation together with “recycled” Roman coins of the same or
similar weight; see Alekseenko (2003a) and Korshenko (2013), 247, 248 and 250–51.
41 Hahn (1978), 414; Hahn (2000), 65 and 157–58.
Constans II (641–688).42 Moreover, throughout the first half of the 7th century,
small bronze denominations were also minted in Bosporus.43
There are indeed no signs that the trade that boomed around 600 had
slowed down eighty years later. As a matter of fact, the lucrative commerce
taking place in the city of Chersonesus attracted the attention of the imperial
government, as indicated by finds of seals of kommerkiarioi, who were state offi-
cials in charge with controlling and most likely taxing the trade. Five such seals
may be dated to the reigns of Heraclius and Constans II.44 Seventh-century
Cherson(esus) maintained its old street grid, and the city walls were renewed
at some point between the 7th and the 9th century, as indicated by excavations
of the western walls and towers.45 Despite such evidence, under the influ-
ence of the Marxist model of analysis, scholars have long believed that in the
7th century, the city entered a long decline, from which it recovered only after
ca. 800.46 During the Soviet era, the rarity of coin finds was interpreted as a
sign that the economy of Chersonesus has turned “natural.”47 Others take Pope
Martin I’s mention of ships bringing grain to Chersonesus as an indication
that, like Thessalonica a few decades earlier, the city relied on imports, and not
on its hinterland for agricultural supplies.48 Still others believe that the annual
production of salt and salted fish was sufficiently large to procure the grain
necessary for the survival of the city, given that even in the 6th century, the soil
42 Guruleva (1996).
43 Sidorenko (2007). That coins were readily available in Bosporus in the early 6th century
results from the episode of the Huns converted to Christianity in 529. According to John
Malalas, Chronographia XVIII 14, 361 (transl., 250), they melted down their idols made of
silver and electrum, and exchanged the metal in Bosporus, “taking miliaresia in return.”
While John Malalas specifically mentions Bosporus as a center of trade “between Romans
and Huns,” silver coins (miliaresia) were rare in the 6th century (as opposed to gold and
copper), and may have been introduced into the story only to accommodate the narra-
tive strategy focused on the destruction of the silver idols. The episode is discussed in
Moravcsik (1967), 19.
44 Alekseenko (2004). For a later seal of a kommerkiarios, see Likhachev (1924), 175–76 and
pl. X/8; Sokolova (1991), 205–06.
45 Antonova (1971), 106; Romanchuk (2005), 80–81. A substantial layer of 7th- to 8th-century
material has been found underneath area 4 in district III, next to the Uvarov Basilica
[Romanchuk (2005), 161].
46 Iakobson (1964), 233.
47 For a thorough critique of that notion, see Sorochan et al. (2006), 151–52. For coin circula-
tion in and around Cherson during the 7th century, see Alekseenko (2005).
48 Curta (2016e), 150. As Neil (2010), 184 points out, Martin’s complaints about the lack of
grain, oil, and wine in Chersonesus, and the exorbitant price of wheat sold from “small
boats which come here occasionally to take back a load of salt” [Neil (2006), 227] cannot
be taken at face value. They are in fact variations on the literary topos of physical hardship
most typical for the consolatio genre going back to Ovid.
49 Sorochan (2013), 205. For environment and soil conditions in the mountain region, see
Schreg (2009).
50 Novellae 163, 751. According to Albrecht (2012), 254, those were not taxes, but some other
dues in kind to be paid by Crimean farmers. While the nature of those goods for the fleet
remains unknown, one can think of such things as salted meat or biscuits. According to
Hendy (1985), 50 with n. 59 this piece of information contradicts the letter of Pope Martin
mentioning grain coming to Cherson from the outside.
51 Nikolaenko (1984); Iashaeva (2003), 119 and 121.
52 Iashaeva (2003), 128–29.
of the 7th century, which was primarily based on the fishing and fish-salting
industry. Instead of receiving massive assistance in the form of the annona,
the Black Sea region during the 7th century played a major role in provisioning
Constantinople and its hinterland with grain. After the fall of Egypt, first to the
Persians (618), then to the Arabs (642), Crimea and Sicily became the new gra-
naries of the empire.59 Neither a peripheral city, which supposedly existed only
under special circumstances, nor a “city of transitional type,” Cherson(esus)
now appears to historians of Byzantium as a “continuous” city with a consider-
ably degree of continuity in infrastructure and use of space between Antiquity
and the Middle Ages.60 The careful study of economic developments in the
Crimea during the 6th and the 7th centuries thus contradicts the orthodox
thesis about “decay,” crisis and the transformation of the economy during the
Dark Ages: no signs of general impoverishment, no de-urbanization, and no
decrease in long-distance trade. In fact, Chersonesus was most likely one of the
“bases from which the medieval Byzantine economy would launch its progres-
sive recovery in the late eighth century.”61
59 Csiky (2015b), 330 notes that the shift is reflected in the dramatic changes of activity in the
harbors of Constantinople. The Theodosian harbor of Yenikapı was abandoned, with new
harbors gaining in significance, such as Prosphorion and Neorion in the Golden Horn Bay,
which opens towards the Black Sea.
60 Brandes (1989), 21; Romanchuk (2000–2001), 146; Brubaker/Haldon (2011), 536.
61 Laiou/Morrisson (2007), 42. There is not a single mention of Cherson(esus) in Laiou and
Morrisson’s book.
In the early 6th century, despite raiding deep into the central and western
Balkan provinces of the Empire, the Gepids were theoretically clients of the
Roman emperor, from whom they received annual subsidies.1 Meanwhile, a
group of Herules, who had been badly defeated by the Lombards in 508, formed
an alliance with Emperor Anastasius, who settled them in southern Pannonia,
probably in the environs of Singidunum (now Belgrade; Fig. 11).2 During the
early years of his reign, Justinian renewed the alliance with the Gepids, as well
as the payment of stipends, in order to put pressure on the Gothic hold of
Sirmium (now Sremska Mitrovica, in Serbia), a city that the Gepids first took
in 527.3 Because the Gepids refused to leave Sirmium, Justinian stopped the
payment of stipends and attacked them in 538, without much success. When
military campaigns failed, the emperor allied himself with another group.
In 539, King Wacho of the Lombards became a Roman client as well.4 Later,
Emperor Justinian granted to the Lombards “a great amount of money.”5
During the first half of the 6th century, a “three-tiered Roman client system”
therefore came into being, which covered almost the entire Carpathian Basin.6
However, and despite considerable amounts of coined gold being shipped
to that region from Constantinople, very little survives in the archaeological
1 The status of imperial clients and allies dates back to the reign of Marcian (450–457), who
began to pay 100 pounds of gold coins annually to the Gepid king Ardaric. See Curta (2001c),
190–91. For the Gepid raid of 517, see Sarantis (2009), 20–21, who notes that the raids were in
fact meant to raise the amount of gold extracted from Constantinople. For Gepids during the
first third of the 6th century, see Pandura (2004), 69–71.
2 Comes Marcellinus, Chronicle, 98. According to Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VI 14.33, vol.
3, 411, at the beginning of his reign, Justinian distributed “good lands and other property”
to those Herules, who were also converted to Christianity. For Herules as Roman clients,
see Steinacher (2010), 350–51; Sarantis (2010), 369–70; Steinacher (2017), 145. For southern
Pannonia during the first half of the 6th century, see also Gračanin (2007); Gračanin (2015).
3 Sarantis, (2009), 21; Popović (2017), 13–14.
4 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VI 22.11–12, vol. 3, 60.
5 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VII 33.10, vol. 3, 440; transl., 445.
6 Sarantis (2009), 27.
figure 11 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes (ancient names in italics)
7 Only three coins are known from burial assemblages (Gyula and Hódmezővásárhely in
Hungary, and Lužice in the Czech Republic) and two from one and the same hoard assem-
blage (Zašovice, Czech Republic). One of the coins from Lužice was pierced in order
to be turned into a pendant, which suggests a much later date of deposition. See Tănase
(2010), 142; Banner (1933–1934), 260; Tejral et al., (2011), 303 and 412 pl. 80.113/1; 259–60
and 387 pl. 54/1; Militký (2003), 66–7. For the interpretation of isolated finds, see Kiss
(2003), 186, 188, and 190–91. The use of gold coins is indirectly documented by occasional
finds of early Byzantine bronze weights and scales. See Gohl (1913), 14–15; Freeden/Vida
(2005), 370–72 and 371 fig. 7/4. A silver medal of Emperor Anastasius from an unknown
location in Hungary had no monetary value and was most likely obtained as a gift; see
Biró-Sey (1976).
8 With one exception, all known hoards are from the territory of the Czech Republic, so from
outside the Carpathian Basin. See Biró-Sey (1987), 171; Pochitonov (1953); Kuna/Profantová
(2005), 283, 284 and 286; Militký (2010), 29–31, 106–07 and 111–12; Lovász (1986–1987), 138–39
and pl. IV/3; Ruttkay (2007), 336.
9 The same is true for the few coins that the Gepid king Cunimund struck in Sirmium
in imitation of Byzantine and Ostrogothic coins. See Brunšmid (1924); Meixner (1956);
Demo (1981), 464 and 481; Popović (2017), 13.
10 Gândilă (2016), 138. A similar interpretation may be advanced for a few Ostrogothic coins
found in southern Pannonia, for which see Kiss (1983–1984).
11 Eisner (1945–1946); Vinski (1954); Csallány (1961), 71 and 75; 72 fig. 16/1 and 3; pl. LI/8;
Kiss (1983; Bóna/Nagy (2002), 73 and 299 pl. 26/96.2–4; Stein (2005). For such helmets as
manufactured in the Empire, see Vogt (2006).
12 Török (1936), p. 10 and pl. L; Popescu (1956), 78 and 79 fig. 36/2; Kiss/Nemeskéri (1964),
pp. 98–107; 112 fig. 8/6; Bárkoczi (1968), 283 and pl. LXVIII/6; Bóna/Nagy (2002), 75–76;
298 pl. 25/105.6; János Cseh et al. (2005), 63 and 237 pl. 7; Bóna/Horváth (2009), 37 and 243
pl. 8/1. For the Roman origin of the 6th-century glass finds from the Carpathian Basin, see
Kiss (1999), 220. Out of all glass finds from burial assemblages, three are stemmed beakers
like those produced in the 6th century in Thessalonica (see chapter 3). However, without
the chemical analysis of the glass, the exact origin of those beakers cannot be established.
A singular beaker from Mosonszentjános (Hungary) is most certainly of Frankish origin.
See Vida (2016a), 85 fig. 87; Maul (2002), 466. For fragments of glassware found on settle-
ment sites, see Cseh (1999c).
13 Quast (2001), 435–37.
14 Contra: Mesterházy (1984); Mesterházy (1999), 79–89. The evidence cited by Mesterházy
(primarily bow fibulae) can be better interpreted in terms of non-commercial forms
of exchange, particularly gift-giving. This is definitely the case of the bracteates of
Scandinavian origin. See Petersen (1941); Bóna (1956), 187 and 190; pl. XXVIII/12;
pl. XXXIII/6–9; Csallány (1961), 292; Axboe (1978); Tóth (2012), 104–05. Numerous beads
made of Baltic amber have been found in 6th-century burial assemblages in the Carpathian
Basin, and there is also occasional evidence of raw amber. See Csallány (1961), 225–26;
pl. CCXI/11; Bóna/Nagy (2002), 63–64; 350 pl. 76/2; Sprincz (2003), 210. For the interpreta-
tion of amber finds from the Carpathian Basin and in the Crimea as the result of inter-
elite gift giving, see Curta (2007).
15 The archaeology of 6th-century settlements in the Carpathian Basin is truly a recent
development. In the early 1970s, there were no such settlements excavated in Hungary;
see Bóna (1976), 44. By the late 1980s, that lack of evidence encouraged some to advance
the idea that no true villages existed in the late 5th- to early 6th-century Carpathian Basin;
see Tóth (1987). Villages, however, are mentioned in the written sources (Theophylact
Simocatta, History VIII 3.11, 288).
16 The only such remains known so far are those from Szelevény (near Szentes, in east-
central Hungary), for which see Cseh (1994–1995), 115, 117 and 122 fig. 7/6–7. However,
there were no amphora shards in any of the assemblages discovered earlier on a neigh-
boring site. See Cseh (2004b).
17 Bocsi (2016), 23–73. Earlier, trial excavations on other 6th-century settlement sites far-
ther to the west have produced no amphora remains. See Cseh (1987–1989), 148–54; Cseh
(1997); Cseh (2004a), 49–53.
18 Tóth (2006), 19–20 and 23–25 (Eperjes); 29–31 (Szarvas); 33–35 (Szentes).
19 Skriba/Sófalvi (2004); Skriba (2006), 56–57; Freeden/Vida (2005), 378–79; Tóth (2006),
12–14; Trifunović/Pašić (2003), 280.
20 Gaiu (1993); Băcueț Crișan/Bejinariu (2014), 227–30; Rotea et al. (2006–2007), 59–61.
Older excavations of 6th-century settlements in Transylvania, such as Cipău, Sânpaul,
and Morești (the largest 6th-century settlement so far known from the entire Carpathian
Basin) produced no amphora remains. See Vlassa et al. (1966), 406–407; Nyárádi (2010–
2011), 327–28; Horedt (1979).
21 Tóth (2006), 23.
22 Horedt (1979), 150–51.
the region of the Northern Hungarian Mountains and used for the production
of the quern stones found farther to the south, at Tiszafüred, Tiszaszőlős, and
Kengyel.23 While rivers may have been used for the transportation over long
distances (the Criș/Körös and the Tisza), no such possibility exists to explain
the quern stones made of dacitic rhyolite in Morești.24 Next to nothing is in
fact known either about river or about land transportation in the 6th-century
Carpathian Basin.
That quern stones were such common artifacts on 6th-century settlement
sites suggests that the diet of the local populations was based on cereals.
Isotope analysis of collagen from almost all skeletons discovered in a cemetery
recently excavated in Szólád (Somogy County) indicates that, indeed, the com-
munity that buried its dead there in the 6th century had a diet based on mil-
let, in addition to animal-based products.25 Were those locally grown crops?
Millet and barley seeds have been found scattered on the floor of one of the
houses excavated in Eperjes. They suggest crop cultivation, as do the charred
seeds of unidentified cereals found inside a pot from a destroyed grave of the
6th-century cemetery excavated in Szentes.26 The wheat-straw bedding in
grave 30 of the Vörs cemetery also indicates locally grown crops.27 However,
with the exception of a few harvesting tools, no agricultural implements have
so far been found on any 6th-century site in the Carpathian Basin or in the
neighboring regions to the northwest.28 Some have concluded that the “typical
activity” of the 6th-century inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin was not agri-
culture and that they can therefore “hardly be termed ‘peasants’.”29 Their econ-
omy must have been pastoralist, as it was primarily based on cattle breeding.
In fact, bone assemblages from the settlement features in Eperjes and Szarvas
are dominated by cattle, with animals sacrificed at a relatively old age, which
23 Cseh (1988), 10–11. For a quern stone made of volcanic rock from Szolnok-Zagyva-part, see
Cseh (1999b), 54–55 and 55 fig. 15.
24 Tóth (2014), 198 and 200.
25 Alt et al. (2014), 6–8 and 12; Alt/Müller/Held (2018), 877–78.
26 Tóth (2006), 24 and 28; Csallány (1961), 68.
27 Füzes (1964), 418.
28 Scythe: Haimovici/Blăjan (1989), 339. Sickles: Horedt (1979), 149 fig. 70/14; Török (1936),
12 and pl. LVII; Bóna/Horváth (2009), 98, 272 pl. 37/11, and 394 pl. 159/7. The relation
between the evidence of agricultural implements and crop cultivation is symmetrically
similar to that between carpentry tools and woodworking. Despite clear palaeobotanical
evidence of different species of trees being used to build such things as coffins, shields,
and spear shafts, the only woodworking tool so far known is a wimble from Bratei. See
Füzes (1964), 409–19; Bârzu (1994–1995), 272 and 292 fig. 18/12.
29 Bóna (1976), 45.
figure 12
Morești (Romania),
house 13, plan with
selected artifacts:
clay lump with
textile imprint,
loom weights,
wheel-made pottery,
and spindle whorls.
Redrawn after
Horedt (1979)
173, 177, 182 fig. 14/1, 184 fig. 16/5, and 185 fig. 17/6–8; Gaiu (2002), 115–16 and 143 fig. 15/14;
Cseh (2004b), 74, 76, 6, 83, 84, 92, 138 fig. 41/7, 140 fig. 43/22, 141 fig. 44/23, 148 fig. 51/99, 150
fig. 53/114; 157 fig. 60/173; Tóth (2006), 18–19, 23, 26, 30, and 75; pl. 2/8; Bocsi (2016), 33–58
and 62, 49 fig. 15/1–4, and 52 fig. 16/10.
40 Tóth (1984–1985), 98.
41 Horedt (1979), 93–94, 105 fig. 48/12–14, pl. 25/1, 2, pl. 26/1. More sheds may have been
located in “houses” 4, 19, and 27, for which see Horedt (1979), 92, 95, and 97). According to
Horedt (1979), 97, there were no less than four warp-weighted looms in “house” 27. Cseh
(2000), 95–96 and 106 fig. 2, believes that the elongated pit in the middle of the feature 47
in Szolnok-Zagyva-part was the “foundation” of a loom. However, only two weights have
been found in that feature. See also Tóth (2003), 298.
42 Skriba/Sófalvi (2004), 127–28, 129 fig. 10, 141 fig. 19, 142 fig. 20, 143 fig. 21, and 146 fig. 22. See
also Cseh (1991), 159–60; 158 fig. 1; 208 pl. II/1, 2; 219 pl. XIII/2.
43 Masek (2015), 422 and 442 fig. 12/2.
44 Unlike spindle whorls, loom weights were apparently not deposited in graves, as none was
found in any burial assemblage of the Carpathian Basin. However, see Bolta (1981), 32 and
pl. 5/13.
45 Gaiu (1993), 93 and 98 fig. 3. The vitrified, ceramic remains found inside the kiln are of
wheel-made pottery similar to that found in the settlement.
46 Bârzu (1994–1995), 246 and 268; 278 fig. 4/5. Two other similar kilns have been found
at Cernat (near Sfântu Gheorghe, in eastern Transylvania) and Szolnok-Zagyva part
(Hungary). See Székely (1992), 284; Cseh (1996b), 4 and 48 fig. 9.
in Biharea.53 However, no smelting site and no smithy has so far been found in
the Carpathian Basin that could be dated to the 6th century.
Nor is there any evidence of special facilities for non-ferrous metalwork-
ing. A die probably for belt mounts, two ladles (one of them with traces of
metal), and two moulds for casting shield-on-tongue buckles and crosses,
respectively, constitute all the direct evidence for non-ferrous metalworking,
and most of them are stray finds.54 Nonetheless, despite the lack of excavated
workshop sites, numerous finds of belt buckles and brooches, some with elab-
orate decoration suggest a certain degree of centralized production. Moreover,
investigations under the microscope have distinguished between artifacts
procured from elsewhere and local imitations. The former display traces of
such sophisticated techniques as suspended cloisonné or jointed champlevé,
while the production of the latter involved pseudo-cloisonné techniques, brass
coating and silver inlaid.55 Tools associated with non-ferrous metalworking
are known only from burial assemblages. A male grave found in 1931 on the
Kotlářská Street in Brno (now Czech Republic) included two hammers, a file,
tongs, an anvil, remains of a wimble, and a scraping tool (Fig. 13).56 That those
were gold-, not blacksmithing tools results not only from the relatively small
size of the anvil and the hammers, but also from the associated fragments of
copper and lead sheet, parts of pewter mounts of wooden vessels, and of a
copper-alloy cauldron—all scrap metal for the activity involving the associ-
ated tools.57 A similar set of tools was found in 1933 in a male burial in Poysdorf
(northeastern Austria, near the present-day border with the Czech Republic):
three hammers, a file, two pairs of tongs, an anvil, and a scraping tool.58 Much
like in Brno, the assemblage also included fragments of copper and copper-alloy
53 Dumitrașcu (1985), 61–64. The bog iron was mixed with slag.
54 Müller (2008), 236 and 235 fig. 2/2; Bârzu (1994–1995), 268; Zaharia (1994–1995), 302 and
256 fig. 20/8; Dănilă (1983), 560; Rácz/May (2018). Only the ladle from house 1 in Bratei 2
has a clear archaeological context. Together with the ladle, there were fragments of hand-
and wheel-made pottery (including gray ware), as well as a semi-finished product
of antler.
55 Horváth (2012), 234; Béla Török et al. (2018), 158–59 and 167.
56 Červinka (1936), 132 and pl. 15; Daim/Mehofer/Tóbiás (2005), 204–05 and 206; 218 fig. 4;
219 fig. 5; Hegewisch (2008). The tongs accidentally found in Morești [Horedt (1979),
pl. 43/1)] are of the same size as those found in Brno. A wimble is a tool for boring holes.
57 A different question altogether is the production of the tools. Judging by the analysis of
one of the hammers and of the file, the tool kit found in Brno was probably of local pro-
duction; see Daim/Mehofer/Tóbiás (2005), 208–09 and 210.
58 The tools found in Poysdorf are of a much better quality than those found in Brno; see
Daim/Mehofer/Tóbiás (2005), 207–08 and 209–10. Whether they were produced by local
smiths, or perhaps brought from elsewhere remains a matter of debate.
sheet, as well as two bronze models for the casting of bow and S-shaped fibu-
lae, respectively.59 On the basis of the tool sets, the graves in both Brno and
Poysdorf are believed to be of goldsmiths. However, the meaning of the tools in
the grave is highly symbolic and may have nothing to do with the occupation
of deceased person during lifetime.
It is worth noting that the two assemblages also include weapons (a lance
head in Brno, a seax and a shield in Poysdorf) and trading implements (a
59 Daim/Mehofer/Tóbiás (2005), 203–04, 205; 215 fig. 1; 216 fig. 2; 217 fig. 3.
Italy.63 In fact, Bóna believed that the entire social structure of 7th-century
Lombard society, as known from written, primarily legal sources, could be rec-
ognized in the archaeological record of Hungary. The man buried in Veszkény
(Győr-Moson-Sopron County) must have been a duke, the nobility (adalingi)
were buried in family cemeteries, such as Mosonszentjános (in Jánossomorja,
Győr-Moson-Sopron County), Szentendre (Pest County) or Keszthely, while
those buried on the margins of cemeteries excavated in western Hungary
were natives, “pre-Lombard Germans” who had become servants of Lombard
families.64 However, because of the ceremonial and highly symbolic character
of the burial, many have abandoned such ideas claiming that no reconstruc-
tion of the social structure is possible on the basis of the cemetery data.65 The
abundance and quality of grave goods is now interpreted as indicating gender
and age, not rank or family membership. In fact, some have argued that the
analysis of the 6th-century cemeteries in western Hungary shows that com-
munities using those burial grounds were egalitarian, without much differ-
entiation among family groups.66 This is of course exaggerated. Even without
grave goods, the evidence of social differentiation is quite clear.67 The size and
depth of the grave pits delineate the “social topography” of cemeteries in the
63 Bóna/Horváth (2009), 190. The arimanni were supposedly buried with sword, lance, and
shield. Bóna (1976), 78 believed that the arimanni played a key role in the 6th-century
society of the western parts of the Carpathian Basin. It is important to note that in Brno
only a lance head was found, which according to Bóna/Horváth (2009), 187 was the cus-
tom for faramanni (poor freemen), not arimanni.
64 Bóna (1968), 36; Bóna (1976), 77 and 78; Bóna/Horváth (2009), 187. For Veszkény, see
Gömöri (1987), who believed that to be a female, not male burial. For Mosonszentjános,
see Vida (2013b), 353. For Szentendre, see Bóna/Horváth (2009), 93–136. For Keszthely,
see Bárkoczi (1968). Similarly, Martin (1976), 199 believed that the cemetery excavated at
Várpalota (Veszprém County) was the burial ground of a Lombard lord, his family, and
his servants. More recently, Vida (2008), 349 claimed that the results of the archaeologi-
cal excavations confirmed Bóna’s interpretation of the cemetery data as reflecting the
Lombard social structure.
65 Kiss (2015), 190.
66 Werner (1962), 46 and 118. For an early critique of that idea, see Martin (1976), 199. Barbiera
(2005), 307 notes that the most luxurious objects (weapons and jewelry) have the stron-
gest correlation with age and gender. In other words, the age and gender of the elites is
more visible than the age and gender of the commoners. If so, then that is definitely not
an egalitarian society.
67 The occasional use of cremation along with inhumation within one and the same cem-
etery, as in Menfőcsanak [Vaday (2015), 203 and 206], cannot be explained in terms of an
egalitarian society. However, there is no archaeological evidence to support Procopius
of Caesarea’s claim that the Herules practiced only cremation. Nor is there any evidence
of the suttee-like ritual he describes for the “vilest of all people” (Wars VI 14.6–7 and 36,
vol. 2, 404 and 412; transl. 346 and 348).
western parts of the Carpathian Basin: the largest and deepest graves (such
as those in Szentendre and Kajdacs) were most likely of the most prominent
members of the society.68 In Tamási (Tolna County), male graves with weap-
ons surround female burials.69 Tamási has the largest number of weapons of
all 6th-century cemeteries in the western part of the Carpathian Basin, but
75 percent of the graves in all of them have weapons, mostly spears, swords,
and shields.70 It is of course impossible to see all of this as evidence of the class
of arimanni, but there can be no doubt that social differences were marked
in burial. The proportion of male burials with weapons in the Tisza region is
lower (45 percent), but between 70 and 80 percent of all graves in cemeter-
ies excavated in that region had been robbed in the early Middle Ages, often
immediately after burial.71 But some of the things the robbers occasionally left
behind, such as the fragments of gold sheet found in two graves of the cem-
etery excavated in Mezőkeresztes (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County), suggest
that wealth and social differences were just as marked as in the western parts
of the Carpathian Basin.72 It is much more difficult to explain such differences,
particularly the origin of those elites, whose members were buried wrapped in
silk, inside specially built funerary houses, or in graves marked off by means of
circular ditches.73 Here, the archaeology of settlements may be of greater value
than that of cemeteries. However, there is no indication of special buildings
reserved for the elites, nor indeed of wealth concentration.
Be that as it may, none of the 6th-century settlements excavated so far in
the Carpathian Basin may be interpreted, like Wickham’s Malling, as “a vil-
lage of relative equals,” nor were those communities made up exclusively
of agriculturists. While bone and antler processing may indeed have been a
household-based, “side” occupation, neither cloth nor pottery production was
done exclusively by the women of the household.74 “Fake” keys from graves
and real locks from settlements strongly suggest social notions of personal (or
family) property.75 Did such notions apply to land tenure? Wells—the earli-
est such features in early medieval Europe—have been found next to groups
of sunken-featured buildings (possibly dwellings) in both Balatonkeresztúr
(Somogy County, Hungary) and Florești.76 The relation between buildings and
wells, however, remains unclear in the absence of any property markers.77
Ditches surrounding clusters of dwellings have also been found in the east-
ern parts of the Carpathian Basin, at Rákoczifalva.78 Such linear features in
6th-century settlements in the Carpathian Basin have analogies in southern
Germany, where they have been interpreted as defensive structures.79 Moreover,
two settlements in Transylvania—Șeica Mică (Sibiu County) and Porumbenii
Mici (Harghita County)—are known to have been located inside prehistoric
fortifications, the ramparts of which were restored in the 6th century.80 It
remains unclear what were the threats against which the ramparts in question
were supposedly built, but this can hardly be a matter of property markers.
By contrast, the ditches found in Rákoczifalva surrounded groups of houses,
not the entire settlement. Their meaning must therefore be different from the
military purpose of the Transylvanian ramparts. Whether barriers to prevent
the access of animals left to roam freely around the settlement or boundar-
ies of family residential quarters, the significance of those ditches cannot be
detached from the notion of personal or family property.81 In that respect, the
settlement features identified in Rákoczifalva are directly comparable with
the fences separating farmsteads (as individual properties) in the late 6th- to
7th-century occupation phases at Kootwijk and Odoorn (Netherlands).82
The relation between communities living in 6th-century settlements and
the many kings mentioned in the sources for both Lombards and Gepids
remains unknown.83 Kings may have extracted some kind of tribute from
those communities, but there is no evidence that they were able to turn that
into a firm basis for an economically privileged status. In the absence of any
information about field boundaries and land tenure, it is also impossible to
understand how that tribute was produced and what relations existed between
elites and ownership of land or livestock. Nor is it possible to decide whether
under such circumstances, kings ruled over land or over people. Encouraged
by Germanos’s preparations for his expedition to Italy, Audoin, the king of
the Lombards, “made ready heavy-armed soldiers and promised to send them
immediately,”84 To judge from Procopius’ testimony, Audoin had power over
men, not land.
82 Milo (2014), 144, 402, and 427; 401 fig. 221; 427 fig. 248. Wickham (2006), 499 mentions
both settlements as having a characteristic “checkerboard of farmsteads.”
83 For lists of Gepid and Lombard kings in the Carpathian Basin, see Kiss (1989), 214–15.
84 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VII 39.20, vol. 5, 34; transl., 458.
In contrast to all military treatises before him, the author of the Strategikon
written in the late 6th or early 7th century introduced ethnographic data into
a genre traditionally restricted to purely military topics. The reason was that
the author was inspired by the theory of climates, as he believed that the geo-
graphical location of a given ethnic group determined not only its lifestyle and
laws, but also its type of warfare.1 If the Strategikon specifically mentions the
Avars as being “nomadic peoples,” it is because its author strongly believed
that to be relevant to the war against the Avars: “they are hurt by a shortage
of fodder which can result from the huge number of horses they bring with
them.”2 Those horses, both female and male, are furthermore said to “provide
nourishment and to give the impression of a huge army.”3 During summer or
winter campaigns, the Avars “continuously graze their horses.”4 One is there-
fore left with the impression that in the eyes of Byzantine authors, the Avars
were the archetypal nomads, unlike the “Huns” of the steppe lands north of
the Black Sea (see chapter 9). That such treatment was just a Herodotean ste-
reotype results from the fact that the chapter of the Strategikon that describes
the Avars is in fact dedicated to “Scythians, that is Avars, Turks, and others
whose way of life resembles that of the Hunnish peoples.”5 Both historians
and archaeologists have uncritically adopted the stereotype, with no signs of
change in the foreseeable future.6
The mention of nourishment in connection to horses may well refer to the
consumption of the mare milk, as well as of horse meat. It is not clear whether
1 For the theory of the seven climates and its astrological underpinnings, see Honigmann
(1929), 4–7, 9, and 92–94. For ethnographic data in the Strategikon, see Dagron (1987), 209–10.
For the Strategikon and the old genre of military treatises, see Rance (2017).
2 Strategikon XI 2, 364; trans., 117; Kollautz (1954), 161.
3 Strategikon XI, 2, 362; transl., 116. For the military role of the large number of horses, see
Pintér-Nagy (2016), 359.
4 Strategikon XI 2, 362; transl., 117.
5 The Avars are specifically mentioned as a “Scythian nation” (Strategikon XI 2, 360). For Avars
as Scythian in the Strategikon, see Zástěrová (1971), 15–16; Kardaras (2018), 9. For Avars in the
Strategikon, in general, see Kardaras (2007–2008), 161–64.
6 Alapy (1933); Avenarius (1989); Lőrinczy (2001); Golev (2011); Kardaras (2012); Hurbanič
(2015); Csiky (2016); Balogh (2017).
this applied to the daily lives of the Avars, or was restricted to the time of the
military campaigns, when there was presumably a shortage of any other food
supplies. Moreover, the grazing of horses during both summer and winter cam-
paigns seems to suggest a wartime strategy, which may however have repli-
cated pastoralist practices during peacetime. Was Avar pastoralism nomadic?
It has long been noted that, contrary to the common opinion on the matter,
the Carpathian Basin—particularly the Great Hungarian Plain (an area of
about 38,610 square miles) and the Little Hungarian Plain (some 3,090 square
miles)—offered no favorable conditions in the Middle Ages for the practice
of nomadism.7 A good part of that territory was covered by water in the valley
of the Middle Danube, as well as marshlands along the Tisza River. The very
large flood plain of the Tisza made very difficult the movements either from
north to south, or from east to west.8 Transhumance like that mentioned by
Jordanes in relation to the Altziagiri (see chapter 9) is neither necessary, nor
indeed possible.
The evidence of pastoralism is also problematic. To be sure, the idea that the
Avars had many horses has very solid support in the archaeological evidence.
A great many Early and Middle Avar-age burials contain horse bones, either
entire skeletons, or only the skulls and the limbs.9 Zooarchaeological studies
have indicated the remarkable homogeneity of 7th-century skeletal data from
the Carpathian Basin, which is most likely the result of careful culling for burial
deposition, and cannot be regarded as a mirror of the actual horse stock.10
It is worth mentioning, however, that all horse bones known so far from
7th-century assemblages other than burials are from sites on the edges of, or
even outside the Carpathian Basin, away from the cluster of cemeteries in the
Great Hungarian Plain.11 In each case, the number of bones is relatively small,
which suggests that horses were not kept for meat. By contrast, bones of
cattle, pig, sheep or goats, as well as fowl appear in faunal assemblages from
7 Contra: Pohl (2018), p. 244, who believes that there are (multiple) “steppe zones” in the
Middle Danube region.
8 Fodor (1995), 73–74. For the southern part of the Carpathian Basin, see Bugarski (2008).
9 Balogh (2009); Bede (2014); Garam (2016). The Avar age (ca. 570 to ca. 820) is divided into
three phases on the basis of the archaeological record: Early (ca. 570 to ca. 630), Middle
(ca. 630 to ca. 680), and Late (ca. 680 to ca. 820). See Stadler (2008).
10 Takács/Somhegyi/Bartosiewicz (1995), 184; Bartosiewicz (1995), 250–51; Rustoiu/Ciută
(2008), 96. For Arabian horses in Avar-age burials, see Vörös (2012), 690.
11 Vencl/Zadák (1981), 686; Bârzu (1994–1995), 275; Stanciu (1998–1999), 169 and 172; Bureš/
Profantová (2005), 46; Kuna/Profantová (2005), 57; Klanica (2008), 51, 162, and 169;
Stanciu (2011), 334.
settlements on the northern edges of, or outside the Carpathian Basin.12 They
are also common in burial assemblages inside the Carpathian Basin.13 The
presence of pigs and fowl is regarded as “possible indicators of sedentism in
the fundamentally pastoral Avar culture.”14 However, the absence of any ani-
mal bones from settlement sites in the interior of the Carpathian Basin cannot
be interpreted as an indication of complete sedentization. Many settlement
sites have been excavated in the Great Hungarian Plain or in western Hungary,
from which no bone assemblages have been published.15 On the other hand,
the case for the “fundamentally pastoral(ist)” economy of the Avar age in the
Carpathian Basin is based on dubious grounds. Sunken-floored buildings of
quasi-circular plan are taken to be yurts, and therefore attributed to “nomadic
12 Cattle and pig: Vencl (1973), 362; Stanciu (1998–1999), 185 and 187; Istvánovits (2001), 169,
171, and 177; Kuna/Profantová (2005), 36 and 55; Klanica (2008), 150, 151, 152, 157–58, 163,
164, etc.; Stanciu (2011), 346 and 389. Sheep (or goats): Stanciu (1998–1999), 185 and 187;
Klanica (2008), 158, 164, and 169; Stanciu (2011), 346. Fowl: Vencl (1973), 362; Vencl/Zadák
(1981), 306; Stanciu (1998–1999), 185 and 187; Istvánovits (2001), 169; Klanica (2008), 152, 14,
158, 164, etc.; Stanciu (2011), 346.
13 Cattle and pig: Rhé/Fettich (1931), 37–38; Csallány (1939), 116; Bökönyi (1955), 212; Csallány
(1961), 228–29; Papp (1962), 181; Kovrig (1963), 11, 13, 14, 16, etc.; Garam (1973), 281; Rosner
(1975–1976), 98; Lőrinczy (1984–1985), 147; Erdélyi (1988), 194 and 195; Salamon/Sebestyén
(1995), 44; Vörös (2002); Bugarski (2009), 138; Körősi (2005), 243–44; Dobos/Opreanu
(2012), 68, 69, and 73; Lőrinczy/Somogyi (2018), 240. Sheep or goat: Gere (1984–1985),
227; Lőrinczy (1998), 354; Tóth (1999–2000), 405; Rózsa (2002), 342; Vörös (2002); Balogh
(2003); Gulyás (2015), 504. Graves with bones of sheep or goat have been specifically
interpreted as burials of Avar pastoralists, e.g., by Tomka (2005). Fowl: Rhé/Fettich (1931),
42 and 48; Csallány (1939), 131; Csallány (1961), 228–29; Kovrig (1963), 14, 20, 21, 22, 26,
etc.; Fülöp (1980), 321; Salamon/Sebestyén (1995), 44; Tóth (1999–2000), 405; Dobos/
Opreanu (2012), 78. For duck bones, see Müller (1999–2000), 351. For eggshells, see Rhé/
Fettich (1931), 30; Csallány (1961), 229; Kovrig (1963), 10, 12, 13, etc.; Kis s1977), 98; Salamon/
Sebestyén (1995), 44; Körősi (2005), 245; Bârzu (2010), 189; Vörös (2012), 684.
14 Müller (1996), 365; Bartosiewicz (2018), 50. By the same token, the presence of bones
of wild animals (deer, hare, boar, and fox) in burial, as well as settlement assemblages
indicates that hunting was an important component of the subsistence economy. See
Marosi/Fettich (1936), 13; Vencl (1973), 362; Vencl/Zadák (1985), 298; Istvánovits (2001),
169; Klanica (2008), 152 and 156; Stanciu (2011), 355; Dobos/Opreanu (2012), 69. See also
Bartosiewicz/Biller/Choyke (2014), 325–36.
15 This is definitely the case of the large settlement at Dunaújváros (about 46 miles south
of Budapest), on which salvage excavations were carried out in 1966, 1967, and 1970;
see Bóna (1973). The same is true for Zempléngárd (northeastern Hungary, near the
Hungarian-Slovak border), a site initially interpreted as cemetery; see Wolf (1996). If
any animal bones have been found at Balatonmagyaród (near the western end of Lake
Balaton), no mention is made of them in Szőke (2008). Animal bones have certainly
been found on other sites, but no species have been identified, and no zooarchaeologi-
cal reports have so far been published. See Madaras (1991); Kulcsár (2007); Hajnal (2009;
Bajkai (2012), 428, 432, and 438–39; Fodor (2012); Pintér-Nagy (2018).
In Bohemia, a fallow system of farming was in place during the 7th century,
as indicated by samples collected from the settlement site at Březno (near
Chomutov).25 Similar studies at Roztoky (near Prague) have revealed a paleo-
botanical spectrum most typical for intensified agriculture, with an emphasis
on growing millet, free-threshing wheat and barley.26 The analysis of the char-
coal collected from a number of settlement features on that site shows that
the settlement was surround by a mixture of oak-hornbeam forest, sparse cop-
pice and brushwood used for pasture.27 That pasture was used for pigs, not for
Mihályiová (2001), 79. For broad bean imprints in the paste of handmade pots, see Fusek/
Olexa/ Zábojník (2010), 344 and fig. 10. The charred cereal seeds, which were found next
to the skull in a grave excavated in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, have not been identified; see
Müller (2010), 52.
25 Pleinerová (1984–1987), 56.
26 Kuna et al. (2013), 88 with table 11; 91 fig. 24.
27 See Novák et al. (2012), 814–15. This paleoenvironmental profile was confirmed by malaco-
logical data (molluscs), for which see Kuna et al. (2013), 84. For a geobotanical reconstruc-
tion of the landscape around Roztoky, see Sádlo/Gojda (1994), 196–202.
cattle or sheep. Since the largest number of pigs slaughtered at Roztoky died
at an age of 1.5 to 2 years, while most cattle and sheep were slaughtered at a
much older age (up to 11 years), an economic strategy must have been at work,
whereby pigs represented the most efficient way to obtain food, while other
animals were for dairy products and wool.28
Roztoky is the largest 7th-century settlement known from the whole of East
Central and Eastern Europe, with more than 500 settlement features discov-
ered so far.29 Most features that may be interpreted as storage pits (silos) have
been found on the northern side of the settlement.30 By contrast, fragments
of iron materials and hammer scale have been found in the filling of several
settlement features in the southern part of the settlement, which may have
been the remains of ironworking activities taking place there, although no
smelting facility and no smithy has so far been found.31 The bloom and the
slag found in two different houses excavated in Lazuri are to be interpreted in
the same way.32 The same implication reasoning applies to numerous finds of
iron artifacts from Early Avar age burial assemblages in the Carpathian Basin.
The metallographic analysis of swords, axes, lance heads, and stirrups from the
Környe cemetery reveal the use of such diverse techniques as cementation,
iron-steel-iron “sandwich,” and pattern welding, all of which imply the sophis-
ticated use of blacksmithing skills.33 Such conclusions are now substantiated
by microscopic studies of the metallic structure of axes from the Avar-age cem-
eteries in Előszállás and Úrhida.34 Swaging (die forging), a method through
which the heated iron is sunk into a die or a mould of an anvil to produce
almost identical forms is believed to have been responsible for the produc-
tion of the high-quality stirrups with elongated attachment loops and of
reed-shaped lance heads with grid-patterned rings.35 Where those artifacts
were made remains unknown, as no smithies have so far been found in the
Carpathian Basin that could be dated to the late 6th or to the 7th century.36
Nonetheless, complete sets of blacksmith tools are known from burial
assemblages dated to the Early Avar age. The heavy hammers found in Kölked,
Csákberény, and Kisújszallás were definitely used for forging.37 The long pliers
from Aradac, Csákberény, Jutas, Kisújszallás, and Kunszentmárton were most
likely used by blacksmiths.38 By far the most spectacular assemblage, however,
is a grave with tools from the cemetery excavated in the early 20th century
in Band (near Târgu Mureș, Romania; Fig. 15). Almost all graves in that cem-
etery have been robbed in the early Middle Ages, but one of them still had a
helmet, a fragment of a lancehead, and a toolbox containing pliers, hammers,
anvils, drills (including mechanically driven drills), small fragments of iron,
as well as slag.39 Along with blacksmith tools, the toolbox also included gold-
smith implements and tools: short pliers, wimbles, a chisel, a hammer-shaped
cat’s paw, and another tool for pulling wire or making nails, anvils, a whet-
stone, four prismatic bronze rods, bronze rivets, as well as scrap metal (in the
form of a fragment of a silver mirror and bronze wasters) and a piece of tar.40
The combination of black- and goldsmith tools (some of which may have also
35 Tomka (2008), 249. As Csiky (2015a), 48 with n. 192 notes, such beliefs are not backed by
any metallographic analysis. Their high quality has led to unfounded speculations about
the earliest Avar-age stirrups being of Inner Asian or Byzantine origin [Csiky (2015a), 71
and 294]. For swaging, see Pleiner (2006), 64.
36 According to Piaskowski (1974), 123–24, a lancehead and a stirrup from Környe that have
been analyzed by metallographic study were most likely produced in one and the same
bloomery workshop, as the pig-iron from which both were made does not seem to have
been carbonized. Csiky (2015a), 296 rightly points out that the use of pig-iron contradicts
the idea of swaging.
37 Kiss (2001), 26 and pl. 25/10; Rácz (2014), pp. 162 and 171; pls. 8/1 and 25/2. See Rácz
(2009), 74.
38 Nagy (1959), 57 and pl. V/3; Rácz (2014), 150–51, 163, and 178; pls. 5/2, 6/1, 25/1, 54/5; Rhé/
Fettich (1931), 32 and pl. IV/13. See Rácz (2009), 79.
39 Kovács (1913), 398–403; 187 fig. 15/1, 5, 6, 9–11, 14–16, 18–23, 26–29; 189 fig. 16/1, 6, 9; 195 fig.
18/16–19, 21–25, 43. The deposition of slag in the grave implies that the smithy from which
it was collected must not have been too far. The only parallel to the mechanically driven
drill is that from a Viking-age grave in Vestly (Norway); see Tănase (2010), 32 and 113. For
the reconstruction of its modus operandi, see Gömöri (2017), 264–64 and 264 fig. 13.
40 Kovács (1913), 398–403; 187 fig. 15/4, 17; 189 fig. 16/2–5, 7–8, 10–18, 32; 191 fig. 17/1. 3, 4, 6–8,
11, 13–14, 16–21; 195 fig. 18/1–7, 9–11, 13–15, 26, 31, 32, 34–36, 38–41, 42, 44–46. Some of those
tools (e.g., the wimbles) may have also been used in woodworking. A cat’s paw is a carpen-
ter’s tool for pulling and driving nails.
been used in carpentry) suggests that every craftsman of the Early Avar age
was expected to be a jack-of-all-trades.41 Most other graves with tools from that
age are closer to the idea of goldsmith conveyed by such earlier assemblages
as those found in Brno and Poysdorf (see chapter 6). However, besides such
typical tools as anvils, files, small hammers, pliers, and saws, shears, engraving
tools, and drills, a number of burial assemblages include pressing dies for the
production of belt fittings, horse tack mounts, and pendants.42 The pressing
technique was widely used to imitate granulation and inlaid stones.43
The most impressive collection of pressing dies is that found in 1899
in Felnac (near Arad, Romania), but similar assemblages are known from
Kunszentmárton, Gátér, and Adony, while individual dies were occasionally
deposited in male graves, as in Aradac.44 That dies found in burial assemblages
may have truly been used for the production of belt fittings results from occa-
sional finds of matching pieces.45 For example, the strap ends found in a male
grave in Sânpetru German (near Arad, Romania) were most likely made with
the corresponding dies found on the nearby site at Felnac.46 All known dies
of the Early and Middle Avar age are convex (“positive”), with a smooth back-
side. This suggests that the metal sheet to be ornamented was placed on the
die with a thick piece of leather or fabric on top, and then hammered against
the die. The sheet was made of precious metal or of a copper-alloy with no
more than six percent lead.47 If scrap metal was used as raw material, lead
needed first to be extracted from the brass, so that a stronger alloy could be
forged and snarled. By contrast, alloys with a higher concentration of lead
were very good for casting. This implies that Avar-age goldsmiths were capable
of adjusting alloy recipes to their various technological needs, which in turn
suggests an advanced knowledge of alloy properties and high skills.48 In fact,
more crucibles are known from settlement assemblages on the northern and
northwestern edges of the Carpathian Basin, and from the adjacent regions
outside it, than from burial assemblages in the Great Hungarian Plain.49 Traces
of brass inside one the crucibles found in Považany (near Trenčin, in western
Slovakia) and of copper-tin and copper-lead alloys inside the fragment of a
crucible from Pavlov (near Břeclav, Czech Republic), as well as on a fragment
of a ladle from Věrovany (near Olomouc, Czech Republic) leave no doubt as to
the ability of those goldsmiths to manipulate alloy composition of the alloy, as
needed.50 A lead bear from Pavlov had taken the form of a ladle found in the
same settlement feature.51 However, as in eastern and southern Romania (see
chapter 8), the evidence strongly suggests metallurgical activities at a house-
hold level, with no special facilities inside settlements.52 The same may be true
for those goldsmiths that used metal crucibles found in burial assemblages
together with files, saws, and goldsmith hammers.53
Of all casting techniques known in the early Middle Ages, the best docu-
mented archaeologically are casting “in the open” by means of a one-piece
mould and two-piece casting. A clay mould for the casting of very small
(such as old coins). See Rhé/Fettich (1931), 32 and pl. VIIII/16–18; Sós (1978), 423–30; Kiss
(1996), 103 and 487 pl. 73/A373.2, 3; Rácz (2014), 171–91 and pls. 51/1–5 and 52/1, 2, 4, 5.
49 Fusek (1991), 295 and 296; 297 fig. 6/1, 2; 319 pl. I/9, 13; Fusek/ Staššíková-Štukovská/
Bátora (1993), 29 and pl. X/11; Kuna/Profantová (2005), 56 and 540 fig. 292/7; pl. XXII/2;
Profantová (2005), 136 and 142 photo 16; Jelinková/ Šrein/Šťastný (2012), 72 and 83; 72 fig.
3/2; Profantová (2013), 154 and 161 fig. 10/3.
50 Staššíková-Štukovská/Krištín (1993), 60 and 58 table I; Jelinková/ Šrein/Šťastný (2012),
78–80 and 83; 79 table 2. That both brass and bronze have been identified is in direct
contradiction to the conclusion drawn from the analysis by X-ray fluorescence spectrom-
etry of Avar-age artifacts, according to which there was a “pronounced predominance
of bronze over brass or mixed alloys”; see Craddock et al. (2010), 61. Such results are at
variance with other studies based on X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, for which see May/
Szenthe (2015), 386 table 1.
51 Jelinková/ Šrein/Šťastný (2012), 80, 81, and 83; 72 fig. 3/1; 80 fig. 10; 81 fig. 11.
52 Contra: Profantová (2006), according to whom houses in which archaeologists found
ladles and crucibles must be interpreted as “workshops.” See also Profantová/Kuna (2011),
84. Because of being remarkably similar in terms of alloy and morphology, the belt sets
from two graves of the cemeteries excavated in Zamárdi (near Siófok, on the southern
shore of Lake Balaton) and Szegvár (near Szentes, in southeastern Hungary) are believed
to have been made in one and the same “workshop,” perhaps at the same time. However,
the evidence simply indicates the work of a single craftsman, not of a “workshop.” See
Lőrinczy/Straub (2005), 146 and 147 tables 2 and 3. Heinrich-Tamáska (2008), 239 notes
that all traces of workshops are of a later (8th- or 9th-century) date.
53 Ódor/Rácz (2011), 24; 253 fig. 1/2; 255 fig. 3/3; Balogh (2016), 113 and fig. 4/5. By contrast,
all known ladles are made of clay and have been found only in settlement assemblages:
Székely (1992), 271 and 272 fig. 19/B25.1; Profantová (1998), 433 and 434 fig. 1; Kuna/
Profantová (2005), 49 and 55; 514 fig. 267 /4; 535 fig. 287/14; 582 fig. 332/2; pl. XXII/4;
Jelinková/ Šrein/Šťastný (2012), 70; 71 fig. 1; 72 fig. 2.
granules was found on the hearth of the oven in a house of the settlement exca-
vated in Lazuri (near Satu Mare, Romania).54 Another clay mould accidentally
found in Dubovac (near Kovin, in Vojvodina, Serbia) is also evidence of casting
“in the open.”55 However, the stone mould from a female burial of the cemetery
at Vác (near Esztergom, Hungary), which was used to cast lunula-shaped pen-
dants and small files, has funnel-shaped casting tubes and airing vents, which
clearly indicate that it was used for two-piece casting.56 Similar conclusions
have been drawn from the microscope examination of artifacts.57 However,
electron-beam microanalysis and proton-induced X-ray emission analysis
have revealed that some strap ends and belt mounts from the cemetery exca-
vated in Zamárdi were decorated in the inlay wax technique, which implies
knowledge of “lost-wax” casting.58 Most other forms of surface treatment seem
to have been done by different means. Scorpers were most likely used to obtain
relief-like ornamentation, like the frets and chain pattern ornament on typi-
cally Middle Avar plated belt sets.59 Scrapers were at work for the moldings of
the finds in the very rich burial in Kunbábony (near Kuntszentmiklós, central
Hungary) or the belt fittings in Igar (Fejér County, Hungary).60 Gilding, a sur-
face treatment technique extensively used in the Middle Avar period (ca. 630
to ca. 680), implies the use of quicksilver, which was not readily available in
the Carpathian Basin and could be obtained only from the outside.61 Much
cheaper was tinning, because it involved the use of lead.62 Goldsmiths of the
Avar age also applied such inlay techniques as niello, damascening, and stone
or glass inserts. The former is surprisingly rare in the Early Avar age, given the
popularity of crescent-shaped or triangular rows of punches filled with niello
paste that decorated bow fibulae and belt buckles produced in the Carpathian
Basin during the 6th century.63 Equally rare is damascening, a technique of
inlaying gold, silver, or copper into iron.64 The preferred inlay technique dur-
ing the Early and Middle Avar age was glass or stone inserts. Either as cell work
(cloisonné) or detached settings (cabochons), that inlay technique implies sol-
dering of band cells or cell work.65
The multitude of analytical approaches that focus on the artifacts reveals
therefore a great deal of complexity and sophistication involved in Avar-age
metalworking. Both the manipulation of alloys and the use of damascened
ornament and of stone or glass inserts indicate a technological level far supe-
rior to anything in existence in the neighboring regions of East Central and
Southeastern Europe. The Early and Middle Avar craftsmen were highly skilled,
and opened to influences from various cultural areas, both East and West.66
What was the social position of craftsmen in Avar society? Some believe that
graves with tools are the tombs of 7th-century blacksmiths and jewelers.67
Others insist that the deposition of finished products or, as in Band, even of
slag seems to point to the desire to represent in burial ceremonial the ability
to transform the matter, probably as a way to emphasize the considerable skill
involved in metalworking. As “lords of fire,” craftsmen could enjoy enormous
social prestige, which may explain the occasional deposition of weapons,
62 Both bronze and iron artifacts were tinned in the Middle Avar period. See Jánoska (1982),
442–46; Heinrich-Tamáska (2008), 253–54.
63 According to Bálint (2010), 153, all objects decorated with niello that may be dated to the
7th century “cannot be regarded as genuine Avar products.” Heinrich-Tamáska, (2008),
255 points to a unique artifact, the disc-shaped fibula from grave 119 of the cemetery exca-
vated in Kölked B [Kiss (2001), pl. 29/10].
64 Bálint (2010), 153 believes the technique to indicate the influence of Merovingian gold-
smith work on Avar jewelers. The damascened decoration appears primarily on belt fit-
tings with good parallels in the Frankish milieu. See Martin (1996); Bende (2000); Müller
(2002b), 43–45. However, besides belt fittings, the damascened decoration also appears
on a quintessentially Avar category of artifacts—stirrups. See Müller (2006). For the
Avar-age damascened ornament, see Heinrich-Tamáska (2005a).
65 For early Avar-age soldering, see Tóth (1979); Bencze/Morgós (1980); Heinrich-Tamáska
(2016). For gold and/or glass inserts, see Heinrich-Tamáska (2006).
66 Heinrich-Tamáska, (2008), 256–57.
67 Turčan (1984). For a good survey of the historiography of the problem, see Tănase (2010).
helmets, or even horses, elements that make graves with tools directly compa-
rable (albeit not identical) with “princely” graves (see below).68
Few have noted that no evidence exists that categories of craftsmen
other than jewelers enjoyed the same social prestige. A recently discov-
ered male grave in a cemetery excavated at Makó (near Szeged, next to the
Romanian-Hungarian border) produced artifacts associated with bone and
antler processing—half-manufactured products, composite bow reinforce-
ment plates, as well as tools: hammers, adzes, a file, a saw, a drill, and a knife.69
Whether or not that was the grave of a bowyer, as the excavator had it, there is
now abundant evidence of the processing of bone and antler from burial and
settlement assemblages.70 Unfortunately, that evidence has been examined
more from a pictorial, than from a technological point of view71 Conspicuously
missing are trasological studies for the identification of tools employed by
craftsmen.72 The use of red deer antler, as well as leg bones of caprines or large
wading birds as raw material strongly suggests that bone- and antler-working
was a local, probably household-based craft.73 Bow manufacturing required
such preliminary work as antler soaking and the drying of wood, which sug-
gests that bowyers may have been specialists, much like the jewelers.74 And
just like jewelers, craftsmen working with antler and bone were capable to
work with wood as well. The detailed analysis of scabbards, as well as frag-
ments of shields, coffins, and even weaving looms has demonstrated the selec-
tion of tree species on the basis of material qualities that best matched the
planned artifacts.75 Nothing indicates that woodcarving or carpentry was any-
thing but household-based, much like textile production.76 Several fragments
of fabric are known from burial assemblages, while loom weights appear on
68 Rácz (2013); Tóbiás (2008). For “lords of fire,” see Daim (2003), 56.
69 Balogh (2016).
70 For half-manufactured antler and bone products, see Csallány (1939), 116 and 117 pl. I/5,
8–10; Kovrig (1963), 36 and 47; pls. XXV/48 and LXXIII/4; Vencl (1973), ‘356 and 359 fig. 14/2;
Fusek/Staššíková-Štukovská/Bátora (1993), 28 and pl. X/2, 3, 5, 6; Princová-Justová (2003),
168; Kuna/Profantová (2005), 39 and 50; 592 fig. 342/2–5. For belt fittings, see Pásztor/Tóth
(2018), 272–78. For bow reinforcement plates, see Choyke (1995), 228–29. For quiver slats,
see Balogh (2015). For carved bone plates decorating small boxes, see Balogh (2014). See
also Daim (1996).
71 Bugarski (2016).
72 For a notable exception, see Choyke (1995).
73 Choyke (1995), 234 does not exclude the possibility that some artifacts (e.g., combs) were
obtained from trade, not produced locally.
74 Choyke (1995), 234.
75 Füzes (1964), 451–52; Horváth (1979–1980), 24–25.
76 Füzes (1964), 453.
77 Fragments of textile fabric: Kovács (1913), 404 and 302 fig. 24/3; Kovrig/Korek, (1960), 262;
Kralovánszky (1989–1990), 126. Loom weights: Lazin/Hep (1990), 83; Stanciu (1998–1999),
178 and 241 pl. XX/4, 6; Stanciu, (2011), 349, 353, 354, 357, 378, and 379; 699 pl. 89/9; 709
pl. 99/14; 720 pl. 110/3–5; 755 fig. 144/10, 16.
78 Székely (1992), 284.
79 Rosner (1977–1978).
80 Rosner (1982), 370–71; Rosner (1991), 140. Rosner (1981), 44 describes the kilns as each hav-
ing a “pillar” at the back of the furnace chamber (with a capacity of about 42 cubic feet)
and a grate with smoke vents on top of it.
81 Salamon/Duma (1984), 70–75. For a similar study of the chemical composition of the clay,
see Salamon/Duma (1983), 190–94.
82 Balla (1990), 133. No less than three kilns have been found in Őcsény, according to Rosner
(1990), 128. For the possibility that the potters in Őcsény came from Szekszárd, see Kory
(2002), 611.
83 Rosner (1987), 126; Vida (1999), 34 and 37; Hajnal (2006), 122–25.
products function of the redistributive qualities of the Avar elite?84 It has been
suggested that the location of the centers of pottery production in the immedi-
ate vicinity of the Danube could only mean that the river played a key role in
the the distribution of Early and Middle Avar age wheel-made pottery, but the
mechanisms of that distribution remain unknown.85
Equally obscure is the existence and organization of commercial relations.
Avar envoys who came to Constantinople in 563 purchased goods on the mar-
ket, “both clothing and weaponry,” of which they were promptly deprived
before leaving the Empire on their way back home86 With the annual pay-
ments (“tribute”) that Constantinople paid the Avars rising from 80,000 in 574
to 200,000 solidi in 626, it has been estimated that about 6.5 million gold coins
came to the Carpathian Basin throughout the Early Avar age, with smaller
amounts of gold continuing to enter the Avar qaganate during the second half
of the 7th and even in the 8th century.87 There is no indication that the Avars
used that money to procure goods from the markets in the Empire.88 On the
contrary, most of those coins remained in the Carpathian Basin, where they
were presumably distributed to loyal followers as bullion. Some were pierced
and modified into pendants. Others were supposedly turned into raw mate-
rial for jewelry, particularly earrings.89 Only a few have survived because of
being deposited in graves or accidentally dropped around.90 Others moved
farther afield. Light-weight solidi struck for Emperor Heraclius between 616
and 625 have been found across Europe, from Hungary to England, via the
Rhineland and Frisia. All those coins came from the Avar qaganate. To judge
from the existing evidence, the Avars obtained the coins from stipends from
84 Rosner (1981), 47–48 believed that the potters in Szekszárd did not produce their food, but
procured it on the market, where they sold their products. According to Herold (2014),
226, the “grey pottery” produced in Szekszárd and elsewhere was meant to respond to
the elaborate eating and drinking habits and the altogether different lifestyle of the Avar
elites.
85 Kondé et al. (2018), 222.
86 Menander the Guardsman, frg. 5.4, 53. The Avars set monetary values for the ransom of
their prisoners, an indication that they were certainly aware of market prices.
87 Pohl (2018), \ 403; Somogyi (2008),103 and 132; Kardaras (2018), 124. Pohl (1990), 93 rightly
notes that the total number of gold coins estimated to have entered the Carpathian Basin
between 574 and 626 is equal to the annual military budget of the Empire under Justinian.
88 Schreiner (1994), 16.
89 Bóna (1990),118. However, the X-ray fluorescence analysis of a number of artifacts, pri-
marily pseudo-buckles, has demonstrated that they were all made of silver-copper-gold
alloys, and not from recycled gold coins; see Heinrich-Tamáska/Voß (2018), 151–66.
90 Somogyi (1997); Kozub (1997); Kozub-Wołoszyn (1999); Wołoszyn (1999); Somogyi (2007–
2008); Somogyi (2014), 189–212.
91 Somogyi (2014), 87–134. Somogyi believes that the middlemen were the Bulgars who,
in the aftermath of the civil war in the Avar qaganate, took refuge in Bavaria, an event
mentioned in the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar (IV 72, 157). Parts of the Bulgar hoard
consisting of coins obtained from Constantinople were then distributed across the trade
network linking Bavarians to the Alamanni, Frisia, and the Anglo-Saxon world.
92 For the Avar qaganate as Vermittler between Byzantium and the rest of Europe, see
Curta (2015), 646–47. The same conclusion may be drawn on the basis of Italian imita-
tions of Byzantine light-weight solidi found in the Carpathian Basin [Somogyi’s second
group of imitations, see Somogyi (2014), 149]. Those imitations may have reached the
Avars as money, either as a part of the payment of stipends or, more likely, as the result of
exchanges with the Lombards in Italy.
93 Building upon an earlier idea, Staššíková-Štukovská (1989), 55 believed that the adjust-
ment of the volume of ceramic vessels in the Carpathian Basin to the Roman measures of
capacity is an indication of integration into the empire’s economic sphere through com-
modity exchange.
94 Pohl (1990), 94. The idea was borrowed uncritically by Schmauder (2015), 679–80. Pohl
(2018), 243–44 believes that the Avar society was based on the interlocking of the prestige
and the subsistence economy. According to Csiky/Magyar-Hársegyi (2015), 180, the small
number of Avar-age amphora finds from the Carpathian Basin shows that there was no
“regular trade between the Byzantine empire and the Avar khaganate.” For an alternative
explanation that still excludes trade, see Curta (2016a), 319.
95 Pohl (1990), 94–95. Pohl goes as far as to conclude that the social order of any “steppe
empire” was threatened by free trade.
96 Sós (1978), 427. For the Avar-age copper coins found in the Carpathian Basin, see Somogyi
(1997), 116 with n. 18; Somogyi (2008), 88–89.
97 As Somogyi (2008), 88 points out, those imitations were made on the basis of the “vague
memory of, instead of closely following, the original coins.”
98 Most typical in this respect is Pohl (2018), 240–43. Paradoxically, Pohl (1991), 596 criticizes
his own method.
99 Németh (1971); Tóth (1971); Tóth (1975); László (1976); Tóth (1984); Tóth (1988); Tóth/
Horváth (1992); Kiss (1994); Garam (1995); Kiss (1995); Tóth (1996); Balogh/Wicker (2012);
Madaras (2016). According to Tóth (1972), 153, the burial at Kunbábony is “princely,”
because it contained “parts of the gold princely scourge.” But as Bálint (1996), 117 notes,
treating certain artifacts deposited in graves as rank or status symbols is simply circular
reasoning.
indication of social status, some have even advanced a model of Avar society
with “princely” graves corresponding to the Avar elites, graves with weapons
to the warrior group, in addition to graves without weapons, but with belt fit-
tings in which commoners were buried.100 Only recently have serious doubts
been raised about such simplistic interpretations, that remind one of Anatolii
Ambroz’s model of Marxist inspiration (see chapter 9).101 Some have pointed
out that all so-called “princely burials” known so far may be dated to the sec-
ond or third quarter of the 7th century, and that no such burials are known
either for the earlier or for the later period of the Avar age, although the pres-
ence of the Avar aristocracy is well attested in both cases.102 Others have noted
that various weapons were deposited in various ways in graves, each way being
characteristic “only of a special, rather small region, and every community
buried their members according to their own particular customs, and there-
fore no generally accepted social model can be constructed.”103 For example,
in both Transdanubia (western Hungary) and Transylvania (central Romania),
men were typically buried with weapons and weapon combinations that have
direct parallels in the Merovingian milieu farther to the west.104 By contrast
swords covered with gold sheets and ring-pommel swords appear primarily
in the lands between the Middle Danube and the Tisza rivers, which has been
interpreted as an indication that that was the center of the Avar qaganate,
where the ruler and his retinue resided and were buried.105 Weapons in that
area appear together with horses (either entire skeletons, or parts thereof) in
graves of the social elite.106 “Horseman burials” without belt fittings are par-
ticularly numerous during the second half of the 7th century.107
100 Fülöp (1988), 189. According to Fülöp (1990), 143, the absence of everyday tools and imple-
ments is an indication of the “higher social rank for the people buried.” Čilinská (1991), 22
believed that graves without any grave goods were slave burials. For the social significance
of the color symbolism associated with glass insets on belt sets, see Bálint (2000). For the
deposition of weapons in Avar-age burials, see Szentpéteri (1993a); Szentpéteri (1993c);
Csiky (2011).
101 Bálint (2006), 148–49. According to Bálint (1996), 119–20, the tripartite division of Avar
society ultimately derives from László 1955.
102 Bálint (2006), 151.
103 Csiky (2015a), 390.
104 Such contacts with the Merovingian milieu are also documented archaeologically in pot-
tery manufacturing, female dress, and other burial customs; see Csiky (2015a), 405.
105 Anke/Révész/Vida (2008), 57–58; Csiky (2015a), 405–06.
106 For weapons (particularly lances) buried with stirrups in graves of “professional warriors,”
see Curta (2008c), 312–13 and 320.
107 Zábojník (1996), 190. The distinction between those buried with weapons and belt sets
and those buried only with belt sets goes back to Szentpéteri (1985).
Gender differences, when noted at all, have also been interpreted as reflect-
ing the tripartite division of society.108 The written sources suggest that polyg-
amy was restricted to the qagan, who sometimes took his many wives with
him on campaign.109 While seducing one of those wives of the qagan was a
crime apparently punishable by death, Avar warriors who wintered every year
among the Slavs are said to have slept with their wives and daughters, as if
they were their concubines.110 While in the lands between the Tisza and the
Danube, all high-status burials are of men, in Transdanubia, most “elite buri-
als” are of women, which suggests that, like in the contemporary Merovingian
milieu, the social status of men was communicated vicariously through their
womenfolk.111 Transdanubia also offers the opportunity to examine both
cemeteries and adjacent settlements. At Kölked (near Mohács, in southern
Hungary), a large settlement excavated between 1972 and 1999 (as well as in
2004 and 2005) produced evidence of ditches and fences surrounding separate
farmsteads, each with one or two above-ground houses surrounded by several
sunken-floor buildings.112 Some of those buildings produced clear evidence of
prosperity (in the form of a weighing balance for gold coins) and contacts with
the Empire (in the form of remains of amphorae and lamps).113 The socially
privileged position of those who lived in such buildings, particularly in a farm-
stead in the middle of the settlement, is also reflected in the richest burials (all
of women) discovered on the neighboring cemetery site.114 It is remarkable
that the representation of elevated social status for the women buried in that
cemetery employed no “Avar” elements, but instead used elements of burial
ritual and dress that were in fashion in Merovingian Francia with additional
features of imperial inspiration.115 Rich female burials are also known from
timber burial chambers in Keszthely. Despite extensive robbing, the wealth in
one of those discovered along the Fenéki Street was considerable: two golden
pendants with cloisonné ornament, 15 gold imitations of Roman bronze coins,
two golden beads, a golden finger-ring, fragments of a golden headdress, and 11
belt mounts with embossed ornament.116 A 40- to 60-year old male was buried
in a burial chamber found at Pusztaszentegyházi dűlő, next to the southern
wall of the late antique stronghold. A buckle with Greek inscription, a strap
end with embossed decoration, and two belt mounts belong to a sword-belt
set of the so-called Civezzano type that must have in the possession of a high-
ranking member of the local aristocracy.117
The exact origin of the wealth on which this social distinction was based
remains unclear, but both Kölked and Keszthely were communities enjoying
a certain degree of autonomy inside the Avar qaganate.118 In that respect, the
social status of their inhabitants must have been different from that of the
prisoners of war forcefully moved from the Balkan provinces of the Empire
into the central area of the qaganate. Though allowed to have their own leaders
and to retain a sense of separate identity, those people were not free.119 Some
believe that the captives represented a significant component of the labor
115 Vida (2004). The exquisitely decorated pin found in grave 85 of the cemetery B in Kölked-
Feketekapu was found on the right side of the skull, pointing downwards, an indication
that it fastened a veil or the kerchief falling on the shoulder or on the right side of the
head. Such fashions were out of date in the western area of Merovingian Europe, but
under early Byzantine influence, the fastening of the veil still played a key role in com-
municating the high status of female members of the elites in the Carpathian Basin; see
Vida (1999); Vida (2008), 27–28.
116 Müller (2002a), pp. 33 and 35; 64 fig. 10/1, 2. Vida (2008), 30 dated the cemetery to the
Early Avar age (third quarter of the 6th century) on the basis of analogies for the pen-
dants with cloisonné decoration. For a later date, ca. 600, see Heinrich-Tamáska/Horváth/
Bendő (2018), 330. For slightly earlier, but equally rich graves, possibly of females, in a
cemetery next to the horreum inside the late antique stronghold, see Bárkoczi (1968),
280–81 and 284; pls. LII/1–4, LVIII, LIX, LXV; LXIX/2, 8, 10, and LXX; Vida (2009).
117 Müller (1999–2000), 342, 344–45, 347, and 349; 347 fig. 4; 348 fig. 5. See also Vida
(2008), 30.
118 Such local autonomies are also documented in the written sources (Theophylact
Simocatta, History VIII 3.11–12, 288). See also Szádeczky-Kardoss (1982), 149; Pohl (2018),
275; Pohl (2003), 580; Kiss (2010), 123–24.
119 Miracles of St. Demetrius II 5. 285–286, p228; Szádeczky-Kardoss (1982), 149; Pohl (1991),
599; Pillon (2002), 105; Pohl (2003), 581. Theophylact Simocatta, History VII 10. 1, 262 men-
tions that prisoners of war were taken into the qaganate after the sack of Singidunum
(584). In 611, Lombard captives from Italy were also forcefully moved inside the qaganate
(Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards IV 37, 130–31).
force inside the qaganate.120 But there is no indication, either in the written
or in the archaeological sources, what exactly were the captives supposed to
do inside the Avar qaganate and why were they moved there in the first place.
Meanwhile, there is clear evidence in the written sources that Avar warriors
spent the winters in the settlements of the Slavs, who had otherwise to pay
tribute to them.121 Whoever was responsible for the creation of the very large
“service settlement” at Roztoky, the intention was to create an industrial
center on the southern part of the site, the inhabitants of which were sup-
plied with food from the outside, presumably from the tribute paid by other
communities.122 It has been suggested that the intrusive population that estab-
lished the settlement sites in the Upper Tisza region (especially at Lazuri)
shortly before or after the year 600 came from the Lower Danube.123 If so, this
may have been a forced movement of population done by and under the con-
trol of the Avars, most likely in order to create “service settlements” specialized
in agricultural production on the northeastern periphery of the qaganate.124
The territorial organization of specialized labor is also clear in the case of the
center of ceramic production in Szekszárd. On the other hand, the archaeo-
logical evidence pertaining to the social status of craftsmen is incontrovertible.
Whether or not the graves with tools (such as Band, Felnac, or Kunszentmárton)
were truly tombs of craftsmen, the display of artisanal skills symbolized by
black- and goldsmith tools underscores the social importance accorded to the
activity of those craftsmen.125 Avar society may well have been made up of
several incongruent parts, but it was undoubtedly stratified and hierarchically
organized. Pace Walter Pohl, this was definitely not a society in which relations
were based on animals, not land ownership.126 The ditches surrounding one or
5 Curta (2017).
6 Teodor (1984b), 28; Hânceanu (2011), 249.
7 Constantiniu (1965a), 79 and 92; Dolinescu-Ferche (1979), 214 and 205 fig. 22/1. No identifica-
tion is available for the cereal seeds found in the paste of the clay pans found in Dănceni
(near Chișinău, in the present-day Republic of Moldova), for which see Dergachev/Larina/
Postică (1983), 126.
15 Haimovici (1984), 97; Haimovici (1986–1987), 254 and 258; Stanc (2006), 79, 81, 84, and 173;
Haimovici (2009), 191; Frînculeasa/Dumitrașcu (2014), 129; Susi (2016), 406. For a cow bell
found in a sunken-floored building in Botoșana, see Teodor (1984a), 34, 97 fig. 18/8, and
98 fig. 19/3. Pigs predominate in a few settlements in northern Moldavia, such as Udești
(Suceava County). See Haimovici/Cărpuș (1982), 499–500; Haimovici (1986–1987), 258;
Stanc (2006), 85.
16 Haimovici (1986–1987), 257; Frînculeasa/Dumitrașcu (2014), 129.
(both cattle and sheep) were typically slaughtered at a relatively old age, which
has rightly been interpreted as an indication that they were used for dairying
(and, probably, for agricultural work), and not primarily for meat.17
Much like in the Carpathian Basin, the bones of animals were also the raw
material for awls and combs. Half-manufactured antler and bone products
have been found on several sites in Moldavia, Moldova, and southwestern
Ukraine.18 Combs are also relatively common on 6th- and early 7th-century set-
tlement sites in the region—both single- and double-sided combs.19 However
there is no cluster of finds either within a particular settlement site or within
any building. There is, in other words, nothing like the workshops in Biharea or
Tiszafüred (see chapter 6). To judge from the existing evidence, especially that
of half-manufactured products, the production of combs, awls, and other bone
or antler artifacts was at the level of the household, with no specialized crafts-
men. The same is true for weaving. Loom weights have been found on several
sites, often in the company of spindle whorls. However, there is rarely more
than one specimen per assemblage, which makes it impossible to associate
the presence of loom weights with weaving sheds.20 Moreover, where in mul-
tiple specimens, loom weights appear in unusual assemblages such as open-air
hearths, most likely in a secondary position.21 Again, there is nothing compara-
ble to the weaving sheds in Morești, Balatonlelle, and Rákoczifalva. Like bone
and antler processing, weaving must have been a household-based activity.
22 Ciupercă/Măgureanu (2009), 150 count 113 specimens known so far, 13 of which are stray
finds. For a gazetteer of finds, see Teodor (2005), 163–65.
23 Constantiniu (1966), 674–75 and 675 fig. 5/3; Preda (1967), 513–15; Teodorescu (1972), 91, 93,
95, 96, 78 fig. 2/5, 82 fig. 4/5, 83 fig. 5/4, 5, and 85 fig. 7/1, 3; Mitrea (1979), 151–52 and 153 fig.
4/3; Miclea/Florescu (1980), 209 and pl. 760; Bobi (1981), 107 and 140 fig. 27/5; Măgureanu/
Ciupercă (2004–2005), 301–02, 311 fig. 3, and 317 fig. 9; Măgureanu (2008), 174–75 and 185
fig. 2.
24 Moulds found together with ladles or crucibles: Dolinescu-Ferche/Constantiniu (1981),
323 and fig. 19/1; Mitrea (1994), 289 and 329 fig. 28/3; Teodor (2013), 20 and 124 fig. 32/8. For
other settlements finds, see Rafalovich (1972), 124 fig. 3/2; Rafalovich/Lapushnian (1973),
133 and fig. 10/4; Dolinescu-Ferche (1974), 87 and 96 fig. 106/4; Bobi (1981), 107 and 138 fig.
25/6; Teodor (1984a), 40–41, 98 fig. 19/6, 99 fig. 20/1, 3, and 100 fig. 21/1; Teodor (1984b),
25 and 30 fig. 7/2, 3; Dănilă (1986), 102–03; Teodorescu et al. (1993), 374; Teodorescu et al.
(1999), 92; Mitrea (2001), 325 fig. 65/1, 4; Măgureanu/Ciupercă (2004–2005), 294, 302–305,
301 fig. 2, 312 fig. 4, 313 fig. 5, 310 fig. 7, 316 fig. 8, 317 fig. 9, and 318 fig. 10; Mitrea (2015), 32,
169 fig. 48, and 170 fig. 49.
25 Dolinescu-Ferche/Constantiniu (1981), 293–94, 297, 307, 209, 311, and 318–23; Mitrea
(2001), 71–72 and 229. Contra: Teodor (2006), 195.
26 Lăzărescu-Ionescu et al. (1954), 248, 259, and 231 fig. 40/8; Rafalovich (1965), 124;
Teodorescu (1972), 93 and 78 fig. 2/2; Matei/Rădulescu (1973), 272, 274, and 275 fig. 8/1, 2;
Mitrea (1974–1976), fig. 13/3; Teodor (1975), 152 and 198 fig. 59/5; Muscă/Muscă (1980), 427
and 428 fig. 8; Teodor (1984a), 35, 99 fig. 20/6, and 122 fig. 43/4; Rusanova/Timoshchuk
(1984), 49–50 and 85; Baran (1988), 84, 92, 102, 112, 113, 149 pl. XXV/5–6, 151 pl. XXXII/2,
153 pl. XLI/2, 159 pl. LXII/3, 11; Dolinescu-Ferche (1992), 133 and 146 fig. 15/20; Mitrea/
Dumitroaia/Ciubotaru (1997), 173 and 183 fig. 83/4; Mitrea (1998), 38 and 141 fig. 25/7;
Popilian/Nica 1998), 29, 31, 172 fig. 20/5, and 173 fig. 21/8; Mitrea (2001), 63, 121, 335 fig. 74/5,
and 359 fig. 98/2; Postică (2007), fig. 42/7; Teodor (2013), 17, 21, 22, 124 fig. 32/4–6, and 143
fig. 52/2; Sandu (2016), 168 and 183 pl. II/7. There were traces of oxides inside the crucible
found in house 25 in Davideni, which suggests that it had been used for casting. For ladles
and crucibles found together, see Rafalovich (1965), 124; Teodor (1984a), 37, 98 fig. 19/14, 99
fig. 20/2, 5, and 100 fig. 21/1; Baran (1988), 113 and 157 pl. LIV/8, 9; Dejan (2015), 78 and fig. 2.
with moulds. More often than not, however, scrap metal is not associated with
any casting implements.27 Leaving aside for the moment questions about site
taphonomy, and the circumstances in which some of those settlement fea-
tures may have been abandoned, and then used as dumping grounds, there
is hardly any evidence of special facilities reserved for craft activities. Most
so-called “workshops” are in fact dwellings in which some craft activities were
occasionally carried out. That more than one settlement feature produced evi-
dence of bone or antler processing, weaving, and casting strongly suggests the
lack of specialization or, at the very least, the existence within each commu-
nity of more than one craftsman. Just how industrial activities could take place
within the domestic space of one’s house is best illustrated by a sunken-floored
building brought to light during the 1990 excavations on the settlement site at
Bernashivka, on the left bank of the Upper Dniester river, less than seven miles
from the border between Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova (Fig. 18).28
Judging from the three spindle whorls found in the associated assemblage,
somebody in that house was busy spinning yarn, if only every now and then.29
Cooking must have been done by the gate of the stone oven in the northeast-
ern corner of the building, as revealed by the abundant ceramic material found
in that area—both hand- and wheel-made pottery, including fragments of
amphorae.30 However, the oven was also used for casting. A ladle was found by
the oven gate, and together with that were no less than 68 soapstone moulds for
casting dress accessories (buckles, strap ends, and pendants) and their various,
decorative components.31 There is also a mould for casting “Slavic” bow fibu-
lae. That, and several other moulds have funnel-shaped casting tubes and air-
ing vents, which clearly indicate that they were used for the two-piece casting
27 Together with moulds: Dolinescu-Ferche (1974), 87 and 96 fig. 106/6; Teodor (1984b), 25
and 31 fig. 8/6, 7; Teodor (2103), 20 and 118 fig. 26/13. Without any casting implements:
Lăzărescu-Ionescu et al. (1954), 192; Roman/Ferche (1978), 84; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk
(1984), 76 and 68 fig. 38/30; Popilian/Nica (1998), 15 and 22; Mitrea (2001), 95 and 320
fig. 60/8, 9; Negru (2002), 66 and 67 fig. 6/8. Fragments of copper sheet have also been
found in the coin hoard buried in a copper-alloy pitcher in Horgești (near Bacău, central
Moldavia), for which see Căpitanu (1971), 255; Musteață (2010).
28 Vynokur/Megei (1992); Vynokur (1997), 40, 41 fig. 8, 42 fig. 9, 43 fig. 10, and 44 fig. 11.
29 Vynokur/Megei (1992), 91 fig. 11/7–9.
30 Vynokur/Megei (1992), 90 fig. 10/1–3 and 91 fig. 11/1–6, 10.
31 Vynokur (1997), 54 fig. 16, 55 fig. 17, 57 fig. 18, 59 fig. 19, 61 fig. 20, 63 fig. 21, 64 fig. 22, 65
fig. 23, 66 fig. 24, 67 fig. 25, 71 fig. 26, 72 fig. 27, 74 fig. 28, 75 fig. 29, 77 fig. 30, 78 fig. 31, 79 fig.
32, 81 fig. 34, 85 fig. 35, 86 fig. 36, 87 fig. 37, 89 fig. 38, 91 fig. 39, 93 fig. 40, 94 fig. 41, 95 fig.
42, and 97 fig. 43.
figure 18 Bernashivka (Ukraine), house 36, plan with selected artifacts: four moulds for
casting buckles, pendants, and dress accessory components; ladle; spindle whorls;
hand- and wheel-made pottery (including fragments of amphorae)
Redrawn at different scales after Vynokur/Megei (1992) and
Vynokur (1997)
32 Vynokur (1994). Not all (soap)stone moulds found in the lands to the east and to the south
from the Carpathian Mountains have casting tubes and airing vents. However, Măgureanu
(2008), 176 is wrong in assuming that moulds without casting tubes were used for the
production of dies (as opposed to real casts). In reality, those were one-, not two-piece
moulds.
into the hollow clay bar. Soon after the metal became cold, the bar was bro-
ken and the artifact thus obtained was further decorated. It is the stone mould
used in the initial stage that allowed the production of another, similar (if not
identical) artifact, by means of repeating the process.33 This has encouraged
scholars to look for analogies between dress accessories and moulds, as well as
between moulds found on different sites. The results of the most recent stud-
ies strongly suggest a vast network of household-based craftsmen working in
the same tradition and with the same stylistic repertoire, although located at
considerable distances from each other.34 This begs very interesting questions
about modes of communication in the early Middle Ages, but for the purpose
of this book the most important conclusion to be drawn from such studies is
that household-based crafts do not necessarily imply a “primitive” economy,
isolation, and parochialism.35 What status those craftsmen had in their respec-
tive communities remains unknown, but it is beyond doubt that non-ferrous
metallurgy was practiced at a household level, with no specialized facilities.
Quite the opposite is true for ironworking. Unlike the Carpathian Basin,
blacksmith tools (hammers, anvils, tongs, mandrils, and engraving tools) and
nails are relatively common finds on several settlement sites.36 However, the
most spectacular finds are smelting furnaces made of stone, sand, and clay.
Smelting requires a temperature between 1200 and 1300 centigrades, and in
order to obtain and maintain that temperature, air was forced into the fur-
nace by means of bellows. Smelting furnaces therefore have a side (or front),
tuyere opening for the induced draught.37 Another opening was for removing
the bloom (the metallic product of the direct process, a spongy lump of iron
resulting from the chemical reactions between ore and charcoal), while the
33 For a detailed description of the lost-wax technique, see Franke (1987); Minasian (1997);
Szmoniewski (2002), 121–22; Tănase (2010), 153–58. For an archaeological experiment
involving the “lost wax” technique, see Shablavina (2004).
34 Szmoniewski (2017); Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017).
35 Curta (2012), 264–65.
36 Teodorescu (1972), 85 fig. 6/1–3, 5; Bobi (1981), 107, 139 fig. 26/5, 6 , and 140 fig. 27/4;
Teodor (1984b), 25 and 29 fig. 6/10; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 66 fig. 38/8; Mitrea/
Eminovici/Momanu (1986–1987), 225 and 250 fig. 17/2; Baran (1988), 110, 112, 19 fig. 11/8, 9,
12, 13, 15, and 155 pl. XLVIII/13; Mitrea/Dumitroaia/Ciubotaru (1997) 173 and 186 fig. 36/3;
Popilian/Nica (1998), 14 and 20; Mitrea (2001), 25, 72, 76, 78, 80, 88, 320 fig. 60/2, 4, and 321
fig. 61/2, 3, 5, 8–10; Teodorescu (2009), 341 fig. 21/1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 14, 22; Mitrea (2015), 63. The
shears occasionally found on 6th-century sites [Constantiniu (1963), 82; Baran (1988), 112
and 19 fig. 11/1; Dolinescu-Ferche (1992), 128 and 139 fig. 8/22; Popilian/Nica (1998), 175 fig.
23/4] could have been used for cutting metal, but also fleece. Only when found together
with other tools or implements, could shears be associated with metalworking.
37 For for tuyeres and bellows, see Pleiner (2000), 196–214.
slag remained on the hearth, which had to be cleaned regularly.38 Five such
furnaces are known from settlement 5 excavated in the Budureasca Valley (in
the hills above Mizil, in northeastern Walachia).39 One of them had an open-
ing on the side of the wall, which was designed for the removal of the bloom.40
At Șirna (near Ploiești, in northern Walachia), two furnaces have been dated
between the mid-5th and the early 6th century, and another seven between the
second half of the 6th and the 7th century.41 Out of those seven furnaces, three
were in open air, perhaps used only intermittently.42 It is important to note that
while for the 5th- to 6th-century occupation phase, only two out of 16 houses
had smelting furnaces, half of all houses of the 6th- to 7th-century occupation
phase had such furnaces, a clear sign of the intensification of smelting activ-
ity on the site after the mid-6th century. Four furnaces were found inside, and
another outside the corresponding sunken-floored buildings.43 Each had the
interior covered with a thick crust rich in iron oxides, most likely from roast-
ing. Fragments of blooms and large quantities of slag have been found inside
some of those furnaces.44 A very similar situation has been documented on
the southeastern side of present-day Bucharest, at Lunca-Bârzești. One of the
sunken-floored buildings discovered there during salvage excavations had a
furnace with an opening on the side, just like in Budureasca. Several spongy
blooms and large chunks of slags were inside the furnace, an indication that
this was a smelting site, even though the associated ceramic remains point to
a domestic occupation.45 A second furnace was found inside another sunken-
floored building from Bucharest-Lunca-Bârzești, filled with blooms and slag.46
It remains unclear whether all those furnaces operated at the same time, but
there can be no doubt that there was more than one bloomery ironwork on
38 Teodor (1996), 17–18; Tănase (2010), 92. For the working of a bloomer furnace, see Pleiner
(2000), 133–36.
39 Comșa (1975), 183.
40 Teodorescu et al. (1993), 372 and 369 fig. 3/3.
41 Olteanu/Grigore/Nicolae (2007), 42–50 and 79–80.
42 Olteanu/Neagu/ Șecleman (1981), 227–28 and 228 fig. 2/a, b; Olteanu/Grigore/Nicolae
(2007), 50.
43 Olteanu/Grigore/Nicolae (2007), 160 fig. 8 and 186 fig. 33.
44 Olteanu/Teodorescu/Neagu (1980), 417–19; Olteanu/Neagu (1983), 385–86; Olteanu/
Grigore/Nicolae (2007), 79–80.
45 Sandu (1992), 186 and 188–89; 181 pl. XII/3.
46 Sandu (1992), 190–91. According to Olteanu (1997), 112, the metallographic analysis of iron
ore remains found in Bucharest-Ciurel and in Târgoviște strongly suggests the use of the
furnace with side opening, even though none is known from excavations on either site.
the site.47 The 6th-century smelters in Bucharest, Budureasca, and Șirna were
specialists who lived and worked permanently in settlements designed for that
purpose, perhaps because of the proximity of limonite sediments, the main
source of iron ore.48 Smelting was done at high temperature, which implies
large quantity of fuel, and all three settlements were located in densely forested
areas. The fluxes that the 6th-century smelters typically used were limestone
and chalk, as indicated by the analysis of slag from the settlement excavated
in another area of Bucharest, at Ciurel.49 Within settlement 4 excavated in
Dulceanca, no furnaces have been found, but there were large amounts of slag
in the filling of almost every sunken-floored building and refuse pit on the site.
The metallographic analysis revealed three categories of slag, one of which has
60 percent glass with crystals of quartz and other elements, an indication of
failed smelting. A second category is rich in iron (72.1 percent), but has also cal-
cium and silicon dioxide, a typical signature for ore from sedimentary-alluvial
formations in the area, most likely from the hills along the neighboring rivers
Vedea and Burdea.50 Slag has also been found on many other sites for which
no evidence of smelting is known. Sometimes the slag was retrieved from the
filling of the settlement feature, but at other times it was clearly found in an
archaeological context (such as inside the oven or by its gate) that suggests
ironworking activity.51
Many questions remain unanswered about the 6th-century smelters of
Walachia. Why was production restricted to a few locations, and who was
responsible for the subsistence and protection of the smelters in Bucharest,
Budureasca, and Șirna? Did they work on commission or for some kind of
domestic market? If the latter, what was the mechanism responsible for the
distribution of the iron blooms produced on those smelting sites? There are
no smithies on any 6th- and 7th-century settlement.52 So, did the smelters pro-
duce for individual households, in which some kind of ironworking activities
were performed “on the side”? Did therefore smelters and farmers engage in
some kind of exchange, either redistribution or trade? How did the blooms
produced by smelters get to those settlements in which some inhabitants had
the necessary skills to fashion the blooms (or the billets) into tools or weap-
ons? With no satisfactory answers to those questions, it is difficult to gauge
the social position of smelters in the 6th-century communities in Walachia
and Moldavia. Even though that position does not seem to have been marked
in death in the same way it was for at least some craftsmen in the Carpathian
Basin, it is quite clear that smelting was an activity sufficiently important from
a social point of view, for craftsmen to come together in the same settlements,
and for production to be restricted to a few sites, in direct opposition to the
rather diffuse character of the non-ferrous metallurgy.53 It is important to note
also the advanced technological procedures employed by the 6th-century
smelters, especially when compared with the slightly earlier evidence from
5th-century Bohemia, where slag-pit furnaces were in use.54 To judge from the
existing evidence, the technology, social distinction, and separate living quar-
ters of the 6th-century smelters in Walachia may be compared only with later,
7th- to 8th-century “service settlements” of smelters and smiths in the western
parts of the Carpathian Basin and in Moldavia.55
The only other industrial activity that, like smelting, required special facili-
ties was pottery production. Some kilns were of the up-draught type, with grates,
like in Bratei (see chapter 6).56 Others had a much simpler construction.57
Inside the kilns found on the northern outskirts of Bucharest, at Dămăroaia
and in Dulceanca were recently fired ceramic vessels—both hand- and wheel-
made—stacked in two rows, with clay rolls between them to retain the heat.58
Unfortunately, no study of paste and morphology has been carried out for
the ceramic materials associated with any of those kilns, in order to identify
areas of distribution either within one and the same settlement or in its micro-
region. There can be no doubt about the specialized character of pottery pro-
duction, even though no consistent separation of production facilities from
the rest of the settlement has been so far identified.59
What kind of society was that in which some farmers could also be weavers
and jewelers, but smelters formed a group separate in both social and physi-
cal terms? Unlike Hungary, where Marxism had practically no influence on
the archaeological research on the 5th and 6th centuries, in Romania, some
archaeologists boldly engaged in the 1970s in critical discussions of Marxist
theory, in an attempt to find a model of interpretation for the rapidly grow-
ing body of evidence from the excavations of settlement sites.60 According to
Maria Comșa, in his works, Friedrich Engels has focused only on developments
in Western Europe and in Germany, such as known in the late 19th and early
20th century. New research has brought more information, especially for those
societies that did not follow the classic model of development, such as those
on the territory of Romania.61 Encouraged by the thaw and anti-Soviet attitude
of the early years of Ceaușescu’s regime, but also prompted by theoretical dis-
cussions of the so-called Asian or tributary mode of production, Romanian
archaeologists and historians believed that the main form of organiza-
tion on the territory of Romania during the transition to feudalism was the
56 Diaconu (1958), 451 and 453 fig. 2/4; Teodorescu (1972), 94 and 76 fig. 1/1; Muscă/Muscă
(1980), 423, 427–28, and 426 fig. 3; Székely (1992), 284.
57 Comșa (1981), 241 and 272; 243 fig. 1; Chirica/Tanasachi (1984), 434.
58 Rosetti (1934), 211; Dolinescu-Ferche, (1974), 71–73; 72 figs. 62–63; 74 figs. 64, 65 and 67; 75
fig. 66.
59 The kilns in Dulceanca and Cernat were located inside their respective settlements, only
a few yards away from the next sunken-floored buildings [Dolinescu-Ferche (1974), 71;
Székely (1992), 284]. The kiln in Băleni-Români, however, was on the northern edge of the
settlement, albeit still close to a sunken-floored building; see Muscă/Muscă (1980), 423.
60 For Marxism in Romanian archaeology, see Anghelinu (2007). For Hungarian archaeology
working on the early Middle Ages as hostile to Marxism, see Bartosiewicz (2016), 218.
61 Comșa (1967), 431 with n. 1. See also Báko (1975); Zaharia (1980). Well attuned to
Ceaușescu’s specific form of nationalist Communism, such ideas long outlived his regime,
albeit without reference to Engels. See Comșa (1993); Comșa (1997); Teodor (1999); Postică
(2007); Olteanu (2017).
62 For a survey of the international debates regarding the tributary mode of production,
see Haldon (1993), 63–109. The debate reached Romania in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
as the Romanian historians adopted the views of the Marxist sociologist Henri H. Stahl
(1901–1991), whose three-volume work [Stahl (1958–1965)] had a great impact on ideas
about the village community in the early Middle Ages. An equally influential book was his
collection of studies in historical anthropology [Stahl (1972)]. See also Stahl (1980).
63 Comșa (1967), 432 and 434; Comșa (1970), 31, 32, and 34.
64 Zaharia (1980), 152 even opposed the village community mode of production typical for
the local, native population to the Asian mode of production supposedly characteristic
for the migratory populations.
65 Engels (1902), 158–166; this is chapter VII, “The gens among Celts and Germans,” which
is available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
ch07.htm, visit of August 23, 2020).
66 Comșa (1967), 437.
developed for social class formation.67 Moreover, the direct producers were free
farmers, not slaves, even though prisoners of war and other captives appear in
the sources pertaining to the lands north of the Lower Danube River.68 Locals
practiced mixed farming, with each family cultivating its own plot, which it
retained in full property, together with its own animals and tools. However, all
members of the village community shared the grazing fields, as well as access
to other natural resources, such as woods and bodies of water.69 A typical vil-
lage community had between 30 to 60 nuclear families, the houses of which
clustered in groups inside the village to form the residential quarters of larger,
extended clans (cete de neam).70 The leader of the village community was a
“judge” (jude, judec), who could also exercise military power, and was assisted
by a council of elders.71 However, neither the “judge,” nor the elders could form
a well-defined class, as their position of social prominence was not rooted in
economic privilege.
The problem with this theory of the village community, which is eerily simi-
lar to Chris Wickham’s “peasant mode of production,” is that, while appealing
to some historians and archaeologists, it lacks support in the archaeological
and written sources.72 Although most sunken-floored buildings found on 6th-
to early 7th-century settlement sites are no larger than 160 square feet each
(the space required for a nuclear family of five), there is absolutely no evidence
of private property. Unlike the Carpathian Basin, no settlement in Walachia,
Moldavia, Moldova, or southwestern Ukraine has so far produced evidence of
fences or ditches marking the boundaries of households or fields. Keys and
locks are conspicuously absent from the archaeological record of the Lower
Danube region in the early Middle Ages.73 That archaeological record cannot
answer any questions regarding kinship, and proximity of buildings and other
features within one and the same settlement could hardly be interpreted as
indicating large, extended families. As a matter of fact, the intrasite spatial
analysis of a number of 6th- and early 7th-century settlement sites in Romania
and Moldova strongly suggests a very different organization and use of space,
with a central, open area, and a remarkable polarization of the artifact distri-
bution. All sites examined proved to be examples of sociopetal settlements, in
which the communal front region, where activities involving the entire com-
munity may have taken place, was located in the middle. It has been also sug-
gested that that communal front region was not only a locus of communal
activity—feasts and ceremonies—but also an arena of social competition, a
“beyond-the-household context” for displays of symbols of leadership.74
Equally problematic is the interpretation of 6th- and early 7th-century coins
found in the lands north of the Lower Danube as an indication of monetary
exchanges. In the eyes of early Byzantine authors, the population in those
lands was perfectly capable of understanding the value of the imperial coins.
According to the author of the Strategikon, the Sclavenes did not “keep those
in captivity among them in perpetual slavery, as do other nations.” Instead,
they were eager to release them “with a small recompense” to be paid, most
likely, in early Byzantine coins.75 Almost all small denominations of the bronze
currency that are known from Romania have been found immediately close
to the line of the Danube, that is to the “space of the market” in the Empire.76
However, out of all 550 such coins so far found north of the Lower Danube,
within a band of about 62 miles away from the river, the vast majority are
stray finds. Even though coins found in barbaricum depend primarily on
monetary developments in the Balkan provinces, without the archaeological
context, there is no way to tell at what point in time has a coin reached the
lands north of the Danube frontier of the empire.77 For example, coins struck
for Anastasius may well have come to Walachia under Emperor Justinian.
Similarly, it has been noted that 65 percent of all coins found in present-day
Romania and Moldova are folles (the highest denominations of bronze),
especially the heavy ones struck for Justinian after 538. However, such coins
came to the northern Balkans, and thus became available to the population on
the other side of the Danube frontier, only after Justinian’s death, particularly
under the reigns of Justin II and Tiberius II.78 In fact, almost all 6th-century
coins found during archaeological excavations are of Justinian, struck before
545.79 They may well have entered the lands north of the river Danube at any
point during the following 50 years or so. Moreover, it is remarkable that none
of them was found in a context indicating commercial exchanges. On the con-
trary, a coin struck for Justinian at some point between 527 and 538 was found
in house 20 in Botoșana together with a a ladle and a crucible, both pointing
to a local production of dress accessories. In fact, it has even been suggested
that the coin in question may have been raw material for casting.80 In other
words, while at least some early Byzantine coins may have been obtained by
means of commercial exchanges from the empire, none of them had any mon-
etary value inside the barbarian society north of the river Danube. The relative
abundance of coins is therefore to be interpreted in relation to metalwork-
ing. A similar argument may be advanced for the other category of artifacts
commonly associated with trade—amphorae. Amphora shards were found
on several sites south and east of the Carpathian Mountains, and where pos-
sible, the identification of those ceramic remains points to the most com-
mon types in the Balkans—LR 1 and LR 2 (see chapter 3).81 There are even
examples of LR 2 amphorae with pointed tips, a feature that has been used to
date specimens before the mid-6th century.82 However, the relative abundance
of amphorae on 6th-century settlements in Walachia and Moldavia, which is
in stark contrast to the contemporaneous situation in the Carpathian Basin
78 Gândilă (2012), 370, 379, and 400 (for a list of those coins found in barbaricum).
79 Justinian: Rosetti (1934), 210; Lăzărescu-Ionescu et al. (1954), 247; Morintz/Rosetti (1959),
33–34; Constantiniu (1965b), 188 and 189 fig. 93/2, 3; Preda (1972), 397; Teodor (1984a),
31, 37, 109 fig. 30/2, and 110 fig. 31/6, 8. For a unique coin struck for Justin II and found in
Budureasca, see Teodorescu (1980), 76–77.
80 Gândilă (2009), 458.
81 Curta (2001c), 242–43 and 244 fig. 37. For an updated distribution map, see Gândilă
(2018a), 47 fig. 3. Missing from Gândilă’s map are the fragment found in Bucharest-Militari
[Negru/Bădescu/Cuculea-Sandu (2009), 30]; and an imitation from Târgșor (near Ploiești,
northern Walachia), for which see Ciupercă/Măgureanu (2010), 156–57.
82 For a whole specimen of LR 2 with a pointed tip, see Teodorescu (2009), 340 fig. 19/1. For
amphora fragments from Dulceanca as possible remains of LR 2, see Teodor (2000), 325
and 336 (Anexa 3).
(see chapter 6), has been rightly interpreted as an indication of elites, not as a
sign of trade.83
For elites are quite prominent in both the written and the archaeological
sources. There is of course no mention in the written sources either of “judges”
or of “councils of elders,” two anachronistic notions that archaeologists and
historians promoting the theory of the village community have lifted up
from the ethnographic literature pertaining to much later social and politi-
cal developments.84 Early Byzantine sources mention several warlords in the
lands north of the Lower Danube. The careful analysis of the description of
those men’s actions and relations to others shows that during the last quarter
of the 6th century, many chiefs were competing for power. Some were war-
rior leaders (great men), others organizers of feasts and orators (big men),
but all had achieved, not ascribed power.85 Because they had to prove them-
selves constantly, such leaders ended up speaking and acting on behalf of their
respective groups, whose identity was formed around their power.86
Although the Byzantine authors insist upon the ephemeral character of
that power, it most certainly had a material culture correlate that went beyond
symbols of status, such as bow fibulae, vicariously displayed on those leaders’
womenfolk.87 Gold is rare in the lands north of the Lower Danube: besides a
few gold coins struck for the 6th-century emperors, the only other gold find
from Walachia is a small mount found in a grave in Sărata Monteoru.88 Silver
finds are also rare.89 Some have even deplored the poverty of the settlements
in Walachia, when compared to the richness of cemeteries in the Carpathian
Basin.90 However, an unusually large house recently discovered in Copăceanca
(near Roșiorii de Vede, southern Romania) had two rows of postholes and
83 Măgureanu (2010), 80–81. In fact, an argument may clearly be made that amphorae appear
in the same archaeological assemblages that are otherwise marked by tools and imple-
ments of non-ferrous metallurgy, e.g., in Bucharest-Soldat Ghivan. See Dolinescu-Ferche/
Constantiniu (1981), 319–323, 319 fig. 16/1–3 and 5, 321 fig. 17/16, and 323 fig. 19/1. It may
not be an accident that that same assemblage produced evidence of cereal seed imprints
onto handmade pottery.
84 Stahl (1958–1965), vol. 2, 35–99 and vol. 3, 28–33.
85 Curta (1999); Curta (2001c), 311–34.
86 Mesiarkin (2017).
87 Curta (2012), 287–91.
88 Nestor (1969), 26.
89 Constantiniu (1965a), 77–78 and 92 fig. 18; Teodorescu (1971), 109; Matei/Rădulescu (1973),
‘166 and 271 fig. 4; Toropu (1976), 137–138 and 213; pl. 17/1, 2; Baran (1988), 119 and 21 fig. 12/7;
Fiedler (1992), 83 fig. 11/1; Curta/Dupoi (1994–1995), 217 and 219 fig. 1.
90 Măgureanu (2015), 267–68.
has been interpreted as an elite residence.91 Even larger is the house with two
rooms, each with its own fireplace, discovered in Udești (near Suceava, north-
ern Moldavia). The assemblage associated with that building includes a small
hoard of gold coins—one struck for Phocas, the other two for Heraclius.92
This building is very different from the rather ordinary sunken-floored huts
discovered on that settlement site. It was very likely an elite residence.93 Some
50 miles to the northwest, across the border between Romania and Ukraine,
an exceptional hoard of 7th-century Byzantine silverware found in the early
19th century in the present-day suburbs of the city of Chernivtsi may also be
associated with the local elite.94 Another hoard or, perhaps, burial assemblage
found just outside Craiova (southwestern Romania) includes gilt silver dress
accessories—two finger- and three earrings, a torc, and a bow fibula with
exquisite decoration in Animal Style II, the largest specimen of its kind known
so far.95 How exactly could someone living in the lands north of the Lower
Danube acquire solidi struck for Phocas and Heraclius, a silver situla from
Byzantium, or an elegant brooch with an ornament most typical for the Early
Avar age (see chapter 7)? John of Ephesus describes the Sclavene warriors of
the early 580s, who have become rich and possessing “gold and silver, herds of
horses and a lot of weapons.”96 However, it is also possible to explain the early
Byzantine silverware as gifts or bribes, much like the numerous hexagrams
both in isolated and in hoard finds from southern Romania.97 Irrespective of
how such wealth was acquired in the first place, it does not necessarily follow
that social and economic differences have sufficiently grown in the 7th century
for social classes to emerge. The presence and display of wealth, especially in
hoard or burial contexts, may be a desperate way to reinforce power and rally
support at a time of crisis and political volatility in the turbulent decades of
the early 7th century marked by the withdrawal of the Roman power from the
Balkans, the siege of Constantinople, and the civil war inside the Avar qaganate.
On the other hand, the accumulation of wealth must have already started in
the 6th century, for in 578, the qagan of the Avars demanded tribute from the
lands north of the Lower Danube, which were “full of gold, since the Roman
Empire had long been plundered by the Slavs, whose own land had never been
raided by any other people at all.”98 The booty captured from the Slavs by the
Byzantine troops after the campaign of 593 was considerable enough to excite
protests from the soldiers, when their general, Priscus, attempted to send it
all to Constantinople.99 In the shadow of the Empire, the answer that the
Sclavene chieftain Daurentius (or Dauritas) gave to the envoys that the Avar
qagan had sent to him to request payment of the tribute may have sounded
like pure boasting: “Others do not conquer our land, but rather we conquer
theirs. That is how it will always be, as long as there are wars and swords.”100
Daurentius spoke in the name of the Sclavene men whom he had presum-
ably led to military victories. He was, in other words, a leader of Sclavenes, not
a ruler of Sclavinia.101 However, he was definitely not the only ruler of men.
Another Sclavene “king” named Musocius had oarsmen at his disposal, whom
he could send together with their canoes to rescue refugees from a neighboring
territory raided by Priscus’ troops.102 While Daurentius’ men wielded swords
in war, others were busy smelting iron and forging weapons, most likely at the
order and under the protection of their own rulers.103
98 Menander the Guardsman, History fr. 21, 195; fr. 25.1, 219; Živković (2008), 18.
99 Theophylact Simocatta, History VI 7.6–7, 233. This booty must have been something dif-
ferent from, and substantially more than just the food supplies that the author of the
Strategikon knew that Roman troops could find in settlements north of the river Danube.
100 Menander the Guardsman, History, fr. 21, 194; Curta (2001c), 91.
101 For Sclavinia as the name for the Sclavene land north of the river Danube, see Theophylact
Simocatta, History VIII 5.10, 293; Curta (2011b).
102 Theophylact Simocatta, History VI 9.6, 237; Curta (2001c), 102.
103 It may not be an accident that at Budureasca, one of the three smelting sites so far known
from 6th-century Walachia, archaeologists have found two belt mounts with analogies
known only from horseman burials in western Pannonia. According to Măgureanu (2012),
318, the mounts may be dated to the exact same period in which the Sclavene chiefs
Ardagastus, Peiragastus, and Musocius appear in the written sources.
The American historian Rudi Lindner was right: “Historians dislike nomads.”1
He did not, but still had a hard time defining nomadism. To him, the nomads
were “mounted archers,” whose “light traveling” gave them military advantage.2
Lindner was right on another point as well: “to understand the history of
nomads, we must exert ourselves to avoid adopting the prejudices of their liter-
ate, fleeting enemies.”3 Few among those writing about the 6th-century nomads
followed Lindner’s advice, if they ever read it. According to Alexander Sarantis,
the fact that the Huns living in and around the city of Bosporus disappear from
the historical record after 528 is a consequence of “their nomadic lifestyle, with
its seasonal movements and period raids on settled communities.” This is in
sharp contrast to the “Germanic world of Pannonia …, where the presence of
relatively stable political groupings is suggested by the longevity and regular-
ity of the names appearing in our sources.”4 As if subscribing to geographi-
cal determinism, historians write of “steppe nomads” and “steppe empires,”
while archaeologists insist that nomads can be identified by means of specific
houses (so-called yurts), amulets, or shoes.5 However, as Anatoly Khazanov has
put it, to this day the scholarly community “lacks a generally accepted defini-
tion” of nomadism.6 The form of nomadism that predominates in the steppe
lands of western Eurasia—the locus of interaction between Byzantium and
the nomads—may be best defined in economic and social terms. Pastoralism
is the main, if not the only economic activity, which is based on maintaining
herds throughout the year in free-range pastures.7 That implies seasonal move-
ment within the boundaries of specific grazing territories, and that movement
involves the entire population, and not just one of its segments. Nomadism,
in other words, is not transhumance.8 The society of the pastoral nomads in
the Eurasian steppes is based on kinship, but also on “various segmentary
systems and genealogies, whether real or spurious.”9 Khazanov noted that in
order for pastoral nomadism to emerge as a viable, long-term economic alter-
native, favorable external socio-political conditions had to exist. Those were
made possible by neighboring, sedentary societies that had a certain level
of economic development, stratified social systems, and state organization.
Khazanov’s remarks invite a re-examination of the historical evidence pertain-
ing to the 6th- and 7th-century steppe lands of Eastern Europe. While the his-
tory of the peoples in the lands north of the Black Sea during Late Antiquity,
especially the Huns, has been the subject of a few recent books, there has been
very little interest in the post-Hunnic history of the region, even though much
has been written on the sources of that history—from Priscus to Menander the
Guardsman—and the abundant results of the archaeological research in the
southern parts of the present-day Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as
Russia.10
One of the earliest sources dealing with the steppe lands north of the Black
Sea in the 6th century is Jordanes’ Getica. Jordanes regarded the Black Sea
7 The word “nomad” derives from the Greek verb nomeuo, which means “to drive afield”
or “to tend a flock” (by taking it to the grazing field, the nome). A nomad is essentially a
shepherd (nomeus).
8 For the conceptual distinction between pastoral nomadism and transhumance (“yaylag
pastoralism”), see Khazanov (1994), 16 and 23.
9 Khazanov (2003), 27.
10 For the Huns, see Bóna (2002); Batty (2007); Kim (2013); Kim (2016). None of those books
discusses the pastoralist economy in the 6th and 7th century. Bóna (2002), 28–33 rightly
blames historians for overusing ethnographic parallels (particularly with the 19th-century
Kyrgyz), but has nothing to say about Hunnic pastoralism). The section on the “phenome-
non of nomadism” in Batty’s book [Batty (2007), 138–145] includes inappropriate parallels
to the “American Plains Indians, such as the Blackfoot and Cheyenne,” Mongol proverbs,
as well as references to Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddima, and accounts of the 16th-century
“nomadic lifestyle” in the Volga steppes, but absolutely no historical or archaeological
information regarding nomadism in Late Antiquity or the early Middle Ages. The assump-
tion, of course, is that nomads remained essentially the same throughout history from
the Scythians to the Nagayans. To Kim, “the so-called ‘nomads’ of Eurasian steppe history
were peoples whose territory/territories were usually clearly defined, who as pastoralists
moved about in search of pasture, but within a fixed territorial space.” Nonetheless, Kim
(2016), 4 believes that the Huns were “a heterogeneous agro-pastoralist society” (empha-
sis added). For a few studies dedicated to the post-Hunnic steppe lands of Eastern Europe,
see Kazanski (1993) and Galkina (2005).
figure 19 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes (ancient names in italics)
steppe as the region from which the Huns, “like a fruitful root of bravest races,
sprouted into two hordes of people—Altziagiri and Sabiri—each with different
dwelling places.”11 While the Sabiri are also known from Priscus, the Altziagiri
do not appear in any other sources.12 According to Jordanes, they lived “near
Cherson,” but in the summer “ranged the plains, their broad domains,” return-
ing to the Black Sea shore in the winter (Fig. 19).13 Whoever the Altziagiri were,
the mention of Cherson is important, because the city is also said to be the
place where traders bring in goods from Asia (see chapter 5). In other words,
the Altzagiri are explicitly associated with an urban and commercial center.14
There is no such association in Procopius’ description of the Black Sea in
Book VIII of the Wars, which was written most likely in or shortly after 554.15
Instead, Procopius specifically mentions that “all nations of the Huns are set-
tled” in the steppe lands north of the Caucasus Mountains, “extending [west-
wards] as far as the Sea of Azov.”16 In spite of the common opinion on the matter,
Procopius does not describe nomads moving around in the steppe lands. The
Utigurs are said to have settled in the lands to the east of the Maeotis (Sea of
Azov).17 The only mention of nomads in Procopius’ work is in reference to the
Ephthalites (White Huns), who “are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples,
but since ancient times have been established in fertile lands.”18 It is impor-
tant to note in this context that, although regarding the “Hunnic people” as
nomads when distinguishing them from the Ephthalites, Procopius has noth-
ing to say about nomadism when describing the Huns. Agathias of Myrina,
writing in the late 570s or early 580s, knew that “all the other Hunnic tribes
were still at the height of their fame though for some reason best known to
themselves they had chose to move south at this time and had encamped not
far from the banks of the Danube.”19 The passage serves as an introduction to
Agathias’ account of the Cutrigur devastating invasion of 558/9, during which,
after crossing the frozen Danube as if on a bridge, the Hunnic horsemen under
the leadership of Zabergan reached the outskirts of Constantinople.20 There is
nothing about Hunnic nomadism in Agathias’ Histories.
An appendix attached in the mid-6th century to the epitomized Syriac
translation of the now lost Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah of Mytilene, con-
tains a list of 13 ethnic names largely based on Priscus, in addition to a few
new names, one of which is Korthrigor (Cutrigurs). No mention is made of
where those people lived, but they are all said to be tent-dwellers who eat “the
meat of cattle, fish, and wild animals,”21 The Syriac author’s listing of Cutrigurs
among the tent-dwellers reminds one of a slightly later source—Menander the
Guardsman. Writing under Emperor Maurice (582–602), his now lost History
survives in fragments incorporated into De legationibus and De sententiis, two
collections compiled under Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the mid-10th
century. In one of those fragments, Menander mentions the leaders of the
Cutrigurs, Zabergan, who appears also in Agathias of Myrina’s work. Emperor
Justinian is said to have put pressure on Sandilkh, the leader of the Utigurs, to
attack Zabergan and destroy the Cutrigurs. Sandilkh refused to attack those
whom he regarded as his fellow tribesmen: “For they not only speak our lan-
guage, dwell in tents like us, dress like us, and live like us, but they are our
kin, even if they follow other leaders.”22 He offered a compromise: instead
of destroying the Cutrigurs, he would attack them to take all their horses,
“so that without their mounts they will be unable to pillage the Romans.”23
There was apparently a common Cutrigur-Utigur culture, of which the tents
were an important component. However, there is no indication that tent-
dwellers like the Utigurs and the Cutrigurs were nomads. The reference to
horses is quite clearly meant to point out that Cutrigurs fight on horseback.
To take their horses, therefore, is not to inflict damage onto their pastoralist
economy, but to prevent them from waging war against the Empire. The words
that Menander put in Sandilkh’s mouth are those that educated Romans could
have uttered. Similarity of language and customs is significant to those who
know from ancient ethnography that that similarity also implies the same
ways of waging war. That Menander, like Procopius, was counting on his audi-
ence’s knowledge of, and ability to recognize his allusions to Herodotus’ arche-
typal Scythians results from another fragment, in which an Avar envoy asks
Emperor Tiberius II: “Do you not have writings and records from which you
can read and learn that the tribes of Scythians are impossible to defeat and
conquer?”24 Menander the Guardsman’s Avars may appear as Scythians, the
quintessential nomads of Antiquity, but that comparison was never made
either with the Cutrigurs or with the Utigurs.
The conclusion seems inescapable. Leaving aside Jordanes’ mention of the
Altziagiri, no 6th-century author dealing with the steppe lands north of the
Black Sea mentions anything about nomadism. Jordanes, on the other hand,
mentions a seasonal movement between the steppe lands and the seashore
in relation to a group, the Altziagiri, which is not mentioned in any other
source. The Altziagiri are specifically mentioned in relation to Cherson and
other authors make the same association between Huns and Roman cities
on the coast. What then was the basis for treating the northern neighbors of
the Empire as nomads? Why are historians so interested in perpetuating an
ethnographic stereotype ultimately derived from Herodotus’ description of
the Scythians?
The movement of the Altziagiri from the seashore to the steppe lands in
the interior may be interpreted as an indication that in Antiquity and the
early Middle Ages, the Black Sea lowlands offered optimal conditions for
pastoralism, albeit more of a transhumant than nomadic kind. There are three
main areas in which transhumant pastoralism was not only possible, but actu-
ally practiced successfully in more recent historical periods: the Bugeac Plain
to the northwest, the central Black Sea lowlands (including the Crimean low-
lands), and the Kuban lowlands (the Prikubanskaia Nizemnost’) to the north-
east. The latter two are separated by the Sea of Azov, at the northeastern end
of which, particularly around the Taganrog Bay and along the Northern Donets
and its main tributaries (especially the Kalitva), a relatively large number of
sites have been identified by means of fields surveys. Because they are located
deep into the interior of the steppe lands, and under the assumption that those
were the lands controlled by nomads, all those sites have been interpreted as
campsites, even those located directly on the seashore. However, and despite
the fact that none has so far been systematically excavated, the field surveys
have produced abundant ceramic material, including amphora shards, some
of which may be dated to the 6th or early 7th century.25 Amphora shards and
7th-century Gray Ware of the so-called Kantserka type (see below) have also
been found on a number of sites in Left Bank Ukraine, in the region of the
Poltava.26 Besides field survey, trial excavations were carried out on some of
those sites. However, because of the absence of any building structures, they
were also interpreted as campsites and dated to the 7th century.27 It is impor-
tant to note that no bone assemblages have been found, and no indications of
the subsistence economy on those sites.28
Contemporaneous settlement sites are known from the Lower Dnieper
region in the central Black Sea lowlands. Salvage excavations carried out in the
1950s in Ihren’ (now on the northeastern side of the city of Dnipropetrovsk,
Ukraine) have produced dress accessories—bracelets, fibulae, and belt
fittings—the dating of which suggests that the earliest occupation on the site
may be of a mid- to late-6th-century date.29 Stray finds from the Kyzlevo island
(next to Vasylivka-na-Dnipri, now under the water of the Dniprovs’ke
25 Pletneva (1964), 3 and 7. Given the abundance of the ceramic material, one wonders if
the occupation on those sites was truly impermanent (i.e., whether they were truly camp-
sites); see Flerov (2012), 26. On the other hand, with no materials properly published, it is
impossible to verify the dating of the pottery. For much later, true campsites in that same
region, see Vorob’ev/Larenok (2014).
26 Kazanski (1987), 87, 88 fig. 15/1, and 89 fig. 16/3–5, 7, 8, 12–17; Kazanski (2013), 802–04.
27 Kazanski (2013), 802.
28 For an example of the kind of archaeological data pertaining to economic activities that
could otherwise be retrieved from a true campsite, see Kliuchnikov (2013). For the archae-
ology of pastoral nomadism, in general, see Honeychurch/Makarewicz (2016).
29 Berezovets’ (1963), 195–97; Prykhodniuk (1998), 157; 140 fig. 71; 141 fig. 72.
reservoir) may well be of the same date.30 Similar materials are also known
from Zvonets’ke (across the confluence of the Dnieper with the Voronyi River)
and Volos’ke (near the confluence of the Dnieper with the Mokra Sura River).31
All those were most likely permanent settlements, not campsites. However, the
closest analogies for the materials found there are not only in the Crimea, but
also in the Balkans. In other words, those bracelets, fibulae and belt fittings are
either of Byzantine origin or imitations of artifacts from the Empire. That the
latter were indeed possible results from the occasional traces of casting activi-
ties, such as the ladle from Volos’ke.32 Finds of clay pans suggests the consump-
tion of cereal-based foods, but there is no indication of agricultural activities.33
Nothing is known about assemblages of animal bones.
There are no settlements of any kind in the Bugeac, at the westernmost end
of the Black Sea lowlands, between the Danube and the Dnieper rivers. The
region has been the object of several systematic studies regarding the material
culture correlates of nomadism for various periods in history, from the Bronze
Age to the late Middle Ages, but no 6th- to 7th-century campsite or village
has so far been identified. As a matter of fact, a 125-mile wide belt separated
the nearest points on the early Byzantine frontier on the Lower Danube or in
the Crimea from the first settlements to the north, all of which appear at the
interface of the Black Sea lowlands with the Bârlad, Cogâlnic, and Podolian
uplands. However, many 6th-century coins are known from the Bugeac, and at
least some of them may have been associated with settlements and campsites
that have yet to be identified archaeologically.34
Out of 42 coins known so far from the Black Sea lowlands, only seven have
been found to the east from the river Dnieper. The contrast with the region
of the Sea of Azov is also evident. Out of seven finds from that area, four
are hoards of gold coins, three of them within a relatively small area of the
Luhansk-Donetsk region. The fact that all coins from the Biloiarivka hoard are
20-carat, light-weight solidi struck for Emperor Justinian, all of the same date,
strongly suggests that that collection did not exchange too many hands before
30 Bodianskii (1960), 276 and 277 fig. 4/2 and 8. In addition, a hoard of dress accessories
has been recently found in Solontsi, across the Lower Dnieper near Kherson (Ukraine):
Ganoshchenko/Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2019).
31 Berezovets’ (1963), 197; Prykhodniuk (1998), 156 and 157; 142 fig. 74/4, 9, 10; Bodianskii
(1960), 274 and 275; 273 fig. 1/7.
32 Smilenko (1969), 162.
33 Clay pans: Bodianskii (1960), 275 and 276; Telegin (2001), 25 and 24 fig. 6. According
to Gorbanenko/Pashkevich (2010), 56 and table 2.10, the only cereal seeds found at
Bogorodychne (near Slov’ians’k, in southeastern Ukraine) are of millet.
34 Curta (2008), 174 and 173 fig. 8.
reaching the Azov Lowlands.35 This may well be a payment or a bribe sent from
Constantinople for some chieftain in the region. Whether or not that chieftain
was Utigur is impossible to establish, but it is likely that the three hoards signal
a local center of power. That conclusion is substantiated by finds of Sassanian
silverware.36 Two burial assemblages on the shores of the Sea of Azov—one
found at Morskoi Chulek (near Taganrog, Ukraine), on the northern shore, the
other at Dzhiginka (one the eastern side of the Taman Peninsula), near the
southeastern shore—stand out among all contemporaneous assemblages in
the steppe lands by means of their wealth and exquisite ornamentation of the
associated dress accessories.37 In that respect, they are directly comparable
to hoards of early Byzantine gold coins discovered farther to the north. As a
matter of fact, some, at least, of the grave goods in Dzhiginka and Morskoi
Chulek may well be of Byzantine manufacture and could thus have been pro-
cured directly from Constantinople, possibly by means of imperial gifts. This
is definitely the case of the ceremonial coin (a rare solidus struck for Justin I
and Justinian at some point between April and August 527) mounted into the
chain clasp from Dzhiginka, and of the bracelet with Latin inscription from
Morskoi Chulek.38
While exceptionally rich burials dated to the 6th century appear to the east
from the Sea of Azov, most other contemporary assemblages are to the west
from that sea. Late 6th- and early 7th-century burials in the steppe lands clus-
ter in northern Crimea and around the Dnieper estuary. The pits of four out of
nine graves dated to the 6th century, and 23 out of 35 graves of a late 6th- or
early 7th-century date have been dug into prehistoric, primarily Bronze-Age
mounds. Although several mound burials are known from the previous,
“Hunnic” period (late 4th to first half of the 5th century), none is described as
being in a Bronze- or Iron-Age mound. The 6th- to 7th-century burials may not
be the only medieval instance of prehistoric barrow use, for the practice is also
well documented for the 10th to 13th centuries. However, it appears that that
practice started in the 6th century. It is worth noting that not all prehistoric
mounds were reused for the early medieval burials. Although there are many
thousands of prehistoric barrows in the steppe lands north of the Black Sea,
only some were selected for re-use. Within one and the same group of barrows
(e.g., at Bogachivka or Khrystoforivka) only a few, often no more than a cou-
ple received new burials.39 Most prehistoric mounds have no more than one
early medieval, secondary burial, often placed in the center of the barrow. This
strongly suggests a careful choice of site for the early medieval burials. Judging
from the existing evidence, the people in the Black Sea steppe lands regarded
prehistoric mounds as “old,” and therefore chose to bury some of their dead in
barrows. Such practices may have been connected with claims to the ancestors
supposedly buried underneath the mounds.40 At the same time, the idea of
placing the dead in prehistoric mounds may have something to do with the
desire to make their tombs visible in the landscape, and thus to communi-
cate the status of an individual or a family.41 In the steppe lands north of the
Black Sea, burial within a prehistoric mound was probably meant to conjure
the (imagined) past in order to re-invent traditions. Those who buried their
dead in prehistoric mounds may have done so in order to strengthen the ideo-
logically based claims to territory by means of affective and positive religious
ties to the tombs of the ancestors—both those who had indeed been buried in
the prehistoric mounds in the 6th and early 7th century, and those imagined as
laying under those barrows since time immemorial.
It cannot be an accident of research that, with the exception of a few chil-
dren, almost all those who were buried under prehistoric barrows in the Black
Sea lowlands were men buried with weapons, primarily arrowheads and,
occasionally, swords or sabers.42 Some of those men may have been leaders of
communities, like those leading migrations into the Empire. Procopius men-
tions Sinnion, a veteran of Justinian’s wars against the Vandals in Africa and
the Goths in Italy. In the mid-6th century, he was the head of a large group
39 For Bogachivka, see Rashev (2000), 18–19; 121 fig. 15/1–14. For Khrystoforivka, see
Prykhodniuk/Fomenko (2003).
40 Brather (2009), 263.
41 Pedersen (2006), 351.
42 For swords, see Grinchenko (1950), pls. II/13–14, IV/5–6, 9–10; V/8; Kukharenko (1952), 39
and 40 pl. II/10; Aibabin (1985), 191–96; 192 fig. 1/5; Orlov/Rassamakin (1996), 103–13; 109
fig. 5/1, 3, 5, 6, 9; 110 fig. 6; Rashev (2000), 24–25; 137 fig. 31/14; 138 fig. 32/17; Prykhodniuk/
Khardaev (2001), 585–603; 588 fig. 1/1, 2; Komar/Kubyshev/Orlov (2006), 245–51 and 267–
301; 280 fig. 18; Komar/Khardaev (2012), 243–44, 249–50, 257–58, 259–60, 262, 263–64, and
267–77; 273 fig. 16/1, 2. For sabers, see Smilenko (1965), 22 fig. 15/3; pls. VI/4–5 and VI/6;
Werner (1984), pls. 13/41 and 29/7. None of those blades has so far been the subject of
metallographic analysis.
43 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VIII 19.7, 244; Sarantis (2016), 290–91 and 303.
44 Smilenko (1965), 12; Beliaev/Molodchikova (1978), 89; Orlov/Rassamakin (1996), 106;
Gavrilov (2000), 109; Rashev (2000), 19 and 24; Komar/Kubyshev/Orlov (2006), 271, 315,
323, and 340; Khardaev (2015), 108. The raising of sheep is implied by finds of woolen
fabric in Hlodosy, for which see Smilenko (1965), 15.
45 Georgiev (2007), 23; Kazanski (2012). See also Flerov (1996).
46 Pashkevich/Gorbanenko (2010), 115 with table 10. According to Tuganaev/Tuganaev
(2007), 35 the most important crops at Osipivka were millet and barley.
47 Prykhodniuk (1990), 94 and 101 fig. 6.
48 Belt buckles: Viaz’mitina et al. (1960), 196 fig. 74/6; Prykhodniuk (1998), 143 fig. 75/9;
Rashev (2000), 138 fig. 32/9; Komar/Kubyshev/Orlov (2006), 269 fig. 13/20, 21. Strap ends:
Prykhodniuk (1998), 141 fig. 72/3, 4; Rashev (2000), 121 fig. 15/3, 4. There are many parallels
in hoards from forest-steppe region for the dress accessories recently found in the steppe
region; see Ganoshchenko and Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2019).
49 Grinchenko (1950), pl. II/1–3, 5, 6; Kukharenko (1952), 40 pl. II/6; Bodianskii (1960), 277
fig. 4/6, 9; Berezovets’ (1963), ‘195; 197 and fig. 24/9; Smilenko (1965), 24 fig. 19/2, 3 and
30 fig. 25/1, 2; Rashev (2000), 137 fig. 31/21; Prykhodniuk/Fomenko (2003), 111 fig. 2/7–10;
Komar/Kubyshev/Orlov (2006), 284 fig. 19/1–14, 313 fig. 32/32–35, 332 fig. 39/1–3, 6, 7;
Komar/Khardaev (2012), 274 fig. 17/3.
50 Grinchenko (1950), pl. I/5–7; Kukharenko (1952), 38 pl. I/1 and 40 pl. II/1; Smilenko
(1965), 31 fig. 26/4, 5; Shchepinskii (1968), 176; Khavliuk (1974), 202 fig. 11/26; Kovpanenko/
Buniatin/Gavriliuk (1978), 49; Aibabin (1985), 192 and 198; 192 fig. 1/1; Aibabin (1991), 29;
Rashev (2000), 24; Komar/Kubyshev/Orlov (2006), 299 fig. 26/3; 313 fig. 32/30; Komar
(2008), 97; Komar/Khardaev (2012), 259.
51 Vida (1999), 138–43.
52 Bóna (1973), 77–78.
53 Berezovets’ (1963), 178 and fig. 16/4; Petrov (1963), 223 fig. 8/2; Rashev (2000), 27; 117
fig. 11/10, 14; 132 fig. 26/13; 138 fig. 32/4; Komar/Orlov (2006), 390 fig. 2/7 and 394 fig. 4/13.
54 Prykhodniuk (1980), 57 fig. 34/1; Chebotarenko/Tel’nov (1983), 94 fig. 4/4; Tel’nov/Riaboi
(1985), 116 fig. 6/1; Rashev (2000), 121 fig. 15/12 and 135 fig. 29/4; Prykhodniuk /Fomenko
(2003), 109 fig. 1/4. Such pottery also appears on early Byzantine military sites in northern
Dobrudja ; see Comșa (1970), 324 fig. 1/9.
55 Smirnov (1960), 175 fig. 128/9; Teodor (1984b), 47 fig. 19/1–3, 5, 6.
56 Kukharenko (1952), 38 pl. I/3 and 40 pl. II/7. A spade frame was found together with an
adze in a “princely” tomb in Hlodosy; see Smilenko (1965), 24 fig. 19/11.
analogies are from settlement sites on the southern border of the forest-steppe
belt, such as Stetsivka, Hansca, and Bil’sk.57
The archaeological evidence thus suggests that the 6th- and 7th-century
burials in the Black Sea lowlands were not of nomads coming from afar, but
of members of communities that occupied the settlements at the interface
between the steppe and the forest-steppe belts. Whether or not these men died
during the seasonal migrations associated with transhumant pastoralism, their
burials were not graves of pastoralists, but monuments of power and prestige.
Finds of the 6th and 7th centuries in the steppe lands have been classified as
belonging to one of Anatolii K. Ambroz’s groups IV, V, and VI. Group IV, which
Ambroz viewed as representing the “lower class,” the “commoners” of the
steppe society, consists of burials with no weapons, but with buckles, mounts
and strap ends with openwork ornament, which could be dated to the late 6th
or early 7th century. By contrast, group V includes extraordinarily rich burials,
such as Kelegeia. Finally, Ambroz included in his group VI burial assemblages
such as found in Syvashs’ke and Kovalivka, in which a human (often a male)
was buried together with a horse or parts of a horse skeleton (skull and legs).
To Ambroz, those were the warriors of the steppe society.58 Ambroz’s tripartite
scheme, a rather simplistic model of Marxist inspiration, has not been adopted
by more recent studies, from which the issue of the social status is absent.59
This is truly surprising, as the steppe lands of Eastern Europe produced some
of richest burial assemblages of 7th-century Europe. To Joachim Werner, the
only parallel to the sumptuous burial of Kuvrat in Malo Pereshchepyne was
Raedwald’s tomb under Mound 1 in Sutton Hoo.60 Like Sutton Hoo, Malo
Pereshchepyne produced a complete set of drinking (ewer, amphora, goblets,
cups, and bowls) and washing vessels (basins, ewers, or buckets) pointing to
57 Petrov (1963), 218; 222 fig. 6/6; Rafalovich (1965), 96 fig. 4, 5; Shramko (1980), 76 fig. 3/1.
Another sickle has been found in a sunken-floored building at Kochubiivka (near Uman’,
Ukraine); see Prykhodniuk (1990), 89.
58 Ambroz (1981); Orlov (1985); Baran/Kozlovs’kyi (1991), 235.
59 Kazanski (2013); Komar (2013), 31–52. The only discussion of social status is in reference to
belt sets, elements of which occasionally appear in burial assemblages; see Skyba (2016),
80–92.
60 Werner (1985), 711–12. In at least one respect, Werner’s parallel between Malo Peresh-
chepyne and Sutton Hoo is valid: in both cases, no human bones have been found, and, as
a consequence, both burials have been interpreted as cenotaphs. The identity of the per-
son for whom the memorial burial was performed in Malo Pereshchepyne has long been
disputed—whether Kuvrat, “the chieftain of Bulgaria and of the Kotragoi,” mentioned by
Theophanes the Confessor in the early 9th century, or someone else. The attribution was
promoted by Werner (1984) and Werner (1992). It was initially disputed on methodologi-
cal grounds, but recently seems to be accepted by most scholars.
61 Werner (1984), 16–17 (“ceremonial or wedding belt”); pl. 18/14, 15, 17, 19–23, 25–32. For
the coins, see Sokolova (1997), 22–23 and 35–37. All coins struck for Constans II are die-
linked, an indication that they reached the steppe lands of Eastern Europe together, all at
the same time.
62 Gavritukhin (2006); Komar (2006a).
63 Komar/Khardaev (2012), 257–58; 258 fig. 7/1–6; Semenov (1991), 128; 131 fig. 1/4. The later
solidus struck for Emperor Constans II between 646 and 651 and deposited at an unknown
date in the grave discovered in Zhuravlikha (near Bila Tserkva, Ukraine) was also pierced;
see Komar (2006b), 405 and fig. 2/5.
64 L’vova/Marshak (1997), 493 and 495 fig. 4; L’vova (1998), 110 and 111 fig. 1/7.
65 Curta (2006b), 5–7.
66 Smilenko (1975), 119, 122, and 124. For the Gray Ware produced at Kantserka, see also
Smilenko (1990). For the kilns, see Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2011).
Judging by the chronology of those assemblages in which Gray Ware was asso-
ciated with datable artifacts, the activity of the center of ceramic production
in the Lower Dnieper region began at some point during the last quarter of
the 7th century.67 In other words, by the time a chieftain—possibly Kuvrat—
was symbolically buried in Malo Pereshchepyne, the economic profile of
the steppe region has begun to change radically. Gray Ware jugs, as well as
an earring with star-shaped pendant may indicate a similar date for another
settlement excavated on an island in the middle of the river Bug, not far from
Haivoron (near Uman’, Ukraine). However, both pottery and earring appear to
be isolated finds. The excavations unearthed 25 smelting furnaces very similar
to those in use during the 6th century in Șirna (see chapter 8), but none of
them produced any material relevant for dating the site.68 This is, in fact, the
first early medieval ironworking center in the steppe belt of Eastern Europe.
If, like Kantserka, the beginnings of the Haivoron settlement may be dated to
the second half or last third of the 7th century, then that settlement may have
been part of the network of new economic centers associated with the rise of
the Khazar qaganate.69
For the ceramic production center at Kantserka as a novel phenomen, see Volodarets’-
Urbanovych (2012).
67 Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2010); Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2012); and Volodarets’-
Urbanovych (2015); Komar (2018).
68 Bidzillia (1963), 123, 125, 138–40, and 138 pl. 4/1 (for the earring). See also Prykhodniuk
(1975), 109–10; Voznesens’ka/Nedopako/Pan’kov (1996), 27–28; 26 fig. 2/2; Koloda/
Kushchenko/Shvecov (2004).
69 Noonan (1994).
For no other country in East Central Europe is the debate about continuity
between Antiquity and the Middle Ages more significant than for Poland.
While, despite the evidence, the demographic collapse in the 7th-century
Balkans has not attracted much scholarly attention, the question is of consider-
able importance for Polish archaeologists and historians. To be sure, the same
reason is responsible for the neglect of the problem in the Balkans and for the
enormous attention reserved to it in Poland. In both areas, both continuity and
discontinuity are perceived in ethnic terms. The heated debate surrounding
the ethnogenesis of the Slavs—a major historiographic issue in Poland since
the 1990s—cannot be understood without reference to the question of what
happened to the population in that part of Europe during the last part of Late
Antiquity. Did the “Slavic culture” grow naturally out of local roots, or was it
imported from the outside?1 At stake, however, was the ethnic attribution of
archaeological assemblages and artifacts, not economic and social structures.
For many decades after World War II, continuity was assumed, without much
need for demonstration.2 With the gradual accumulation of the archaeologi-
cal evidence, it became evident that at some point between the mid-5th and
the beginning of the 6th century, the lands now within Poland experienced
rapid depopulation.
According to the Polish archaeologist Kazimierz Godłowski (1934–1995), no
archaeological evidence exists after the mid-5th century for any human pres-
ence in the lands to the east from the middle course of the Vistula. That includes
Lesser Poland, a region that was relatively well populated during the first half
of the 5th century.3 The only finds from the lands to the west from the river
Vistula that could be dated after 500 with some degree of certainty are those
of Pomerania (the lands between the Odra and the Vistula). They all are either
1 At stake, of course, is whether or not the Slavs were native to the present-day territory of
Poland; see Piontek (2006) and Makiewicz (2008). For surveys of the debate, from both sides,
see Nowakowski (2002); Parczewski (2005); Urbańczyk (2006); Jędrzejewska (2016).
2 Kostrzewski (1961); Jażdżewski (1968; Łaszczewska (1975); Żak (1984). The first serious doubts
about such theories were planted in the 1970s by Kazimierz Godłowski; see Godłowski (1976);
Godłowski (2005), 59–75.
3 Godłowski (1989), 58 and fig. 19; Godłowski (2005), 239–40 and 239 fig. 19.
hoard or stray finds, as no 6th-century settlement sites have so far been found
in the region.4 Hoards of golden torcs, finger-rings, and bracteates, however,
are typical for 5th- and 6th-century Denmark and southern Sweden, which
has encouraged scholars to speculate about the presence of Scandinavians
on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea.5 Both cremation and inhumation
graves with stone constructions in four cemeteries excavated in the region of
Słupsk (Główczyce, Głuszyno, Górzyno, Witkow; Fig. 21) have been attributed
to Scandinavians, specifically to settlers coming from the neighboring island
of Bornholm.6 No evidence exists that either the golden torcs from hoards, or
the weapons (swords, lance heads, shield bosses) found in burial assemblages
are of local production. In the absence of settlement sites, it is impossible to
verify the assumption that the people who buried their dead in those graves
have come from across the sea. If they did, it remains unclear what they were
looking for on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea. Some scholars believe
that Pomerania was linked to the fur trade network supposedly organized by
Scandinavians in Late Antiquity.7 There are, however, no signs of any commer-
cial activity in the region, and no traces of fur animals being hunted (e.g., no
beaver bones, no blunt arrow heads). Moreover, conspicuously Scandinavian
artifacts, and even burial types have been found along the Baltic coast in the
region of the Lower Vistula, as well as in Estonia (see chapter 11). In both areas,
4 Godłowski (1980), 74–75; Leube (1996), 264. The existence of a 6th-century occupation phase
on the settlement sites excavated in Dębczyno (near Bialogard, in West Pomerania) is still
a matter of debate. See Godłowski (1980), 69–70; Machajewski (1999), 246. Equally doubt-
ful is the 6th-century dating of the last occupation phase on earlier, or the first occupation
phase on later sites in the region. See Porzeziński (1972); Porzeziński (1975), 171; Machajewski
(1979), 29; Köhler (1980), 178 and 180; Porzeziński (1980), 126; Sikorski (1987), 282–83; Łosiński
(1988), 4 and 7; 4 fig. 3. The demographic collapse is documented also on the other side of
the river Oder, in northeastern Germany. However, that region produced clear evidence of
small pockets of population around the lakes Tollense and Unterucker; see Volkmann (2014),
135 fig. 2; Volkmann (2016), 102, 96 fig. 5, and 103 fig. 12. For the contrast between (Polish)
Pomerania and the lands in northeastern Germany (Vorpommern), see also Machajewski
(2005), 193–94; Pędziszewska et al. (2020), 163, 166, 168, 182, and 192.
5 Machajewski (1992), 82–83 and 92. Of all four hoards from Pomerania that could be dated to
the 6th century (Karlino, Piotrowice, Radosiew, and Stargard), only one (Karlino) contains
gold coins as well. The coins, however, are earlier than some of the finger-rings with which
they were associated. For the dating of the torcs and finger-rings, see Godłowski (1980), 74. It
is important to note that the only 6th-century coins that have been found in hoard and stray
finds in Pomerania are solidi struck for Anastasius (498–512) and their Ostrogothic imita-
tions; see Ciołek (1998); Ciołek (1999), 176. For the presence of solidi and torcs in Pomerania
as the result of non-commercial transactions, see Gaul (1984), 100; Iluk (1998), 53–56; Ciołek
(2005), 1103.
6 Machajewski (1992), 78–79, 82, and 91–92; 80 fig. 6; 81 fig. 7; Duczko (1997), 196 and 198.
7 Kazanski (2010c), 31.
10 There is no way to verify the 6th-century date advanced for the earliest occupation phase
on such settlement sites excavated in Greater Poland as Bruszczewo. See Brzostowicz
(2002), 133–37. All settlements in Pomerania and Greater Poland that Lozny (2013), 70
has dated to the 6th century produced only pottery. For some, Lozny’s tables 3.6 [Lozny
(2013), 57–61] and 3.7 [Lozny (2013), 62–68] mention radiocarbon dates, with no details.
Radiocarbon dating of the animal bones from Cieśle and Giecz suggests that both sites
were occupied until the late 6th century. However, the bones were collected from the fill-
ing of the settlement features and cannot therefore be used as evidence of occupation.
Moreover, there are serious contamination problems associated with that archaeological
context; see Żychliński/Goslar (2008). At any rate, the paleobotanical analysis of biostrata
from the nearby Lake Lednica contradicts the idea of a continuous occupation of sites in
the 6th century; see Tobolski (1991).
11 Gruszka (2011), 127–28, 130–31, and 135; 130 pl. I; 131 pl. II; 132 pl. III; 133 pl. IV; Gruszka/
Pawlak/Pawlak (2013), 176–78; 180 fig. 2. For other settlements in the Middle Oder region
that are believed to have been occupied during the 5th and 6th centuries, see Dąbrowski
(1990), 169–71; Dąbrowski (1998). Most finds in central Poland that have been plotted on
the map by Maczyńska (1998), 88 fig. 3 cannot be dated later than ca. 500.
12 Gruszka (2007), 302, 307, and 309; 308 fig. 6; 317 pl. V; 318 pl. VI; 319 pl. VII; 320 pl. VIII; 321
pl. IX; 322 pl. X; 325 figs. 5–6; 326 fig. 8; Gruszka (2010), 228–231, 248, 255 and 258; 233 fig.
5;236 photo 4; 237 pl. I; 239 pl. II; 2451 pl. III; 243 pl. IV; Gruszka/Pawlak/Pawlak (2013), 177
and 178–179; 185 fig. 7.
13 Gruszka (2007), 322 X/5, 6 and 326 fig. 8. For amber in early medieval Poland, see
Malinowski (1988).
14 Gruszka (2010), 22 with table 1.
15 Ciesielski/Gruszka/Łuczak (2016), 121. The earliest occupation phase on the settlement
site excavated in Czeladź Wielka (near Góra, in Lower Silesia) has been dated to the 6th
or 7th century without any solid arguments; see Lodowski (1972), 194–95.
of the region not unlike that of Pomerania.16 Even more drastic was that of
Lesser Poland, where no finds are so far known that could be dated with any
degree of certainty between ca. 450 and ca. 600.17
Despite Godłowski’s claims to the contrary, however, the lands to the east
from the Middle Vistula River are not devoid of finds. One particular site is of
significance in that respect. At Haćki, near Bielsk Podlaski (Podlasie, in east-
ern Poland, not far from the border with Belarus), there are clear signs of a
6th- and early 7th-century occupation on a natural postglacial hill rising up
in the middle of a wide and damp valley. Trial, and then systematic excava-
tions revealed traces of an early medieval occupation, but no structures have
been identified.18 Some have interpreted that to be the sign of a temporary
occupation, with Haćki functioning as a place of refuge.19 However, it is hard
to understand where the population taking refuge at Haćki came from, as the
systematic field-walking in the area strongly suggests that the site was an iso-
lated settlement in a region that seems to have been otherwise depopulated.20
A number of finds—a ladle, five stone moulds, five engraving tools, and a small
hammer—point to casting taking place on the site, even though no buildings
and no facilities have been found that could be associated with any crafts.21
Moreover, the metallographic analysis of several bronze artifacts found on the
16 Błażejewski (2013), 178. For the pottery believed to be of a 6th-century date, see Boege
(1937); Domański (2005), 255 fig. 2.
17 Godłowski (2005), 240.
18 Kobyliński/Szymański (2005), 43, 45, and 56–64; 44 fig. III-1; 45 fig. III-2; 46 fig. III-4; 64
fig. III-37; Kobyliński/Szymański (2015), 111–13; 112 fig. 1; 113 fig. 4. Both Kobyliński (1990),
151, and Dulinicz (2000), 87 with fig. 2 claim that the two lines of double postholes close to
the rampart indicate early medieval buildings. In fact, those structures are of an Iron-Age
date [Kobyliński/Szymański (2015), 114 and 118–19]. That there was a much earlier occu-
pation of the site results from the radiocarbon analysis of samples of charred seeds and
charcoal, for which see Pazdur et al. (1993). The charred seeds in question were initially
and hastily dated to the 6th century at the earliest; see Czeczuga/Kossacka/Kłyszejko
(1976).
19 Kobyliński (1990), 152; Dulinicz (2011), 198. Kobyliński and Dulinicz also refer to cremated
human remains, which supposedly indicate that Haćki was a ceremonial site. However,
there is no evidence that the cremated remains are associated with the 6th- to 7th-century
occupation of the site.
20 Barford/Kobyliński/ Krasnodębski (1991), 140: after the mid-5th century, Podlasie was “a
deserted wilderness.” Kobyliński/Szymański (2015), 133 mention an open settlement near
the stronghold, with above-ground dwellings with stone ovens. However, that settlement
site is dated to the 7th and 8th centuries, and thus post-dates the early medieval occupa-
tion inside the prehistoric stronghold.
21 Kobyliński/Szymański (2005), pl. III-1, 2, 8, 9, 11–13. Kobyliński/Szymański (2015), 125
mention waste products in the form of pellets, lumps, teardrops resulting from bronze
casting. Kobyliński (1990), 152; and Dulinicz (2004), 306 claim that weavers were active at
site (belt fittings and a buckle) strongly suggests that they were not produced
locally, but most likely brought from distant locations in the Upper and Lower
Danube region.22 Moreover, the best analogies for two of the stone moulds
found in Haćki have been found in Bernashivka (see chapter 8), which suggests
that, like the bronze artifacts, the casting technology may have been brought
from the south.23 To the same direction point the fragments of clay pans, a
ceramic category associated with the consumption of cereal-based foods, even
though no quern stones and no seeds of cereals are known from Haćki.24
Both querns and cereal seeds, however, have been found on sites in south-
ern Poland. Those sites have commonly been attributed to the early Slavs and
dated between the 5th and the 7th century.25 Ever since Kazimierz Godłowski,
Polish archaeologists and historians believe that the early Slavs have migrated
first to southeastern Poland (Lesser Poland), then to Silesia and other
territories.26 It has now become common historiographic practice to set the
economic and social profile of the early Slavic settlements in southern Poland
in sharp contrast to that of earlier settlements of the “Roman age.”27 Michał
Parczewski has dated the earliest occupation phase on those settlement sites
between the mid-5th and the mid-7th century.28 Although generally accepted,
Parczewski’s dating is based on a simple seriation of ceramic assemblages and
on the unwarranted assumption that assemblages that include only handmade
Haćki in the 6th and early 7th century. However, there are no loom weights and no other
indications of weaving sheds.
22 Kobyliński/Hensel (1993), 132 and 133.
23 Kobyliński/Szymański (2005), pl. III-9, 11; Vynokur (1997), 73 fig. 27, 77 fig. 30, 89 fig. 38.
The first to notice the resemblance was Dulinicz (2011), 198. A stone mould has also been
found at Szeligi (near Płock, in Mazovia), a site long believed to have been occupied during
the 6th and 7th centuries, because of such diagnostic facts as a bow fibula. See Szymański
(1967), 20 fig. 5/10 and 24 fig. 6/12; Szymański (1987). Radiocarbon dates have also been
interpreted as pointing to that same date; see Dulinicz/Moszczyński (1998). However, the
pottery thrown on a tournette that was found in abundance in the stronghold and the
two satellite settlements cannot be dated before the late 7th and 8th centuries [Dulinicz
(2011), 198].
24 Kobyliński/Szymański (2005), 69 fig. III-42. According to Barford/Kobyliński/ Krasnodębski
(1991), 140, the handmade pottery found on the site has no relation to the so-called Prague
type attributed to the Slavs.
25 Querns: Lodowski (1981), 150 and 158 fig. 9; Parczewski (1996), 263, 272, 266 fig. 11/1, 274
fig. 12/1, and 280 fig. 18; Baczyńska/Maj (1981), 175. See also Cygan (2006), 56–57. The only
cereal seeds so far known are those collected from the filling of a refuse pit in Korzkiew
(near Cracow, in Lesser Poland), for which see Nowak et al. (2016), 249.
26 Godłowski (1979); Parczewski (1991); Parczewski (1993); Leciejewicz (1999); Parczewski
(2000). See also Gavritukhin (2009).
27 Mączyńska (2002); Dobrzańska/Kalicki/Szmoniewski (2009).
28 Parczewski (1993), 93.
pottery are the earliest. At a closer examination, however, not a single, so-called
“early Slavic” settlement site in Lesser Poland or Silesia can be dated before
ca. 600.29 There is therefore no evidence of agriculture in southern Poland
in the 6th century, as the earliest finds of tools cannot be dated before the
mid-7th century.30 The earliest finds of clay pans and domestic animal assem-
blages may be only slightly earlier than that.31 The same is true for the earliest
finds of combs, as well as of half-manufactured objects of antler or bone.32
The archaeological evidence of crafting is equally late. Slag has occasionally
been found in sunken-floored buildings, but without any other indications of
smelting or blacksmithing.33 With the exception of one engraving instrument,
no tools may be dated to the early 7th century.34 Three loom weights from a
sunken-floored building in Nowa Huta are the only evidence of weaving.35
A clay mould with traces of copper and zinc was found together tongs,
29 No less than three chronological indicators exist so far, all from Lesser Poland. First, a
handmade pot was found in a pit excavated in Nowa Huta, on the eastern outskirts of
Cracow. Inside the pot was a small hoard of bronze artifacts, including a belt mount in
the form of a rosette and four trapezoidal pendants—all artifacts most typical for the
Early Avar age, and therefore dated to the first decades of the 7th century. See Dąbrowska
(1984). Second, a bronze coin struck in Nicomedia for Emperor Heraclius in 613/4 was
found next to a house excavated in Grodzisko Dolne, in the valley of the river San, not
far from the Polish-Ukrainian border. See Czopek/Morawiecki/Podgórska-Czopek (2001).
Finally, the dendrochronological analysis of timber remains from the house excavated in
Wyciąże, near Nowa Huta, indicates a date between 625 and 635 for the felling of the trees
that were used to build that house. See Poleska/Bober/Krąpiec (1998).
30 Two sickles have been found in Nowa Huta and Żukowice (near Głogów, in Silesia); see
Hachulska-Ledwos (1971), 130 and 136 pl. LXXVIII/2; Parczewski (1989), pl. XCVI/2. The
sickles were associated with remains of both handmade pottery and pottery turned on a
tournette, a clear indication of a later phase of the “early Slavic culture,” which is dated by
Parczewski (1995), 14 after the mid-7th century. The plowshare found above a refuse pit in
Nowa Huta cannot be dated with any degree of precision, but the ceramic material in that
pit is also of a later date; see Hachulska-Ledwos (1971), 16 and figs. 5 and 7.
31 Parczewski (1989), II/8, V/11, XXV/8, XXXIII/17, XXXIV/17 and 21, LX/25 and 27–29, LXX/8
and 13–15. For animal bones, see Lipińska (1961), 219; Nowak et al. (2016), 261. As the sta-
tistics in Lodowski (1980), 139 table III and 140 table IV show, the faunal assemblages
from three 7th-century settlement sites in Lower Silesia (Czeladź Wielka, Żukowice 1 and
Żukowice 9) are dominated by cattle bones.
32 Hachulska-Ledwos (1971), 54 and 59 pl. XXX/5; Kaczkowski (1971), 22 and 25 fig. 7/5;
Parczewski (1989), pls. XV/10 and XL/9; Parczewski (1993), 204 pl. XXX/14; Poleska/Bober
(1996), 124 with fig. 22/1; Dobrzańska (1998), 84 and 111 pl. 4/5. See also Cnotliwy (1998).
33 Parczewski (1988), 171; Podgórska-Czopek (2009), 117–18, 148, and 166. For blacksmithing
in Poland in the early Middle Ages, see Piaskowski (1986).
34 Engraving tool of a possibly earlier date: Parczewski (1989), pl. V/7.
35 Hachulska-Ledwos (1986), 120 and 130 pl. II/2. The loom weight found in Żukowice
[Kaczkowski (1971), 33 fig. 15/9] is without any archaeological context.
36 Parczewski (1988), 202–03; Parczewski (1989), pls. IV/9 and V/6. A stone mould is known
from Żukowice 9, but without any archaeological context; see Kaczkowski (1971), 22 and
24 fig. 6/12. The early date (5th to 6th century) advanced for the clay mould from Żukowice
by Kóčka-Krenz (1988), 86 is simply wrong.
37 The same is true for the clay mould found in Polwica (near Wrocław, in Silesia). The tim-
ber remains from that site have been dendro-dated to 677; see Szwed (2013), 112 and 127
fig. 16e.
38 Hachulska-Ledwos (1971), 174 and 175 pl. C/5. A few crucibles may be of an earlier date:
Parczewski (1988), 204; Parczewski (1989), pl. VII/19; Podgórska-Czopek (2009), 123 and
122 pl. L/13.
39 Dąbrowska (1984), 356–57 and 356 fig. 3e.
40 Poleska/Bober/ Krąpiec (1998), 54 and fig. 22/20.
41 Occasional finds of wheel-made pottery have been interpreted as “imports” from the
Merovingian area or from the Middle Dnieper region, which raises the question of com-
mercial contacts with those areas, for which, however, there is absolutely no evidence; see
Parczewski (1993), 66.
42 Parczewski (2003), 198.
43 Kałkowski (1967); Salamon (2002). According to Salamon (2004), the coins arrived in
southern Poland with Herules that had been previously recruited in the Roman army.
eastern Silesia strongly suggests accumulation in the Empire, whence the col-
lections were then brought in toto to southern Poland.44
The conclusion one can easily draw from this survey of the archaeologi-
cal and numismatic evidence from 6th- and early 7th-century Poland is that
the lands north of the Carpathian Mountains stood in sharp contrast to those
along the Lower and Middle Danube. Besides severe depopulation, if not
demographic collapse, the archaeological record reflects no economic activ-
ity comparable to those taking place at the same time in the Carpathian
Basin, as well as in southern and eastern Romania: no “itinerant agriculture,”
no cattle breeding, and no centers of specialized production—smelting or
weaving. Irrespective of the ethnic identity attributed to the inhabitants of
the first settlements of early medieval Silesia and Lesser Poland, those com-
munities had nothing in common with those located farther to the south, in
Bukovina, Moldavia, Moldova, and Walachia. The subsistence economy of the
early medieval communities in southern Poland is just as poorly known as that
of the inhabitants of Lower Silesia and the lands farther to the northeast, in
Pomerania. Some contacts with the south most certainly took place, as they
were responsible for the latest gold coins reaching the southern Baltic Sea
shore and for the 6th- and early 7th-century coins of bronze, silver, and gold
that were found in southern Poland. Contacts with the south may also pro-
vide an explanation for the relative abundance of amber in 6th-century burial
assemblages in the Carpathian Basin. Occasional finds of raw amber in Stożne
and Bachórz strongly suggest that Baltic amber reached the Middle Danube
region not directly, but through the intermediary of small communities living
in the sparsely inhabited territory of present-day Poland. It would be a mis-
take to refer to such exchanges as trade, just as it would be wrong to explain
the presence of bracteates in hoards of gold in northern Poland or of early
Byzantine bronze coins in southern Poland as a result of commercial transac-
tions. But before ca. 700, neither influences from the south, nor those from the
north (across the Baltic Sea) had any significant role in the transformation of
the economic and social structures in the Polish lands. As experienced in the
Vistula region, the 6th century was a true chasm.
However, Salamon/Wołoszyn (2006), 238–39 believe that most 6th- to 7th-century coins
found in southeastern Poland came from the Carpathian Basin, and not directly from
Byzantium. See also Wołoszyn (2008), 205. At any rate, much like in the Lower Danube
region, bronze coins struck for 6th-century emperors are typically stray finds. There
is, therefore, no way to tell how long after leaving the mint they ended up in southern
Poland. See Salamon/Muzyczuk (2003); Wołoszyn (2005).
44 Wołoszyn (2009), 498–99; Wołoszyn (2005), 662–63.
The only 6th- to 7th-century settlements known so far from the Baltic region
of East Central Europe are located to the east of the river Vistula, in the
lands believed to have been inhabited by people speaking Baltic languages.
Excavations carried in the 1970s at Wyszembork (near Mrągowo, in northeast-
ern Poland; Fig. 22) have brought to light nine refuse pits. In one of them, there
was a fragment of a sickle, in another a fragment of a quern stone, both indica-
tors of agricultural production, if not also of cereal cultivation.1 Quern stones
have also been found in Jaunlive (across the Daugava River from Salaspils,
Latvia), but it remains unclear to which occupation phase they belong—the
earlier (2nd century) or the later (5th- to 6th-century).2 Other settlements are
known from Czechowo and Janów Pomorski, near Elbląg (Poland), in the for-
mer delta of the river Vistula.3 At Tumiany, nine above-ground buildings and 11
silos have been attributed to the earliest occupation phase and dated between
the second half of the 5th and the late 8th century. At any moment during this
occupation phase, no more than three nuclear families lived on the shore of
Lake Pisz, with a total of 15 to 20 people.4 More settlements are known from
southern Lithuania, as well as northern Estonia.5 Unfortunately, neither settle-
ment features, nor tools and paleobotanical samples are known from any of
those settlements, and the chronology of some of them remains uncertain.6
In the Baltic region, most sickles and scythes are known from burial, not
settlement assemblages. Sickles typically appear in female graves.7 The same is
1 Nowakowski (1993), 91–92; 91 fig. 12e; 92 fig. 13. The dating of the settlement features is based
primarily on the associated pottery. For charred seeds of cereals (primarily barley, millet, and
rye) found in Wyszembork, see Lityńska (1993). For cereals cultivated in the 5th and 6th cen-
turies farther inland to the east, at Osinki (near Suwałki, next to the Polish-Lithuanian bor-
der), see Czeczuga/Kossacka (1966). Of a later date are the paleobotanical samples from
Pasym (near Szczytno, in northeastern Poland), which also include rye, barley, and millet;
see Czeczuga/Kossacka (1974).
2 Atgāzis (1976), 446.
3 For Czechowo, see Jagodziński (1997), 81–82. For the 6th- to 7th-century settlement pre-
dating the Viking-age emporium at Janów Pomorski, see Bogucki et al. (2012); Bogucki (2013).
4 Dąbrowski (1980), 236; Baranowski/Żukowski (2017), 329–30, 333, and 339 fig. 2.
5 Daugudis (1966); Lõugas (1997).
6 Tautavičius (1996), 23.
7 Estonia: Tamla (1988), 426; Allmaë/Aun/Maldre (2009), 94 fig. 15/1. Latvia: Atgāzis (1980), 384;
Ciglis (2001), 50 and 63; 51 fig. 2/11; 60 fig. 9/9; Graudonis (2003), 39, 45, and 46; 39 fig. 32/3;
true for mattocks and hoes.8 By contrast, scythes are associated with weapons
in male burials.9 If one takes the gender symbolism of those agricultural imple-
ments at face value, one can draw the conclusion that women, some of whom
were buried with sickles and mattocks, were primarily involved in the culti-
vation of crops (with breaking the soil, weeding and harvesting highlighted
symbolically as the most important activities), while men, particularly those
whose military status was marked in death by the deposition of weapons, were
in charge of the livestock (if one assumes that scythes were used primarily
for cutting grass to make hay).10 In reality, the symbolism of those tools went
beyond mere reference to agricultural activities. As valuables, they appear in
hoards along with torcs, bracelets, and weapons.11 It may not be an accident
that such hoards have been found in or near hillforts, which are believed to
have operated as regional centers.12 In other words, agricultural implements
may have been symbols of social status, much like burials with horses, no
doubt a reference to the ability that only a few members of society had to raise
and control livestock.13
The rise of new social elites was linked to the development of agriculture
even in the absence of forts. Both lavish burials (many of which produced
weapons) and the deposition of hoards of silver ornaments, two archaeologi-
cal phenomena dated to the early 6th century, have been interpreted as social
strategies employed by local elites in northern Estonia.14 That, however, is also
the region in which fossil fields have recently been identified. Clearance cairns
and small sections of baulks have been found at Ilmandu (near Tallinn), and
the radiocarbon analysis of the charcoal from the initial slash-and-burn pro-
duced dates between the 5th and the 7th centuries.15 Pollen, charcoal, and loss-
on-ignition analyses from a peat section near the Keava Bog, in central Estonia
have revealed a major expansion of arable farming during that same period.16
The pollen analysis of a sediment sequence from another bog in southern
Estonia indicates that despite the significant increase of the coniferous ever-
green cover, there is clear evidence of the cultivation of barley.17 Farming
began to have a serious impact on the environment of southeastern Estonia
in the mid-5th century, and the predominant crop on the newly opened fields
was rye.18
Unfortunately, the rarity of excavated and published settlement sites makes
it very difficult, if not impossible to assess the importance of stockbreeding.
Cattle dominated by far the animal bone assemblages from features excavated
in Tumiany that could be dated between the 5th and the 8th century.19 Similarly,
in faunal assemblages associated with two collective (family?) burials at Ehmja
and Lihula (western Estonia), most bones were of cattle.20 In Lithuania, the
raising of sheep indirectly results from fragments of woolen fabric found in
graves.21 It is worth mentioning, however, that loom weights are rare in the
14 Ligi (1995), 227–29. For a different interpretation, see Oras (2015), 208. For elite burials
with weapons in northern Estonia, see also Quast (2004), 268. For the warrior elite in
Lithuania, see Vaitkunskienė (1995), 101–02.
15 Lang et al. (2003), 76 and 81; 75 fig. 3; 78 fig. 6.
16 Heinsalu/Veski (2010), 97.
17 Niinemets/Saarse/Poska (2002), 254–55. According to Brown (2019), 320–21, the initial
phase of woodland clearance in northern Poland (region of Chełmno) cannot be dated
before 600.
18 Kihno/Valk (1999), 234–35; Simniškytė/Stančikaitė/Kisielienė (2003), 281. As Tvauri
(2012), 104 points out, rye came to be cultivated in Estonia only in the 6th century.
19 Gręzak (2017), 220–21 and 226 Table 2.
20 Mandel (2003), 28–30, 32–37, and 276. By contrast, the animal bones found in the long
barrows of southeastern Estonia are of horse and sheep. See Allmaë/Maldre (2005), 128.
Pig bones have been found in both settlement and burial contexts in Prussia (northeast-
ern Poland). See Nowakowski (1993), 95; Baranowski (1996), 88.
21 Heydeck (1895), 44–45, 50, and 65; pl. IV/11; Griciuvienė (2007), 35–36. Textile fragments
are mentioned in other contexts as well, but it is not clear whether the fabric in question
Baltic region during the 6th or 7th century.22 Little is known, therefore, about
how the cloth was made, and where. Furthermore, unlike Prussia (northeast-
ern Poland), bone or antler artifacts are very rare in burial assemblages from
Estonia and Latvia.23 If animals were raised, it must have been for dairy, wool,
and meat, and not for bone or antler.
Metal artifacts are the commonest in burial assemblages from the Baltic
region. Knives, sickles, scythes, as well as weapons (swords, lance and spear
heads, and shield bosses) were all made of iron. No smelting sites and no smith-
ies can be securely dated to the 6th and 7th centuries.24 But the metallographic
analysis of the many artifacts found in (primarily burial) assemblages dated to
those centuries leaves no room for doubt. Blacksmiths in Lithuania employed
quite a variety of technological solutions, each adapted to specific needs. Most
knives were made of multiple layers of iron and steel or of iron with carbu-
rized edges, while iron-steel-iron “sandwich” was reserved for narrow-bladed
axes.25 Technological choices were restricted to particular sites, which suggests
is wool or flax. Kühn (1981), 67; Tautavičius (1984), 115 fig. 22/4; Kazakevičius (2004), 22 and
23; Bliujienė (2013), 403 fig. 276; 406 fig. 278/5. See Pečeliūnaitė-Bazienė (2004), 69. The
imprint of a cloth is visible on one of the two urns found in a cremation burial underneath
a barrow excavated in Kõnnu (in eastern Estonia, next to the shore of Lake Peipus); see
Schmiedehelm/Laul (1970), 160–61; 157 fig. 3/4. Another imprint of a cloth of tabby weave
appears on a piece of daub found in Tumiany, for which see Słomska (2017), 275 and 277.
22 The only specimens known so far are those found in Tumiany; see Słomska (2017), 278–79.
23 The earliest such artifacts known from Latvia are the fragments of a bone bead and a
comb from the cremation under a barrow excavated in Grobiņa (near Liepaja, western
Latvia). The assemblage has been dated to the 7th century. The barrow was marked by
a funerary stele with two carved birds, a motif believed to be of Scandinavian origin.
There is, therefore, a good possibility that neither the bead nor the comb was of local
production. See Petrenko (1991), 3–7; 10 fig. 2/1, 3–9. Another comb is known from a burial
assemblage in Kakuženi (near Jelgava, in southern Latvia), but the date of that assem-
blage is uncertain [Graudonis (2003), 34–35]. Bone and antler artifacts are also rare in
Sambia and Lithuania. See Kulakov (1990), 82 and 122 pl. XXIX/8, 13; Stankus (2000), 161
and 151 fig. 2/4; Kurila/Kliaugaitė (2017), 15 with fig 19/11. For bone combs in Prussia, see
Baranowski (1996), 86, 90, 98, 101, and 104; 87 fig. 9g; 91 fig. 14k; 98 fig. 22f; 100 fig. 24c; 103
fig. 28g; Rudnicki (2004), 266 and 273 pl. I/8.
24 It is unclear whether the smelting furnaces from Lavoriškės (near Vilnius, Lithuania) and
Imbarė (near Kretinga, Lithuania) mentioned by Daugudis (1989), 63 may be dated to the
6th or 7th century. The same is true for the smelting furnace from Daugmale (near Ogre,
Latvia) mentioned in Atgāzis (1976), 446. For the absence of any iron production sites “of
a Migration Period or of a firm Pre-Viking Age date” in Estonia, see Tvauri (2012), 113.
25 Stankus (1970), 62–63 and 68. Both sickles and scythes were also made of iron with carbu-
rized edges. For (additional) carburizing and the iron-steel-iron “sandwich” techniques,
see Pleiner (2006), 200–02 and 204–06. For a long seax from Malbork (northern Poland)
forged of one carburized and thermally treated piece of soft steel, see Biborski et al.
(2013), 33 and 47 fig. 15e. Żabiński/Stępiński (2014), 169 and 293 explain that because the
seax was made of one piece of soft bloomery steel, it was probably produced in southern
Germany, not in Prussia.
26 The largest number of iron artifacts from the 5th- to 6th-century cemetery exca-
vated in Plinkaigalis (near Krakės, central Lithuania) are of iron with carburized edges
(40 percent). The two-layer technique accounts for 19.64 percent of all iron artifacts from
Plinkaigalis, but the percentage is much higher for the contemporaneous cemeteries
excavated on the neighboring sites at Pašušvys and Kairėnėliai (41.66 and 33.66 percent,
respectively). Conversely, 14.3 percent of the artifacts found in Plinkaigalis (five knives, a
sickle, and two axes) are made of steel, while very few such artifacts have been found in
Kairėnėliai (4.16 percent) and they are completely absent in Pašušvys. See Stankus, (1986),
58–59.
27 Dąbrowski (1975), 276 and 279 writes of a crucible, moulds, and wasters; see also
Dąbrowski (1980), 236–37 and 240. There are neither moulds nor wasters, but only a cru-
cible in Baranowski (2017), 463.
28 Schmiedehelm/Laul (1970), 160 and fig. 4; Sedov (1974), 48; pl. 23/1, 4 and pl. 27/9. See also
Moora (1963), 357.
29 Daiga (1962); Chernykh/Khoferte/Barceva (1969), 109–13.
30 Hensel (1996), 131–32; Miśta/Gójska (2015).
31 Bliujienė (2013), 371–72; Żołędziowski (2015), 50. However, there are clear signs of surface
treatment, mostly by punching, on bronze bracelets from that same site; see Żołędziowski
(2015), 52 and 54–55.
32 Peiser (1921), 115 and fig. 1; Deemant (1978), 81–83; pl. VIII/1; Tautavičius (1981), 29–30; 30
figs. 31–32; Kazakevičius (1993), 140 and 73 fig. 125/8; Kulakov (1997), 598 and 599 fig. 3/9,
10; Bliujienė (2004), 69 with fig. 2; Skvorcov (2010), 95–96; pls. DLXVI/1–5 and DXLVII;
Kontny/Pietrzak (2013), 124 fig. 2/9; Rudnicki/Skvorcov/Szymański (2015), 558–89; 598
fig. 2/2; Skvorcov et al. (2017), 350–51; 351 fig. 11/1. See also Simniškytė (1998), 197–207;
Bliujienė (2007), 131.
33 Kazakevičius (1987), 61–62.
34 Mandril: Bertašius (2005), 68–69; 212 pl. CIX/5. Engraving tools: Cehak-Hołubiczowa
(1955), 313–317; 317 fig. 7/1; Kaczyński (1963), 140–42, 146–47, and 148–49; 141 fig. 5n; 150
fig. 21d; 153 fig. 25j, k; Deemant (1978), 81–83; pls. VIII/7 and X/6; Kazakevičius (1993), 150
and 121 fig. 191/4; Graudonis (2003), 35–40; 39 fig. 32/4; Griciuvienė/Grižas/Buža (2005),
37–40; Bertašius (2005), 88; 266 pl. CLXIII/6; Griciuvienė (2007), 24–25; Hilberg (2009),
475–76; Jakobson (2009), 44 and 75. Engraving instruments also appear in hoards; see
Urtāns (1977), 148; 147 fig. 52/30, 31.
35 Tautavičius (1996), 35. According to Oras (2015), in 6th-century Estonia, silver becomes
suddenly the main material in wealth deposits.
36 Bliujienė (2013), 361–62.
37 Kurila (2008); Bliujienė (2016), 222. There is also evidence of contemporaneous graves
being robbed. See Stankus (1984), 63; Butėnas (1998), 163; Bertašius (2005), 58–59.
from elsewhere. Glassware, belt buckles decorated in animal style I, and a few
Byzantine coins were clearly produced elsewhere, but they most likely reached
the Baltic region through non-commercial exchanges, not trade.42
Non-commercial exchanges may have been gift giving between elite groups
located at a considerable distance from each other. The existence of such elite
groups in the Baltic region is well documented archaeologically. The crema-
tions associated with horse burials found in the Sambian Peninsula (now
the Kaliningrad region of Russia) at Pervomaisk, Kleinheide, Mitino, and
Shosseinoe have produced a number of artifacts, primarily ornaments for the
horse tack and the saddle, that are decorated in the so-called Germanic ani-
mal style I, which played an active part in creating a shared elite identity in
contemporaneous Scandinavia and western Europe, although displayed pri-
marily on female dress accessories.43 At the opposite end of the Baltic region,
in northern and northwestern Estonia—, a few richly furnished graves dated
around 500 point to the display of social prestige. This is a completely novel
phenomenon for a region with no traces of “ideological competition” in the
archaeological record of the previous 300 years.44 Exceptionally rich buri-
als appear also in eastern Lithuania at about the same time; they have been
interpreted as the graves of local “dukes.”45 A diachronic analysis of mortuary
practices in that region of Lithuania indicates that, judging by the number of
richly furnished graves, the social segment of the elite diminished consider-
ably around 500 AD, which strongly suggests that power was concentrated
42 Glassware: Hilberg (2009), 443, 446, and 448. Buckle with animal style I ornament: Franzén
(2009). Early Byzantine coins: Urtāns (1977), 137; Jagodziński (1997), 33; Dymowski/
Orzechowska/Rudnicki (2012), 217–18 and 220; Skvorcov (2014); Zapolska (2018).
43 Skvorcov (2013) notes that in all known cases from the Sambian Peninsula, those were
male burials accompanied by the graves of one or, in some cases, several horses. For
animal style I and female dress accessories, see Halsall (2007), 48. Vaitkunskienė (1995),
99–100 believes that during the 6th century, some men were buried in central Lithuania
together with their female attendants (slaves?), who were sacrificed for the occasion.
For a similar idea applied to the region of northeastern Poland next to the border with
Lithuania, see Kaczyński (1965), 196–97. For the animal style I in Scandinavia as the “lan-
guage of power” of the (new) elites, see Behr (2010). For a detailed discussion of the elite
burials in Pervomaisk, see Hilberg (2009), 311–30. For Mitino, see Skvorcov (2010), 95–96.
For Shosseinoe, see Skvorcov/Khokhlov (2014); Skvorcov (2018).
44 Priit (1995), 227–29. For the cemetery in Proosa as illustrating a “violation of the balance”
which had been established in previous centuries, and the rise to prominence of a local
chieftain most likely by violent means, see Lang (1996), 473–76.
45 Kurila (2015), 54–55. For a similar interpretation of richly furnished burials accompanied
by horse graves in western Lithuania and Latvia, see Bliujienė/Butkus (2009), 160.
in the hands of a few.46 This change coincided in time with the standardiza-
tion of grave good sets and the salient marking of warrior status in the burial
ritual.47 Male status was connected directly to military activity and the ideol-
ogy surrounding it.48 In that respect, the picture drawn on the basis of cem-
etery data from the Baltic region is very similar to that from the Carpathian
Basin (see chapter 6). Much like elsewhere in Europe, the aristocrat of the 6th
and early 7th century in the Baltic region was “increasingly likely to be armed
and to have a warrior following.”49
46 Kurila (2009), 170 notes that at the same time, burials of young males became consider-
ably richer than those of elderly males, a sure indication of changing social roles. Older
males, who had meanwhile lost their warrior status, were somewhat closer to females
in their position in society. By contrast, female status remained stable in relation to age
and seems to have been less affected by the social transformations taking place in local
communities.
47 Jovaiša (2006), 12.
48 Kurila (2009), 182. For similar conclusions concerning the Sambian Peninsula, see
Kazanski/Mastykova/Skvorcov (2017).
49 Halsall (2007), 495. For Mazurian belt sets with open-work decoration as badges of ele-
vated social status indicating contacts with Merovingian and Avar-age elites, see Kulakov
(2018), 101–02.
The forest-steppe belt is an ecotone between the zones of closed forests and
steppe grasslands. In this transitional zone, woodlands alternate with closed
grasslands (meadow steppe), forming a landscape of mosaic appearance. The
belt is extensive and runs across Eurasia from the foothills of the Carpathian
Mountains in the eastern parts of modern-day Romania across Ukraine and
Russia all the way to the Altay, although it is more fragmented to the east from
the Ural Mountains. Typical for the forest-steppe belt are black soils (cher-
nozems), which develop especially in environments with a higher moisture
supply, such as stream valleys.1 This explains why early medieval settlements
tend to cluster along the main rivers crossing the forest-steppe belt from north
to south—the Dniester, the Southern Bug, the Dnieper, the Donets’, the Don,
and the middle course of the Volga.2 In the early stages of agricultural use (the
first few years after plowing), the yields are usually high. Gradually, however,
degradation of the physical and moisture properties of the soils occur, and the
fertility of the chernozems starts to decline. Occupation on 6th- to 7th-century
settlements in the forest-steppe belt of Eastern Europe was therefore relatively
short, with communities moving around within a relatively restricted area
(often up- or downstream), in search of new soils for cultivation.3
1 For a soil map of the forest-steppe belt in present-day Ukraine, see Gorbanenko/Pashkevich
(2010), 80–81 fig. 3.4.
2 For the definition and soil features of the forest-steppe belt, see Chibilyov (2003), 249–50. For
settlements clustering along major rivers, see Dovzhenok (1965), 32; Avdusin (1989), 136–37.
3 This was a form of itinerant agriculture not unlike that practiced in the Lower Danube region
at the same time (see chapter 8). Nonetheless, the question of the anthropic influence upon
the early medieval environment, particularly upon the soil, has been raised only for the
forest-steppe belt of Eastern Europe. Some have even advanced the idea of an ecological
crisis, the main reasons for which were supposedly podsolization (caused by slash-and-burn
form of agriculture) and epizootics (itself caused by the depletion of soils of basic metals,
especially cobalt). See Shevchenko (1997) and Shevchenko (2002), 139–42, 143, 149–51, and
199, who believes that to have been the cause of the emigration of the Slavs. There is no
evidence either of slash-and-burn agriculture or of podsolization. On the other hand, both
field rotation and manuring are only documented for the later period. See Gorbanenko/
Zhuravl’ov/Pashkevich (2008), 156; Prykhodniuk/Gorbanenko (2008), 56.
figure 23 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes. The insert (shaded area)
shows the extension of the forest-steppe belt in Ukraine and Russia. Base map for
insert Ecoregion PA0419
public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Ecoregion_PA0419.svg
7 Viazov (2001), 60; Bogachev (2013), 133. By contrast, farther to the north, at Troickii
Urai (across the Kama from Chistopol, Tatarstan), only barley seeds have been found;
see Tuganaev/Tuganaev (2007), 41 and 40 table 6. Seven charred seeds of wheat have
been found in the filling of a grave pit under barrow 9 in (Novo) Turbasly (near Ufa,
Bashkortostan); see Mazhitov (1959), 124.
8 Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 231–232 and 245; Khavliuk (1963), 204, 207, 208, and 345; Petrov
(1963), 213 and 218; Prykhodniuk (1975), 83 and 101; Starostin (1977), 32 and 37; Shramko
(1980), 76 and 75 fig. 2/10; Goriunov (1981a), 122; Prykhodniuk (1990), 90; Matveeva/
Morozov (1991), 175; Prykhodniuk (2005), 23 and 127 fig. 21/12; Kashkin/Rodinkova (2010),
90. A few fragments of querns have been found during field surveys and can therefore be
dated to the 6th or 7th centuries only tentatively; see Khavliuk (1974), 211; Prykhodniuk
(1975), 88.
9 Khavliuk (1963), 204.
10 Khavliuk (1963), 321, 322, 334, 339, 342, and 345; 331 fig. 6/12, 13; 336 fig. 15/9, 10; Petrov
(1963), 213 and 218; fig. 7/12; Il’ins’ka (1968), 58 and 59 fig. 2/9, 10; Tikhanova (1971), 9–10;
Baran (1972), 181 and 182 fig. 58/12; Khavliuk (1974), 190, 198, 199, 204, 207, 210–213, and
215; Prykhodniuk (1975), 83–85, 87, 101, 102, 106, 107, and 108; 34 fig. 15/9; 130 pl. XX/5, 12;
132 pl. XXII/20–23; 133 pl. XXIII/7; 134 pl. XXIV/14–20; 137 pl. XXVII/15; 138 pl. XXVIII/7,
8, 17–19; 139 pl. XXIX/9; 140 pl. XXX/13; Gening (1976), 128 and 129 fig. 18/13; Prykhodniuk
(1979), 85 and 86 fig. 3/10; Prykhodniuk (1980), 128 and 131; 37 fig. 16/16; Shramko (1980),
76 and 75 fig. 2/8, 9; Goriunov (1981a), 116, 118–20, and 122–24; 115 fig. 37/2; 120 fig. 43/7;
122 fig. 46/15; 124 fig. 48/2; 125 fig. 49/1, 2; 126 figs. 50/3 and 51/14; 130 fig. 55/1, 2; Goriunov
(1981b), 63 and fig. 2/15; Abashina (1986), 73 and 83; 81 fig. 7/19; Mikheev/Prykhodniuk
(1986), 76–78; 77 fig. 3/3; 79 fig. 5/5–9; Khavliuk (1988), 228–29; Prykhodniuk (1990),
pp. 86, 90–91, and 94; 103 fig. 8/14; 101 fig. 6/13, 14; 104 fig. 9/14–16; 106 figs. 11/2 and 12/12;
108 fig. 14/8, 9, 13; Berestnev/Liubichev (1991), 33 and 36; 34 fig. 1/25–30; D’iachenko/
Prykhodniuk/Petrenko (1991), 26–27 and 30; 29 fig. 4/5, 7; 31 fig. 6/5; 32 fig. 8/2, 4, 5, 10, 11,
16; Shovkoplias/Gavritukhin (1993), 54 and 55 fig. 2/12; Abashina (2004), 281, 283, and 286;
280 fig. 2/7; 286 fig. 6/15; 296 fig. 13/13, 16; Buinov/Sergeev (2012), 11. Several other frag-
ments of clay pans have been found during field surveys and can be dated only tentatively
to the late 6th or 7th century. See Il’ins’ka (1968), 77; Telegin/Beliaeva (1975), 105 and 100
fig. 4/6; Prykhodniuk (1980), 127, 130, 136, 138, and 139; Liubichev (2001), 113 and 114 fig. 2/3;
Oblomskii (2012), 197 and 229 fig. 24/8, 9; Suprunenko (2012), 148 and fig. 11/6.
11 Sickles: Kukharenko (1952), 36 and 39; 38 pl. I/3; 40 pl. II/7; Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 244;
Petrov (1963), 218 and 222 fig. 6/6; Khavliuk (1974), 204 and 202 fig. 11/22; Shramko (1980), 75
and 76 fig. 3/1; Abashina (1986), 73 and 82 fig. 8/1; Prykhodniuk (1990), 90; Kazakov (1993),
103 and 105 fig. 1/29; Viazov/Semykin (2016), 88 and 224 fig. 57/3. Scythes: Prykhodniuk
shorter than the corresponding tools of both the earlier and the later period.12
Such details suggest small-scale production, but next to nothing is known
about the size, location, or management of fields.
Despite the early development, shortly after World War II, of studies of ani-
mal bone assemblages, zooarchaeology has not yet shed sufficient light upon
the role of stock breeding in 6th- to 7th-century communities in the forest-
steppe belt of Eastern Europe. Animal bones have been found in great num-
bers on all sites, but only in a few cases have they been properly analyzed.
Cattle, followed either by pig or by sheep are the dominant species both in
the western and in the eastern parts of the belt.13 In the Middle Volga region,
remains of cattle indicate clearly that a large number of animals were slaugh-
tered at a relatively young age, which suggests that they were kept for meat,
not for dairy.14 Unlike the western parts of the forest-steppe belt, there is a
significant presence of poultry (chickens and geese) in assemblages of the
Middle Volga region, particularly the Samara Bend.15 In both the western and
the eastern regions of the forest-steppe belt, there is a substantial presence of
wild animals, both game and fur species. Besides deer and elk, bear, otter and
beaver must have been hunted for pelts.16 The most remarkable zooarchaeo-
logical finds are camel bones that appear on four different sites in the Middle
(1990), 89 and 108 fig. 14/27; Abashina (2004), 286; Viazov/Semykin (2016), 88 and 224
fig. 57/2. According to Gorbanenko/Pashkevich (2010), 106, the plowshare discovered in
Tymchenky [near Kharkiv, Ukraine; Berestnev/Liubichev (1991), 33 and 34 fig. 1/5] must
be dated to the third quarter of the 7th century. However, it was not found in any of the
settlement features excavated on that site and it may well be of a later date.
12 Gorbanenko/Pashkevich (2010), 209, 215, and 248; 249 fig. 8.3. Besides an oval pit from
Obukhiv [Abashina (1986), 83 and 79 fig. 6/3], which may have served for storage, no silos
have been found on any 6th- to 7th-century settlement site in the forest-steppe belt of
Eastern Europe.
13 Zhuravlev (2005–2009); Bogachev et al. (2013), 133–34 and 142 table 5. Cattle and sheep
bones appear also in burial assemblages: Akhmerov (1951), 133; Mazhitov (1959), 116, 117,
119, and 120; Mazhitov (1968), 84, 101, and 104; Goriunova (2004), 20 and 24. Sheep and pig:
Gening (1976), 130; Bogachev et al. (2013), 142 table 5;. As’keev/Galimova/As’keev (2012), 13
and 14–15 table 3. At Obukhiv (near Kiev), the dominant species is pig, followed by cattle;
see Zhuravlev (2016).
14 Petrenko (1998), 201–02 and 203. Unlike the western parts of the forest-steppe belt, faunal
assemblages in the Middle Volga region show that horses were also raised for meat, as
many animals were also slaughtered at a relatively young age.
15 As’keev/Galimova/As’keev (2012), 12; As’keev/Galimova/As’keev (2013), 121 and 119 table 1.
This is the earliest archaeological evidence of domestic fowls known so far from the
region.
16 Petrenko (1998), 204–05; Bogachev et al. (2013), 126, 134 and 142 table 4; Zhuravlev (2016),
176–77 and 181–82; Goriunova (2004), 24; Mazhitov (1968), 84; Matveeva (2003), 43;
As’keev/Galimova/As’keev (2012), 13 and 14 table 3.
Volga region, next to its confluence with the Kama.17 Those were Bactrian cam-
els likely associated with the caravan trade, the most important commodity of
which must have been the pelts.
The same trade network was responsible for the presence in the Middle
Volga region of Sassanian coins.18 Three drachms of Kavad I (struck in 519,
524, and 527, respectively), and three others of Khusro I (struck in 538, 541,
and 545, respectively) have been found together with a strap end, a silver
torc, two fragments of a quern, and an armor plate in a small hoard buried
in Karmaly (near Togliatti, in the Samara region).19 Two other drachms, one
struck for Peroz (457–483), the other for Kavad (first reign, 488–497) are known
from Troickii Urai, near the confluence of the Volga and the Kama rivers. A
few more drachms have been found downstream, along the lower course of
the Volga, but the largest number of Sassanian coins is from sites in the Ural
region around Perm (see chapter 15).20 By contrast, only Byzantine coins are
known from the central and western parts of the forest-steppe belt in Eastern
Europe.21 Along the same trade routes that brought Sassanian coins to Eastern
Europe also came the pieces of Sassanian metalwork deposited in rich graves or
hoarded, such as a silver pitcher and a silver plate from Ufa (Bashkortostan).22
Fragments of silk fabric found in another grave discovered in Ufa may also be
associated with the trade routes from Central Asia.23 Commodities moving
along those routes also reached the western parts of the forest-steppe belt, for
items in the hoards from Ostrogozhsk (near Voronezh, Russia) and Khats’ky
(near Cherkasy, Ukraine; Fig. 24) were found wrapped in silk.24 Those are the
only textile remains known for this period from entire the forest-steppe belt of
17 Calkin (1958), 273; Starostin (1967), 27; Petrenko (1984), 110 and 133; As’keev/Galimova/
As’keev (2012), 14 table 3. The first to connect the presence of camel bones with the fur
trade was Kovalev (2005), 65–66.
18 Morozov (1995).
19 Matveeva/Morozov (1991), 172–73, 175, and 176; 183 fig. 5; 184 fig. 6. The coins were inside a
handmade pot, a clear indication of a hoard.
20 Morozov (1995); Morozov (2005). For a distribution map of Sassanian coin finds, see
Morozov (1996), 163 fig. 1.
21 Shovkoplias (1957), 101 and 102 fig. 1; Alikhova (1959), 133; Goriunov/Kazanski (1998), 76;
Andreev/Filimonova (2009), 23 and 20 fig. 2/5. From Byzantium came the amphorae
found on several sites in the Middle Dnieper region: Berezovets’ (1963), 157 and fig. 14/2–4,
8–10; Shovkoplias (1963), 138 and 140; 140 fig. 2/1, 2; Rutkivs’ka (1974), 36; Prykhodniuk
(1980), 130 and 63 fig. 44/9; Abashina (2004), 281 and 283; Priimak (2004), 287 fig. 3B. From
Byzantium are also the bronze weights discovered in the forest-steppe belt: Menghin
(2007), 365; Oblomskii/Shvyrev (2018), 307 and 308 fig. 1.
22 Akhmerov (1951), 133; Trever/Lukonin (1987), 109 and pls. 20–21.
23 Akhmerov (1951), 125.
24 Korzukhina (1996), 372; Berezuckii/Zolotarev/Kucev (2017), 132.
Eastern Europe.25 There are in fact very few indications of weaving, and none
from a settlement context.26
Similarly, the evidence for non-ferrous metallurgy is problematic. Just
because crucibles and scrap metal, slag, and moulds have been found dur-
ing the excavation of sunken-floored buildings, such settlement features are
not necessarily “workshops,” and the sites are not automatically “industrial
centers,”27 In fact, the slag, the crucible, the two moulds, and the engraving tool
from Skybyntsi (near Bila Tserkva, Ukraine) have been found in the filling of a
sunken-featured building, not on its floor.28 The same is true for the crucibles,
the dies, the ladles, the scrap metal, and the slag discovered in Pariivka (near
Vinnytsia, Ukraine) and in Shcherbet’ (near Togliatti, now under the water of
the Kuibyshev Reservoir).29 The circumstances in which those artifacts ended
up in the filling of what must have by then been abandoned houses remain
uncertain, even though their association in itself is indicative of metalworking
25 The fragment of a lead ingot found in the large hoard accidentally discovered in 1994 in
Gaponovo (near Kursk, Russia) has a positive imprint of tightly woven fabric on the back.
See Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1995), 43 fig. 7/10. Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1996), 7 believe
that the imprint is from the textile bag or cover in which the hoard components were
wrapped before being buried. Leaving aside the fact that no other artifacts in the hoard
present traces of textiles, the “imprint” is more likely the result of a special casting proce-
dure known as “lost wax and lost textile,” for which see Curta/Szmoniewski (2019), 162–65.
26 Although there are many spindle whorls in 6th- to 7th-century assemblages in the forest-
steppe belt of Eastern Europe, only two loom weights are known. That from Leb’iazhe
(near Kursk, Russia) is from a cremation burial, while that from Davydovka (near Lipeck,
Russia) is a stray find. See Lipking (1974), 151; Andreev/Filimonova (2009), 20 fig. 2/15.
Needless to say, none of those finds can be dated with any degree of accuracy (in the
absence of an adequate illustration, it is not even certain that the Lebiazh’e find is a loom
weight). For spindle whorls, see Prykhodniuk (1998), 35; Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017),
91–92.
27 Khavliuk (1988), 227–29; Vynokur (1998), 24; Shcheglova (2006).
28 Khavliuk (1961), 191–92; 193 fig. 6/3, 4.
29 Khavliuk (1988), 228; Sidorov/Starostin (1970), 234 and 236 fig. 2/8. Crucibles have also
been found in the filling of a house and in a refuse pit on the settlement site excavated
at Khyttsi (near Lubny, Ukraine), for which see Goriunov (1981), 119 and 124; 80 fig. 29/14;
122 fig. 46/3; 132 fig. 57/5. There was slag on the hearth of the sunken-floored building
discovered in Mykhailivka (near Kaniv, Ukraine), but it is not clear whether the crucible
was found on the floor or in the filling; see Prykhodniuk (1979), 85 and 86 (fig. 3/12). Only
at Budyshche (near Cherkasy, Ukraine) has a crucible been found on the floor of a house,
but without any goldsmithing implements. Moreover, judging by the associated Gray
Ware, that house may be of a late 7th-or even early 8th-century date; see Prykhodniuk
(1990), 88. For crucibles, ladles, moulds, and slag from strongholds in the Middle Volga
region, see Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 242 and 243 fig. 6/15; Matveeva (1968), 116 and 118
pl. 4/7; Bogachev et al. (2013),132 and 159 fig. 22/1. For another crucible found in a strong-
hold farther to the northeast, see Shamsutdinov et al. (2015), 75 and 318 fig. 310/1.
30 Akhmerov (1951), 131. For settlement finds, see Khavliuk (1974), 197 and 202 fig. 11/23, 25;
Kazakov (1993), 102 and 105 fig. 1/32; Oblomskii (2012), 189 and 224 fig. 19/7, 8. A ladle and
a mould for casting pendants have been found in a stronghold at Nartovo (near Kursk,
Russia); see Puzikova (1978), 55 and 52 fig. 3/18, 19. For other ladles from strongholds, see
Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 242; Matveeva (1968), 113 and 116; 118 fig. 4/5. For finds from field
surveys, see Prykhodniuk (1980), 138.
31 Buinov/Sergeev (2012), 12; 16 fig. 3; 17 fig. 4; Volodarets’-Urbanovych/Buinov (2017).
32 Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017), 342 fig. 7.
33 Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 242 and 243 fig. 6/16; Khavliuk (1963), 321 and 334
fig. 13/12; Starostin (1967), 28 and 93 pl. 23/1; Rudenko (1991), 73; Prykhodniuk (1998),
153; Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017), 332 and 339; 33 fig. 1/1, 2, 5; Volodarets’-Urbanovych
(2018), 107–13.
34 Shablavina (2001), 312–14; Shablavina (2004), 246.
35 Egor’kov/Shcheglova (2001), 287, 304, and 306; Egor’kov/Shcheglova (2006), 23. See also
D’iachenko (1978), 32. The presence of between 10 and 30 percent zinc in the alloy signals
the cementation process. By constrast, gunmetal (an alloy of copper with tin and zinc)
appears only occasionally. Out of all artifacts from the hoard discovered in Kurilovka
(near Kursk, Russia), only one strap end was made of gunmetal. See Egor’kov/Rodinkova
(2014), 173 and 175; 171 fig. 2/15.
36 Shcheglova/Egor’kov (2000), 111; Egor’kov/Shcheglova (2000); Egor’kov (2012); Saprykina
(2014).
37 Goriunova (1992); Szmoniewski (2008), 278–80. The two fibulae from the Velyki Budky
hoard, however, were not made of brass, but of bronze with a high concentration of tin
(70 and 71 percent, respectively). See Goriunova/Rodinkova (1999), 217. According to
Rodinkova/Saprykina (2011), 93, diadems were plated with silver originating from scrap
metal; see also Saprykina et al. (2017). For the use of silver in surface enrichment, see
Kidd/Pekars’ka (1995), 352. According to Rodinkova/Egor’kov (2017), 278–81, silver was
also identified in the billon out of which many ornaments in the Sudzha-Zamost’e hoard
were made.
38 Korzukhina (1996), 402–403 (where the find is interpreted as a cremation burial); 650
pl. 60/1–17.
39 Khavliuk (1988), 228; Korzukhina (1996), 353, 369, and 408; 682 pl. 92/1–6, 8–11, 13, 16; 684
pl. 94/22; Rácz (2016), 177–78; 176 fig. 1. For dies in the central part of the forest-steppe belt,
see Oblomskii/Shvyrev (2018), 311 and 313 fig. 4/2–6.
40 Rácz (2016), 179.
facilities and in those regions cannot be dated before the late 7th century.46
Metallographic analyses have shown that the knives found in the Middle Volga
region were made in the sandwich technique, whereby a few strips of iron and
steel were welded together and folded.47 The same technique was also used
for knives found on settlement sites in the western parts of the forest-steppe
region. In addition, some of them were made with steel edges butt-welded to
phosphoric iron backs.48 Where did the blacksmiths get the iron? And where
did they work to make such tools, as well as a few other varieties of iron arti-
facts found on sites in the western region? In the absence of any smelting facil-
ities and smithies, it may be that blacksmithing in the western region was done
“on the side,” within the household, and without any specialists.49 The same
applies to the evidence of bone and antler working, all of which derives from
assemblages associated with simple dwellings.50 There is also no indication
have been a 6th-century occupation on the site, but the ironworking activity belongs to
an earlier occupation.
46 Braychevs’ka (1959); Khavliuk (1988), 230; Nedopako (1998). The smelting furnace found
in Sushky (near Kaniv, Ukraine) has been dated to the 6th or 7th century only on the basis
of the pottery found in other settlement features. The settlement, however, may be of a
date earlier than AD 500; see Prykhodniuk (1990), 97.
47 Kondrashin (2001). Vypolzovo (across the Volga river from Samara) is not too far from the
smelting site at Rozhdestveno. For different techniques used for the production of axes
and sickles found in the region of the confluence between the Kama and the Volga, see
Perevoshchikov (2002), 71–72.
48 Gopak/Goriunova (1991), 238–40; Voznesens’ka/Nedopako/Pan’kov (1996), 43–44; 46
fig. 8.
49 This hypothesis is confirmed by finds of slag in settlement features that may be inter-
preted as dwellings; see Khavliuk (1963), 339 and 346; Goriunov (1981), 122; Khavliuk
(1988), 228; Prykhodniuk (1990), 90. For slag found in the filling of settlement features,
see Khavliuk (1961), 192; Khavliuk (1988), 228; A.G. D’iachenko et al., ‘Kompleksy I tys. n.e.
selishcha Zanki (po raskopkam 1976 g.)’, in D’iachenko/Prykhodniuk/Petrenko (1991), 27.
50 Sukhobokov (1975), 29 and 40 fig. 15/3–6, 8; Goriunov (1981), 117–18 and 68 fig. 21/4, 7.
For half-manufactured bone products from the eastern parts of the forest-steppe belt,
see Gening (1976), 128–29 and 129 fig. 18/3. Awls are the most common product of bone-
and antler-working activities on sites in the western part of the forest-steppe: Khavliuk
(1974), 190 and 204; 189 fig. 5/7; Sukhobokov (1975), 29 and 40 fig. 15/1, 2, 9; Goriunov
(1981), 104, 120 and 124; 68 fig. 21/3, 8; Abashina (1986), ‘82 and fig. 8/3; Prykhodniuk (1990),
89–90 and 108 fig. 14/12. Other bone artifacts, such as combs and composite bow rein-
forcement plates have also been found in dwellings, sometimes in association with half-
manufactured products indicating that bone-working activity; see Goriunov (1981), 118
and 120; 68 fig. 21/1, 9; Viazov/Semykin (2016), 86 and 220 (fig. 53/1). In the Middle Volga
region, awls were occasionally deposited in graves. See Bagautdinov/Bogachev/Zubov
(1998), 30 and 172 fig. 74/18; Kruglov (2005), 109 fig. 10/26, 28, 29. Bone arrowheads were
deposited in graves only in the Middle Volga region; see Mazhitov (1968), 96, 97, 100 and
105; 138 fig. 15/16, 16; Akbulatov/Garustovich/Obydennov (1985), 135; Bogachev/Ermakov/
of kilns or specialized potters, as prior to ca. 680, all pottery produced in the
forest-steppe belt was handmade.51
One of the most interesting aspects of the archaeology of the eastern parts
of the forest-steppe belt of Eastern Europe during the 6th and 7th centuries
is the hierarchical organization of the settlement pattern. Unlike the western
parts, where only open settlements have been found, several strongholds are
known from the Middle Volga region and the lands between the Volga and
the Upper Sura river.52 Some of them have been thoroughly excavated, e.g.,
Imen’kovo, near the confluence of the Volga and the Kama.53 Others, like
Karmaly and Sten’kin Gorodok (on the western side of the Samara Bend),
have small precincts enclosed by double ramparts.54 That was a relatively poor
defense, and the lack of any indications of military functions prompted schol-
ars to conclude that strongholds of the Middle Volga region were not forts, but
central places of local, small networks of open settlements.55 It has been sug-
gested that only one or two families lived in each stronghold, for no more than
a couple of settlement features (dwellings) have been found in any of them.56
At Staraia Maina, a very large, above-ground building (5.5 by 12.6 m) has been
interpreted as “longhouse,” an elite residence.57 That strongholds may have
been seats of power results also from the presence of collections of valuables,
such as the hoard of silver found in Karmaly.58 At Maklasheevka 2 (southern
Tatarstan), a stronghold located at the mouth of the Utka river (on what is now
the northeastern shore of the Kuibyshev Reservoir), no less than 86 silos have
been found, some larger than others. This strongly suggests the accumulation
of food reserves in the stronghold, perhaps as a form of tribute payment.59
There are no strongholds in the western parts of the forest-steppe belt that
could be dated, with any degree of certainty to the 6th and first half of the 7th
century.60 Nor is there any evidence of silos or any other special facility on any
of the open settlements excavated in the region. Despite the occasional use of
burial mounds, cemeteries with either urn or pit cremations have not produced
any evidence of social differentiation.61 If male burials in the steppe lands
were of prominent men from communities farther up north (see chapter 9),
then inhumations with female or child skeletons that have been found in the
forest-steppe belt may also be interpreted as high-status burials. Two out of
four graves in a small cemetery excavated in Riabivka (near Okhtyrka, Ukraine)
were of children. In one of them, the skull and limbs of a horse were buried
on top of a 10- to 11-year old child, a practice with good parallels in contem-
poraneous burials of high-status males in the steppe lands.62 A 25- to 30-year
old woman was given an elaborate burial in a tomb found in Mokhnach (near
Kharkiv, Ukraine). The skeleton was placed in a niche together with a great
number of dress accessories (diadem, ear- and lock-rings, torcs, three fibulae,
two of which were connected with a chain, bracelets, and a necklace including
over 100 amber beads) and other “exotic” goods, such as two cowries (Cyprae
tigris and Cypraea Arabica).63 The many silver belt fittings recently found by
metal detector on the neighboring site at Haidary may have also been from a
high-status burial.64 Or they may have been from a hoard, as almost all silver
artifacts known from the forest-steppe belt are not from burial or settlement,
but from hoard assemblages.65
The hoards represent a unique phenomenon in the archaeology of Eastern
Europe and have recently received a great deal of scholarly attention (Fig. 24).
Ol’ga Shcheglova proposed that most hoards were family collections of valu-
ables, while a few (such as that found in Velyki Budky) were (itinerant) jewel-
er’s hoards.66 Since several hoards contain pairs of non-identical fibulae, which
are otherwise known from contemporaneous graves in the forest-steppe belt,
as well as in the Crimea, some have advanced the idea that the hoards were the
material culture correlate of local elites, who marked their social status and
claims by means of a distinct female costume.67 Vlasta Rodinkova went as far
as to interpret the cluster of hoard finds in the lands between the Seym and
Psel rivers (in Left-Bank Ukraine) as signaling a center of power, the “capital”
of a polyethnic confederacy.68 To others, however, hoards
64 Aksenov (2012), 32–33 and 35; 34 fig. 1/1–12. For older finds, see Avenarius (1896), 184–85;
181 fig. 53; Bobrinskii (1901), 148–49; Korzukhina (1996), 359 and 597 pl. 7/5–6.
65 Braychevs’kyi (1952), 161–65; pls. I–IV; Prykhodniuk (1980), 129 and 131; 40 fig. 19/1; 99
fig. 61; Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1996), 7 and 11–21; 194 fig. 19/4–14; 198 fig. 23/13, 14, 17, 18;
202 fig. 27/1–4; 203 fig. 28/1–6; 204 fig. 29/10–15; 205 fig. 30/6–22; 207 fig. 32/2; Korzukhina
(1996), 359, 372–73, 397–405 and 418–20; 595 pls. 4–5; 596 pl. 6; 611 pl. 21; 612 pl. 22; 640
fig. 50/17; 651 pl. 61/7; 654 pl. 64; 656 pl. 66; 657 pl. 67/6–8; 658 pl. 68/1–9; 659 pl. 69; 660
pl. 70/6–11; 690 pl. 100/3, 4; 695 pl. 105; Prykhodniuk/Khardaev (1998), 260–65; 247 fig. 1;
251 fig. 2; 255 fig. 4; 257 fig. 5; 259 fig. 6; 270 pl. I; 271 pl. II; Goriunova/Rodinkova (1999), 172–
75 and 217–18; 215 fig. 48/1, 2, 5, 6, 19–21; Prykhodniuk (2005), 54 and 171 fig. 66; Rodinkova/
Saprykina/Sycheva (2018), 131; 132 fig. 1/1–16, 19–23, 25–49; 13 fig. 2/1–26; 134 fig. 3/17, 19,
26–41; 135 fig. 4/16, 37, 42–44. Moreover, some hoards also include early Byzantine sil-
ver plate, for which see Mango (1994); Rodinkova (2012). For rare settlement finds, see
Khavliuk (1963), 336 and fig. 14/3; Prykhodniuk (1990), ‘88. As Skyba (2016), 90–92 notes,
belt sets with fittings of the so-called “heraldic” style appear both in male burials in the
steppe lands and in hoards of the forest-steppe region. In both cases they signal high sta-
tus and were used only by the local elites.
66 Shcheglova (1999), 291; Shcheglova (2000), 137; Shcheglova (2006), 272–73; Szmoniewski
(2008), 285–86. For the interpretation of (some) hoards in relation to (itinerant) crafts-
men, see also Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017).
67 Tolochko (1980), 248–49; Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1996), 145; Curta (2001c), 218. For the
concept of “female costume,” see Rodinkova (2003); Rodinkova (2007); Rodinkova (2011);
Zhilina (2019).
68 Rodinkova (2012), 196.
figure 24 Khats’ky (Ukraine), selected artifacts from a hoard of silver and bronze: belt
buckle and mounts, pendants (one made out of a cowrie), bracelet with flattened
ends, bronze bar, appliques, and strap ends
source: bobrinskii (1901), pl. XIV
69 Curta (2001c), 222–23; Curta (2008a), 146. It is important to note that the selection of
artifacts in some hoards seems to have been done with the idea in mind of illustrating the
whole gamut of technological abilities expected from the early medieval metalworkers.
See Shablavina (2002).
70 In some cases, artifacts were wrapped in cloth or even silk, another indication of con-
spicuous consumption. Rodinkova (2014), 393 notes that the trasological analysis of torcs
found in some hoards indicates that they have been deformed or cut before deposition.
71 Derevianko/Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017), 42; Rodinkova/Saprykina/Sycheva (2018), 131
and 139; Rodinkova (2018), 673.
72 Rodinkova (2011), 262.
in Eastern Europe. Most excavated cemeteries are either biritual or with inhu-
mations (typically under barrows), although recent excavations have brought
to light cremation cemeteries as well.73 Unlike cremations, however, inhuma-
tions are typically well furnished. Most silver dress (earrings, bracelets, fibu-
lae, belt fittings) and horse gear accessories (saddle mounts) have been found
with inhumations.74 There are even exceptionally rich, “princely” burials.75
The most impressive assemblage consists of a great number of female dress
accessories made of gold and was found in a burial chamber in 1936 in Ufa
(Bashkortostan).76 Much like in the western region of the forest-steppe belt,
some of the high-status graves are of children.77 At Vladimirovka on the
Chagra river, a left-bank tributary of the Volga south of the Samara Bend, a 3-
to 5-year old child was buried together with a fragment of a bridle bit and gold
mounts with a fish-scale ornament that covered the saddle front bow, a detail
most typical for “princely graves” of the late 4th and 5th century in Eastern
Europe.78 However, with the exception of the small collection of silver coins
and dress accessories found in Karmaly, there are no hoards in the eastern
parts similar to those of the western parts of the forest-steppe belt. When
combined with the evidence of fortified settlements and of silos, the archaeo-
logical record from the Middle Volga region, particularly from cemeteries and
isolated burials, strongly suggests that the local society was stratified. Local
elites were more entrenched than in the western parts, and probably enjoyed
economic privileges as well. Whether they also owned land remains unclear
in the absence of any contextual information from the written sources. They
most likely controlled people and labor, as indicated by the organization of
ironworking. When connected to the trade routes coming from Central Asia,
those elites may have even pushed into the forest belt to the north to tap the
local sources of fur.
For no other region of Eastern Europe have climate and environment caught
the attention of historians more than for the forest zone. Some believe that the
temperate hardwood forest covering northern Ukraine and southern Belarus
represented “great obstacles to settlement” and can explain why “the tribes in
the southern part of the forest belt” established contact with the steppe tribes
only “in a sluggish manner.”1 Some claim that the early medieval settlement in
the so-called “Sarmatic mixed forest” region of northern Belarus and north-
western Russia was made possible by a drier climate, while others believe it
was wetter, but colder.2 In both cases, environmental determinism serves as
explanation for cultural changes attributed to movements of population. Even
without environmental determinism, some maintained that the cultivation of
crops was introduced during the 6th or 7th century to the northern parts of
the forest belt through migration from the outside.3 Others have noted that
querns, for example, are present on sites that either have nothing to do with
the culture of the presumed immigrants, or are otherwise earlier than the date
advanced for the migration.4 In addition, strongholds in the Valdai Heights
near Smolensk (Russia) produced evidence of wheat and barley seeds.5 Wheat
seeds also appear on contemporary, open settlements in the Novgorod region,
while millet predominates on those on the southern border of the forest
region.6 Querns have also been found in the southern, central, as well as north-
ern parts of the forest belt.7 However, there are many more sickle and scythe
finds in the northern than in the southern region.8 Conversely, almost all clay
pans known so far are from the south, with only a few finds from the central
region.9 Whether clay pans were associated with the cultivation of millet, or
the consumption of flat bread was culturally foreign to the northern region of
the forest belt, there is no reason to exclude that region from the picture of the
6th- to 7th-century agriculture of Eastern Europe. The only plowshare has also
been found in the south, on the settlement site at Bakota (Fig. 25). This was a
slightly asymmetrical specimen of Henning’s type A1.10 However, the context
of its discovery suggests a later date, perhaps shortly before or after 700.
6 Shitov et al. (2007), 56; Gorbanenko/Pashkevich (2010), 155; Gorbanenko (2017), 463
and 465. Millet and lentils also appear on open settlements in Belarus, for which see
Makushnykau (2014), 373. That wheat predominates in the north and millet in the south
is a strong argument against the idea that the cultivation of cereals in the northern parts
of the forest belt is the result of a migration from the south.
7 Mitrofanov (1966), 228; Rusanova (1973), 33; Baran (1972), 147; Prykhodniuk (1975), 88;
Nosov/Plokhov (2016), 352–53; 384 fig. 15B.1.
8 Sickles: Tret’iakov (1958), 173 and 182 fig. 10/1; Isaenko/Mitrofanov/Shtykhov (1970), 196
fig. 71/8–11; Minasian (1972), 19; Pobol’ (1974), 378; Baran/Pachkova (1975), 87; Mitrofanov
(1978), 87 and 88; 132 fig. 39/3, 4; 146 fig. 54/2; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 85; Zverugo
(2005), 101 and 117 fig. 64/5; Shmidt (2008), 19 and 156 pl. 13/3, 9; Sinicyna/Islanova (2009),
491 and 493 fig. 14/4; Eremeev/Dziuba (2010), 113 and 112 fig. 104/5; Islanova (2012), 42;
Islanova (2013), 201 and 202 fig. 2/11; Islanova (2016), 193 fig. 32/8, 10; 196 fig. 35/4, 5; 202
fig. 41/3; 218 fig. 58/3; Kolosovskii (2016), 6; Liashkevich/Kasiuk (2016), 218 and fig. 27/1, 2,
7; Nosov/Plokhov (2016), pp. 352 and 386 fig. 17/12, 13. See also Shmidt/Modestov (2003),
72–74; Medvedev (2011), 228 and 259 fig. 4.14.3–6. For scythes, see Gurevich (1962), 61 and
62 fig. 49/9; Symonovich (1963), 132 fig. 26/14; Aulikh (1972), 41 pl. VIII/43; Padin (1974), 136
and 134 fig. 2/5; Mitrofanov (1978), 93 and 142 fig. 50/44; Zverugo (2005), 100–02 and 117
fig. 64/2, 3. Other finds of sickles and scythes, such as those from Nikadzimava are pre-
sumably of a late 7th- or 8th-century date. See Sedin (1995), 165 fig. 1/4, 5; Sedin (2000), 33
fig. 1/5. For a rare find of a mattock, see Aulikh (1972), 41 pl. VIII/42.
9 Smirnova (1960), 231 and 237–38; 233 fig. 14/1, 2, 8; 234 fig. 15/7; 235 fig. 16/2; 236 fig. 17/2;
Symonovich (1963), 123 and 114 fig. 15/4; Symonovich (1969), 88; Baran (1972), 150–53 and
181; 152 fig. 37/11, 12; 154 fig. 38/4, 7; 182 fig. 58/12; Goriunov (1972), 46; 44 fig. 14/8, 9, 19;
Padin (1974), 136; Prykhodniuk (1975), 83–84, 102, 106 and 107; 34 fig. 15/9; 130 pl. XX/5;
132 pl. XXII/20–23; 133 pl. XXIII/7; 137 pl. XXVII/15; 138 pl. XXVIII/7, 8; 139 pl. XXIX/9; 140
pl. XXX/13; Baran/Pachkova (1975), 89 and 91; 90 fig. 4/10, 11; Vynokur (1980), 870; 870
fig. 3/6; 871 fig. 4/6; Kozak (1984), 91–92; 92 fig. 3/8, 9; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 75,
82, and 84; 46 fig. 21/26, 27; 58 fig. 33/14; 62 fig. 35/15, 16; Makushnykau (1994), 227 and 232
fig. 3/6; Vynokur/Gorishnii (1994), 139 fig. 68/12–13; 141 fig. 70.
10 Vynokur/Gorishnii (1994), 66 and 139 fig. 68/4. Another plowshare of the same type
is known from Mikol’cy (near Myadziel, Belarus), and may also be of a later date; see
Zverugo (2005), 102 and 117 fig. 64/6. For plowshares of type A1, see Henning (1987), 49–50,
who notes that they were in use since the Iron Age.
It is not easy, or even possible for any region of the forest belt to distinguish
between rotational slash-and-burning and permanent field cultivation. In the
absence of more advanced paleobotanical studies, particularly of field weeds,
the use of field rotation in the southern region remains elusive.11 On the other
11 According to Kozlovskaia (1970), 16–21, the archaeological excavations carried out in the
1920s at Bancerovshchina (near Zhdanovichi, Belarus) produced evidence of common
vetch, bedstraw, knotgrass, field mustard, clover, and corn spurry, none of which was an
agricultural weed in the early Middle Ages. According to Eremeev/Dziuba (2010), 355,
pollen samples from the bog near Goriane (near Velizh, Smolensk region) indicate the
presence of cornflower, which is typically associated with cultivated fields. It is not at all
clear whether the cultivation in question was by slash-and-burning. Shmidt (1972), 66–68
nonetheless believes that the fireweed pollen identified at Akatovo (near Smolensk,
Russia) is an indication of slash-and-burn practices. Makushnykau (2009), 20 is con-
vinced that slash-and-burning was the main form of agriculture practiced in (south)east-
ern Belarus between the 5th and the 7th centuries.
12 Baran/Pachkova (1975), 88–89; Islanova (1989), 30; Sedin (1994), 121–22; Terpylovs’kyi/
Shekun (1996), 36; Allmaë/Aun/Maldre (2007), 304; Aun/Allmaë/Maldre (2008), 276–77.
13 Mesniankina (1999), 183; Shmidt/Modestov (2003), 106–07.
14 The shears found in Bakota and Nikadzimava suggest that wool was an important reason
for sheep breeding. See Vynokur/Gorishnii (1994), 139 fig. 68/11; Sedin (1994), 123.
15 Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 75–76 and 80–81; 68 fig. 38/35. (Domestic) animal bones
were also the raw material for household tools, as indicated by half-manufactured prod-
ucts, such as found in Bakota; see Prykhodniuk (1975), 84–85; 34 (fig. 15/7). A few combs,
such as found in Kavetchina (near Kam’ianets’ Podil’s’kyi, Ukraine) were also made of
bone, not antler; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 81, 83 and 66 (fig. 38/13, 29).
16 Mitrofanov (1978), 93 and 142 fig. 50/2, 46; Zverugo, (2005), 109 and 131 fig. 78/2–9, 12;
Drobushevskii (2006), 21 and 32 fig. 10/17, 18. Some crucibles have been found in the fill-
ing of settlement features, an indication that casting was taking place somewhere in the
vicinity.
17 Pobol’ (1974), 378; Zaiac (1980), 362; Islanova (1997), 35 and 212 fig. 73/12, 18, 19, 30; 221
fig. 82/9, 13; Viargei (2005), 491 fig. 2/19; Sinicyna/Islanova (2009), 491 and 492 fig. 13/10;
Nosov/Plokhov (2016), 352 and 386 fig. 17/8, 10, 11.
18 Islanova (1997), 32–33 and 36; 208 fig. 69/16; 213 fig. 74/13; 222 fig. 83/10–12; Islanova/
Mireckii/Oleinikov (2007), 137 and 136 fig. 4/6; Shmidt (2008), 26 and 170 pl. 27/6;
Sinicyna/Islanova (2009), 492 fig. 13/9; Eremeev/Dziuba (2010), 98 fig. 93/2. In northwest-
ern Russia, ladles were occasionally deposited in graves: Chernykh/Malygin/Tomashevich
(1998), 405–06; 401 fig. 7/2. For ladle finds from Belarus, see Mitrofanov (1967), pp. 255
and 252 fig. 2/10; Mitrofanov (1978), 142 fig. 50/7 and 144 fig. 52/33; Zverugo (2005), 109
and 131/10, 11, 13, 14, 16; Medvedev (2011), 230; Shadyra (2016), 243 fig. 26/9. The only 6th- to
7th-century ladle known so far from the forest region of Ukraine is that found in Zymne,
for which see Aulikh (1962), 105 fig. 2/1, 2; Aulikh (1972), 75 pl. XIV/1–3.
19 Islanova (1997), 22 and 222 fig. 83/l6–9; Islanova/Mireckii (1997), 14 and 15 fig. 2/1–3;
Sinicyna/Islanova (2009), 491 and 492 fig. 13/1, 2; Islanova (2013), 203 and 202 fig. 2/2;
Nosov/Plokhov (2016), 352 and 386 fig. 17/5. In the north, moulds and ladles were occa-
sionally deposited in graves: Schmiedhelm/Laul (1970), 160 and fig. 4; Sedov (1974), 48;
pl. 23/1, 4; pl. 27/9. For mould finds from southern Belarus, see Kasiuk (2016), 52 and 53
fig. 14/16.
20 Aulikh (1972), 75 pl. XIV/5 and 76 pl. XV/1–7; Fylypchuk (2010), 142–43; 163 pl. 6/1, 2; 164
pl. 7/1, 2; 165 pl. 8/1, 2.
21 Shcheglova (2001), 53.
22 Shcheglova (2001), 50–51. For types of ornaments made of lead alloys and produced
with moulds found in the north, see Mikhailova (2015c), 126 and 128–29; 127 fig. 1.
There are many more similarities with moulds found in later assemblages dated to the
8th century: Shcheglova (2009), 57; Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2017), 334, 336, and 337 fig. 3;
Volodarets’-Urbanovych (2018), 107 and 108 fig. 2. On the basis of formal analogies, the
mould found at Staraia Ladoga in horizon E2 (dated to 840–860) is believed to be of an
earlier, perhaps 7th-century date; see Iushkova (2006), 147. If so, it is the northernmost
mould discovered in the forest belt, at the border with the taiga.
23 Minasian (2003), 210–11.
made of lead alloy.24 There is also evidence that metalworkers in the southern
parts of the forest belt employed scrap metal for copper alloys.25 On the other
hand, sites in the forest belt have produced artifacts, for the local production
of which there is no evidence. For example, the origin of bronze bracelets with
trumpet-shaped ends, such as found especially in burial assemblages, remains
obscure, as such artifacts were cast in two-piece moulds, and no such imple-
ments have so far been found in the region.26 Similarly, although ornaments
made of bronze sheet with pressed decoration are known from several burial
assemblages in the northern part of the forest belt, no pressing dies have been
found in the region.27
Nor can the remains of ironworking be linked to any large-scale production.
Iron implements (sickles, scythes, and knives) and dress accessories (pins and
buckles) are relatively rare on sites in the forest belt. Slag often appears in the
filling of settlement features, both in the southern and the northern regions of
the forest belt.28 In the south, slag was commonly found on, or next to the fire-
place, an indication that ironworking may have taken place inside the sunken-
floored house.29 An ironworking center with five furnaces was excavated in the
1990s in Sniadzin (near Petrykau, in southern Belarus). Slag and fragments of
bog iron found in four furnaces and several of the neighboring pits bespeak
the smelting activities taking place on the site.30 All furnaces were dug into the
ground and were of small size. This was primarily a consequence of using bog
24 Sedin (2000), 39–41 and 40 fig. 5/1, 2, 21–25. The origin of the lead ingots remains unclear:
were they produced on site, or brought from somewhere else?
25 Aulikh (1972), 75 pl. XIV/4; Mitrofanov (1978), 144 fig. 52/20; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk
(1984), 76 and 68 fig. 38/30. Neither the pierced antoninianus struck for Hadrian and
found Kavetchina, nor the bronze coin from Zymne, an imitation of a copper coin struck
for Justinian, may be regarded as scrap metal. See Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 81;
Aulikh (1972), 19.
26 Padin (1960), 317 and 318 fig. 2/5; Stankevich (1962), 32 and fig. 11/8; Goriunov (1981), 96 and
43 fig. 14/10; Kochkurkina (1981), 19–20 and 127 pl. 3/3, 7; Islanova (1997), 51 and 223 fig. 84/3.
There is nothing about production in Mikhailova (2014a) and Mikhailova (2015b). For
other finds, see Padin (1960), 134; Akhmedov et al. (2007), 131 fig. 23; Mikhailova/Fedorov
(2011), 71–72 and 74 fig. 2/1. For other artifacts obtained by means of casting in two-
piece moulds, see Sedov (1974), 59; Sukhobokov (1975), 39 and 30 fig. 7/3; Mikhailova
(2014c), 283.
27 Mikhailova (2007) and Mikhailova (2012).
28 Symonovich (1963), 122; Mitrofanov (1978), 93. In the north, slag was also occasionally
deposited in graves: Furas’ev (2001), 100. For other finds of slag, see Baran (1972), 193;
Mitrofanov (1978), 91; Furas’ev (1992), 27; Eremeev/Dziuba (2010), 326 and 355; Nosov/
Plokhov (2016), 353.
29 Prykhodniuk (1975), 83; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 79.
30 Viargei (2004), 34–39; Viargei (2016), 19–20 and pls. 23–24.
iron as the main source of ore. Bog iron is rich in phosphorus, which posed an
important technological problem: the key condition of the blooming process is
the ability to maintain a temperature exceeding 1000 centigrades throughout
the entire working space of the furnace. This was often accomplished by build-
ing furnaces of modest size and by digging the lower part of the furnace into
the soil. With the relatively small carburized cores of the blooms obtained by
such means, early medieval smiths in the forest belt had only a few technologi-
cal options available. The metallurgical study of several tools and implements
(sickles, scythes, and knives) has revealed that few, if any artifacts made of bog
iron were hardened or tempered.31 Multi-layered welding was the preferred
method, whereby one of the layers, usually the edge, had a ferritic structure,
while the others had a ferritic-pearlitic character.32 This is particularly true for
the relatively numerous tools, commonly interpreted as burins, which have
been found on several sites in the forest belt.33
The pottery found on 6th- to 7th-century sites in the forest belt is mostly
handmade, but wheel-made pottery has also been found on several sites in
Ukraine—both open settlements and strongholds.34 However, it remains
unclear where that pottery was produced. Good-quality wheel-made
31 Rozanova/Terekhova (1997), 130 and 132. Although heat treating was well known to smiths
in other parts of Eastern Europe, it was conspicuously absent in the forest belt of north-
western Russia and Belarus. All hardened and tempered artifacts found in those regions
were most likely manufactured outside it.
32 Piaskowski (1974), 83; Rozanova/Terekhova (1997), 132. A ferritic structure is rich in iron,
while pearlite is a structure alternating layers of ferrite and cementite (a compound of
iron and carbon).
33 Timoshchuk/Prykhodniuk (1969), 72 and 74 fig. 3/2; Aulikh (1972), 41 pl. VIII/19–28; Sedov
(1974), 53 and 59; pl. 27/10, 13; Mitrofanov (1978), 93; 142 fig. 50/1, 14, 15, 48, 49; 146 pl. 54/3, 5,
8, 10; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 66 fig. 38/8; Nosov (1984), 15 and 14 fig. 4/10; Islanova
(1997), 216 fig. 77/16; 218 fig. 79/3–7; Chernykh/Malygin/Tomashevich (1998), 403–404 and
402 fig. 8/3. Since no engraved metal artifacts are known from the forest belt in northwest-
ern Russia and northern Belarus, it is likely that, if they were burins, those tools were used
for carving wood.
34 Tikhanova (1971), 10; Baran (1972), 174, 180 and 182; 176 fig. 53/4; 179 fig. 56/14; 182 fig. 58/14;
Prykhodniuk (1975), 107–08; 35 fig. 16/2, 3, 5–12; Vynokur (1980), 870 and fig. 3/1, 5, 8, 9,
12; 871 fig. 4/1–4; 872 fig. 5A/4–6; Kozak (1984), 90 and fig. 1/6, 7; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk
(1984), 62, 76, 78–79, 81–82, and 86; 52 fig. 27/9; 56 fig. 31/11; 64 fig. 37/1, 2, 4–8, 13, 14, 23;
Gavritukhin (1998), 177. The fragments found in a sunken-floored house at Bakota and in
two refuse pits from Bovshiv (near Halych, Ukraine) and Nezvys’ko (near Ivano-Frankivsk,
Ukraine), respectively, are from pots thrown on a tournette (slowly moving, hand-
activated wheel), and may therefore be of a late 7th-century date: Prykhodniuk (1975), 132
pl. XXII/17; Baran (1972), 154 fig. 38/1; Smirnova (1960), 236 fig. 17/5, 7. The same applies to
the ceramic remains from Plisnes’k, some of which were found in the earthen rampart:
Fylypchuk (2010), 140 and 142–43; 168 pl. 11/6–8.
35 Baran (2008). In some cases (e.g., at Kavetchina), the possibility of fragments of wheel-
made pottery being from earlier phases of occupation on the same sites can be safely
excluded, as those fragments have been found in the filling of the settlement features
dated to the 6th or 7th century.
36 Tikhanova (1971), 10; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 62, 77, 80, and 84; 61 fig. 34/10; 64
fig. 37/10, 11, 15, 40. Sites on which fragments of amphorae have been found are located not
too far from the right bank of the Upper Dniester river, within a short distance from sites
in northeastern Romania and in Moldova that have also produced evidence of Roman
materials.
37 Zymne (near Novovolynsk, not far from the Ukrainian-Polish border) is so far the north-
ernmost site in East Central Europe on which there is evidence of wheel-made pottery
during the 6th and 7th centuries; see Gavritukhin (1998), 177.
38 Zalissia (near Ternopil): Ugrin (1987). The fragment of a sheet fibula of so-called Dnieper
type suggests a date in the late 7th century. Krylos (near Halych): Kropotkin (1971). For the
bowl, see Kropotkin (1970). Velyki Kuchuriv (near Chernivtsi): Noll (1974). For the situla
with mythological scenes, see Gschwantler (1993).
39 Bieńkowski (1929); Trever/Lukonin (1987), 117 and 122; pls. 99–100. For Zemiansky Vrbovok,
see Svoboda (1953). For the coins, see Radoměrský (1953); Fiala (1986).
assemblages associated with elites.40 Much like in the forest-steppe zone (see
chapter 12), hoards seem to have served as a potlatch-like display (and “destruc-
tion”) of valuables.
The silver known so far from the northern parts of the forest belt was found
primarily in hoards, only occasionally in burial assemblages.41 However, unlike
the forest-steppe zone, with one possible exception, there are no richly fur-
nished inhumations.42 All 6th- to 7th-century cemeteries known so far from
the forest zone have only cremations, some in pits, others in urns.43 The only
conspicuous difference is that between “flat” cemeteries and graveyards with
barrows. The latter are particularly prominent in the northern parts of the for-
est belt, although some cemeteries with burial mounds are also known from
the central parts as well.44 Most burials have few, if any grave goods. With some
notable exceptions, social status does not seem to have been marked at all in
burial assemblages.45 To be sure, the barrows of the northern parts of the forest
belt (particularly southeastern Estonia, the upper courses of the rivers Velikaia,
Western Dvina and Lovat’, and the lands between the rivers Msta and Mologa)
40 Kazanski (2011).
41 For hoards, see Kolosovskii (2016), 6 and 7 fig. 2; Prykhodniuk/Padin/Tikhonov (1996);
Shcheglova (2010), 154 and pl. 3. For burials, see Sedov (1974), 58; pl. 23/18, 19; pl. 28/11;
Lebedev (1977), 42 and 44; 43 fig. 2/14, 15, 20; Pronin (1988), 172.
42 For the exception, see Vinogradskii/Lav’iuk (1959), 98 and 96 fig. 2.
43 Padin (1960), 317–18; Padin (1974), 132 and 134; Minasian (1979), 176–79; Nosov (1984), 11–15;
Islanova (1997), 50–53; Chernykh/Malyghin/Tomashevich (1998), 403–06; Furas’ev (2001),
94–100; Mikhailova (2016), 187 and 196.
44 Sedov (1974); Musianowicz (1975); Sukhobokov (1975), 39; Lebedev (1977), 38, 40, 42, and
44; Plavinskii (2013), 67–68.
45 The most notable exception is the warrior grave under a barrow excavated in Zaruch’e
(near Luga, Russia), with a shield boss, a lance head, and a bridle bit; see Kazanski (2014).
As Kazanski (2010c), 80–83 notes, the closest analogies for the shield boss are from
Lithuania. Two fragmentary, early Byzantine helmets, which have been discovered by
metal detector at one or two undisclosed location(s) in the region of Briansk (Russia),
may also point to an elite burial; see Radiush (2014), 42–43; 50 fig. 4; 51 fig. 5. A third
helmet was found under similar circumstances about 90 miles farther to the south, near
Khomutovka (Kursk region); see Radiush (2012). A spearhead was deposited in Stan (near
Udomlia, Russia) together with the cremated remains of two individuals: Islanova (1997),
52 and 222 fig. 84/2. Many more weapons, however, have been found in settlement than
in burial assemblages: Symonovich (1963), 115 and 131 fig. 25/1; Aulikh (1972), 48 pl. IX/1–
7, 9–19; 52 pl. X/1–7, 9–35; Pobol’ (1972), 130 and 142 fig. 17/1; Padin (1974), 136 and 134
fig. 2/6; Vakulenko/Prykhodniuk (1984), 82 and 68 fig. 39/9; Makushnykau (1990), 59 and
58 fig. 2/17, 18; Gurin (1994), 156; Viargei (1997), 36 and 33 fig. 1/6, 7; Viargei/Tremer (2003),
151 and 187 fig. 28/23; Zverugo/Medvedev (2006), 33 and 51 fig. 11/4–6; Fylypchuk (2010),
142 and 161 pl. 3/1–3; Marzaliuk (2011), 105 and fig. 10/2. See also Shmidt (1995); Kazanski
(2007); Panikars’kyi (2014).
are impressive structures, some of them over 100 m long, which implies a
great deal of collective effort and labor organization.46 However, the size of
those burial mounds was not meant to represent the elevated status of any
particular individual. Many so-called “long barrows” have multiple burials, and
detailed stratigraphic observations revealed that the elongated mounds have
been created through the extension of initially rectangular or oval mounds of
smaller size.47 This suggests that instead of monuments for prominent indi-
viduals, the “long barrows” were collective, perhaps family burials. Given how
rare conspicuous displays of social identity are at an individual level, Elena
Mikhailova has even advanced the idea that the long barrows were the expres-
sion of a religious confederacy (a cultic union).48 Whatever the interpreta-
tion of the archaeological record of northwestern Russia dated to the 6th and
7th centuries, there are indeed very few, if any indications of local elites.
Communities that buried their dead under the long barrows may not have been
egalitarian, but they most likely functioned without developed social hierar-
chies. Much like in the forest-steppe zone (see chapter 12), the hoards of silver
in the southern parts of the forest belt are not an indication of an entrenched
aristocracy, but of a continuous struggle of the emerging local elites to estab-
lish authority with the assistance of recognition from the Empire. Just as in the
Middle Dnieper region, there are no hillforts in western Ukraine during the 6th
and 7th centuries. However, several hillforts are known from the central and
northern parts of the forest belt.49 Could they be interpreted as an indication
of well-established aristocracies, as in the Middle Volga region (see chapter 12)?
Some Soviet archaeologists believed that the strongholds of northwestern
Russia and Belarus were refuges.50 It is difficult to imagine the kind of threat
over the entire forest belt that would make it necessary to build refuges, almost
46 Tvauri (2007), 1. The earliest long barrows are dated to the second half of the 5th century
or the early 6th century and have been found in the region of the Upper Daugava and
the Upper Msta, as well as in the hinterland of the lakes Peipus and Pihkva (Pskov)—the
borderlands of modern Russia with (2003), 250; Mikhailova (2018), 106.
47 Aun (2005); Mikhailova (2018), 108–09.
48 Mikhailova (2018), 114.
49 Tret’iakov (1958), 171–73; 171 fig. 1; 172 fig. 2; 173 fig. 3; 180 fig. 8; Symonovich (1963), 97, 101,
103, 105, 107–108, 110–112, 114–117; 98 figs. 1–2; 99 fig. 3; 100 fig. 4; 101 fig. 5; 102 fig. 6; 104 fig. 8;
106 fig. 10; 107 fig. 10; 109 fig. 11; 113 fig. 12; Mitrofanov (1967), 243–44, 256–260; 245 fig. 1;
Aulikh (1972), 4–20; 5 fig. 1; 12 fig. 2; 13 fig. 3; 16 fig. 4; 39 fig. 5; Mitrofanov (1977); Goriunov
(1981), 95; Sedin (1995), 159–64; 161 fig. 1; 162 fig. 2; 163 fig. 3; Islanova/Mireckii (1997), 12, 14,
and 18; Fylpychuk (2010), 135–36, 138, 140, 142–43, 144; 49 fig. 1; 150 fig. 2; Marzaliuk (2011),
97, 105, 107 and 113; 98 fig. 1. See also Levko (2003); Lopatin (2018).
50 Aulikh (1969). This interpretation was also adopted by some Polish archaeologists, e.g.,
Kobyliński (1990), 155.
figure 26 Tushemlia (Russia), plan of the stronghold, with the circular ditch inside
source: tret’iakov (1958), 173 fig. 3
at the same time, at locations so far from each other as Osechen (near Torzhok,
Russia) and Zymne. Moreover, at Zymne, the occupation of the stronghold
seems to coincide in time with the occupation on at least one of the open
settlements in its hinterland, which makes the case of refuge quite weak.51 As
an alternative, Petr Tret’iakov advanced the idea of cultic centers on the basis
of a loose interpretation of a circular ditch inside the stronghold at Tushemlia
(near Pochinok, in Russia) as delineating a sanctuary (Fig. 26).52 However,
the dating of those postholes is problematic, and it is not at all clear that they
all date to the early Middle Ages or, for that matter, at the same time at all.
Marek Dulinicz thought that, like Haćki and Szeligi in Poland (see chapter 10),
strongholds in the northern parts of the forest belt were regional industrial
centers, sites on which exotic, foreign goods were on display, and in which the
cremated remains of ancestors and family members were brought and scat-
tered. In short, those were “places, which brought power,”53 However, the bulk
of evidence for 6th- and 7th-century smelting and metalworking in the forest
belt of Eastern Europe comes from open settlements, not from strongholds.
Cremated human remains have indeed been found inside the strongholds
excavated at Plisnes’k and Nikadzimava.54 It is not clear that the remains can
securely be dated to the early Middle Ages. Nor have such remains been found
at other sites. The archaeological excavations carried out at Bancerovshchina
brought to light ten stone platforms, which were interpreted as buildings. It is
not clear, however, whether those structures belong to the 5th- to 7th-century
occupation of the site, or to the earlier, Iron-Age phase.55 At Nikadzimava, an
above-ground structure has been found on the highest elevation of the site.
Inside the building, which had a hearth, archaeologists found a large quantity
of charred seeds, mostly of cereals.56 Two sunken-floored buildings have been
excavated at Kolochin (near Rechyca, Belarus), but nothing out of the ordinary
was found in any of them.57 There were no signs of dwellings within any of the
other fortified sites that have been excavated, e.g., at at Zymne or at Plisnes’k.58
Nonetheless, both sites produced the only settlement finds of dress accessories
made of silver that are known from the entire forest belt.59 A small hoard of
torcs and bracelets was found inside the stronghold excavated at Vezhki (near
Minsk, Belarus).60 However, most large collections of silver which may truly
be linked to elites have not been found on fortified sites. There is therefore no
solid ground for the interpretation of the strongholds in the forest belt either
as “seats of power” or associated with the residential quarters of local elites.
53 Dulinicz (2000). This idea has gained supporters in Belarus; see Kolosovskii (2016), 6.
54 Sedin (1995) 161; Fylypchuk (2010), 138.
55 Mitrofanov (1967), 243 and 246–47. For problems of dating the ceramic material from
Bancerovshchina, see Lopatin (1989), 18; Lopatin (1993).
56 Sedin (2000), 31–39. Traces of above-ground buildings are also known from Tushemlia,
but it remains unclear to which of the three occupation phases they belong [5th to
4th century BC; 2nd to 3rd century AD; 6th to 7th-century; Tret’iakov (1958), 171–73].
57 Symonovich (1963), 120 and 122–23.
58 An observation first made by Timoshchuk (1990), 153. According to Shmidt (1970), 64–65,
the timber remains found at Demidovka were from a large house. However, the exact date
of those remains cannot be established. Oblomskii (2016), 21–22 is cautious about the dat-
ing of the ramparts, but not about the chronology of structures found inside strongholds.
59 Aulikh (1972), 57 pl. XI/7, 10; 62 pl. XII/1, 3, 4, 5, 10,11, 28; 67 pl. XIII/2, 6–8, 14–16; Fylypchuk
(2010), 150 fig. 2/4–6.
60 Kolosovskii (2016), 6 and 8; 7 fig. 2.
On the contrary, everything points to such sites playing the role of commu-
nal centers for neighboring settlements. The exact nature of that role is still
obscure—administrative, ceremonial, or religious. At any rate, the lack of firm
material culture correlates of local elites in the forest belt (beyond the ephem-
eral association, no doubt for military reasons, with the Empire) strongly sug-
gests that society in the region was less stratified than in the lands farther to
the south and southeast. With communities scattered over a vast swathe of
land covered with deep forests, it is not surprising that such archaeological
phenomena as the long barrows and the strongholds cannot be explained in
terms of ranked societies.
Hermanaric, being “the noblest of the Amali,” subdued “many peoples of the
north, and made them obey his laws.” Hermanaric’s victories as king of the
Goths were so resounding that some “have justly compared him to Alexander
the Great.”1 Jordanes’ comparison of Hermanaric with Alexander the Great has
been rightly interpreted as referring to a supposed expansion of the Gothic
realm to the east, not to the north. Indeed, two of the “peoples of the north”
mentioned by name are the Merens and the Mordens, which Russian histori-
ans believe to be the Meria and the Mordva of much later times.2 The former
inhabited the central area of the forest belt between present-day Moscow and
Iaroslavl’, while the Mordva lived farther to the east, across the Oka River (and
gave their name to modern Mordvinia). It is unlikely that Hermanaric ever
ruled over all those lands. Where did Jordanes then get the information about
what people lived in those remote areas?
Dmitrii Machinskii and Viacheslav Kuleshov believe that only the fur trade
could explain the interest of the Romans (either at the time of Hermanaric or
at that of Jordanes’ writing his Getica) in the “many peoples of the north.”3 On
the basis of another mention in the Getica of Hunuguri, who “are known to
us from the fact that they trade in marten skins,” Michel Kazanski has built an
entire theory about the 6th-century fur trade across Eastern Europe.4 However,
so far no evidence exists either of animals being hunted in the central parts of
present-day Russia between the Valdai Heights and the Kama river, or of trade
routes crossing the region.5
Bones of fur-bearing animals appear on Meria and Mordva sites only from
the 9th century onwards, and the evidence of trapping is even later.6 Only
bones of domestic animals have so far been found on cemetery sites, more of
cattle than of sheep or pig.7 However, the species most commonly found in
bone assemblages is the horse.8 No open settlements are known from the cen-
tral parts of Eastern Europe, and only a few strongholds have been excavated.9
On such sites, bones of animals (mostly domestic) have been found together
with agricultural tools.10 Two sickles are known from Kuzebaevo (near Alnashi,
in southern Udmurtia; Fig. 27).11 Such tools were also deposited in graves, such
as those excavated at Kuzhendeevo (near Arzamas, Russia), in the Lower Oka
region south of present-day Nizhnii Novgorod.12 Another burial assemblage
from that same cemetery contained a scythe, and another such implement
was found at Varni (near Zura, eastern Udmurtia).13 Hoes associated with
14 Gorodcov (1914), 77; Semenov (1980), 99. Slash-and-burning has also been associated with
numerous finds of axes on both stronghold and burial sites both in Udmurtia and in the
Lower Oka region; see Efimenko (1937), 54; Rozenfel’dt (1987), 133. On the other hand,
the exploitation of forest resources results indirectly from finds of wooden vessels, as
well as recipients, sheaths, or shoes made of birchbark; see Polesskikh (1979), 30 and 49;
Semenov (1980), 76–77, 74 and 79–80.
gradually over the subsequent centuries, under the influence of the agricul-
tural practices from the Middle Volga region (see chapter 12).15
Paleobotanical studies confirm the role of crop cultivation. At Osh-Pando
(near Dubenki, eastern Mordvinia), the main crop in the 6th and 7th centu-
ries was barley, followed by millet.16 Barley was also the main crop at Staraia
Igra (near Grakhovo, in southern Udmurtia).17 The significant presence in
paleobotanical samples from Osh-Pando of such weeds as cleavers and wild
buckwheat suggests that the fields were next to the woods and that yields
were quite modest.18 Seeds of barley, followed by wheat (soft and emmer) and
peas have been found in 11 out of 15 cremations of the cemetery excavated in
Rat’kovo (near Moscow, Russia).19 Moreover, in one of those cremation burials,
the seeds were associated with four fragments of clay pans, one of the eastern-
most instances of a culinary practice originating in the Lower Danube region
(see chapter 8).20
Together with the clay pans, two stone moulds for casting jewelry details
were deposited in the grave.21 Moulds were also found in seven other graves of
the same cemetery.22 One of them is almost identical with one of two moulds
found together with a sickle in a female burial of the cemetery excavated in
Kuzhendeevo.23 Both were for casting copper-alloy beads used for decorating
the clothes or the headdress.24 Casting small ornaments in one-piece moulds
is also documented archaeologically on stronghold sites, but without any
archaeological context.25 Without any settlement features, it is impossible to
gauge the significance of this economic activity, particularly its social impact
on local communities. Single ladles were also deposited in graves, sometimes
without any other casting tools or implements.26 Only a few such tools have
been found during the excavation of strongholds.27 By contrast, no crucibles
have been found in burial assemblages, although they are known from strong-
hold sites.28 Similarly, a pressing die for the production of belt mounts has
been found inside the stronghold at Terekhovo (on the right bank of the river
Oka, in the region of Riazan’).29 No dies have so far been found in any burial
assemblage of the forest zone. There were some in a hoard of brass acciden-
tally found in 2009 in Elshino (near Riazan’).30
A much greater number of pressing dies are known from the most remark-
able assemblage of the forest belt in Eastern Europe, a collection of jew-
eler tools, raw materials, and half-manufactured products found in 2004 in
Kuzebaevo. Six dies are concave (“negative”) and were most likely used to pro-
duce belt fittings such as known from burial assemblages in the easternmost
parts of the taiga belt, in the foothills of the Ural Mountains (see chapter 15).31
Those are unique finds for that part of the European continent with which this
book is concerned. Most other dies from Eastern Europe are convex (“posi-
tive”). The Kuzebaevo hoard also includes ten “positive” dies for the production
of belt fittings with a decoration imitating the granulation and filigree of speci-
mens cast in precious metals.32 In addition, no less than 90 lead models have
been found in the collection, mostly for belt fittings (buckles, strap ends, belt
mounts), as well as ear- and finger-rings, pendants, and purse mounts.33 The
exact function of those models remains unclear: were they just samples (to be
shown as examples of the kind of work that the jeweler was capable of doing)
moulds. The only clay moulds so far known are from Kuzebaevo; see Ostanina et al. (2011),
180 fig. 13/25 and 202 fig. 34/4, 9.
26 Gorodcov (1914), 77; Cirkin (1972), 164 and 165 fig. 3/28; Krasnov (1980), 176 and 216
fig. 50/6.
27 Veksler (1971), 90; Ostanina et al. (2011), 202 fig. 34/13. Two ladles were found in a hoard
assemblage, for which see Ostanina et al. (2011), 125 and 169 (fig. 2/6, 7). One of them was
made of a copper-alloy with tin and lead, and still contained in its bowl a small quantity
of brass with no less than 20.64 percent lead; see Ostanina et al. (2011), 14, 60, and 125.
28 Veksler (1971), 90; Ostanina et al. (2011), 202 fig. 34/8, 10, 12.
29 Akhmedov (2016b), 65 and 69 fig. 3/6.
30 Akhmedov/Gavrilov (2017), 32 and 33 fig. 12/2–5, 7, 10.
31 Ostanina et al. (2011), 171 fig. 4/2–6, 9.
32 Ostanina et al. (2011), 170 fig. 3.
33 Ostanina et al. (2011), 171 fig. 4/7, 8, 10–12, 15–23; 172 fig. 5; 173 fig. 6; 174 fig. 7/1–3, 5–19, 28.
There were also belt mounts and buckles in the collection, some with traces of leather
belts, others with remains of textile fabric. See Ostanina et al. (2011), 174 fig. 7/4, 20–23; 176
fig. 9; 177 fig. 10; 178 fig. 11; Ostanina (2017).
or did they have a technological role in the process of casting? That models
made of a lead-tin alloy were found in the collection has been interpreted as
indicating that casting may have not employed (lost) wax at all. Instead, the
model was used to obtain another made of some perishable material—wood,
for example. The wooden model was impressed into the soft clay, to create
the negative into which the molten metal was then poured.34 However, it is
just as likely that the leaden models were used to obtain their corresponding
copper-alloy duplicates. A lead model was necessary for obtaining the mother-
mould, which was created when the model was pressed into a piece of soft,
damp clay. When the clay dried, the open section of the mother-mould was
filled with molten wax. Once hardened, the wax model was taken out of the
mother-mould, packed in clay, and baked at a high temperature. The result
was a clay mould, into which the molten metal was poured to burn out the
wax and to produce the final cast. That casting was the technology to which
the leaden models referred results also from the associated ingots (brass, lead-
tin alloy, and bronze), as well as the large quantity of scrap metal, including
such things as coins of Kushan emperors, imitations of Khwarazmian coins,
fragments of ancient tableware, and “Scythian” arrowheads.35 Pressing dies,
casting implements (such as ladles), and leaden models—all suggest tech-
nological versatility, while the skills involved are well illustrated by a whole
array of tools—hammers, files, shears, anvils, adzes, draw-plates, and even a
divider—all directly comparable with the sophisticated implements found in
graves with tools from the Carpathian Basin (see chapters 6 and 17).36
Much like in East Central Europe, tool kits were occasionally deposited in
graves of the forest belt. Fragments of bellows have been found, together with
a stone mould, with cremated remains in a cemetery excavated in Rat’kovo.37
Associated with the male skeleton in a double burial of the cemetery exca-
vated in 1910 in Podbolot’e (on the southwestern outskirts of Murom) was a
collection of tools—tongs, an anvil, a ladle, and a crucible.38 A hammer, an
34 Ostanina et al. (2011), 77. As Heinrich-Tamáska (2008), 246 points out, the existence of
wooden models is an unwarranted assumption.
35 Ingots: Ostanina et al. (2011), 168 fig. 1/7; 169 fig. 2/4, 5; 175 fig. 8/4; 180 fig. 13/10–13, 20;
182 fig. 15. Scrap metal: Ostanina et al. (2011), 174 fig. 7/23–25, 27; 180 fig. 13/14, 17–19, 23,
24, 26–28; 184 fig. 17; 185 fig. 18; 186 fig. 19; 187 fig. 20; 195 fig. 23; 198 fig. 24. Fragments of
copper-alloy sheet and torcs, most likely serving as scrap metal, are also known from the
Elshino hoard; see Akhmedov/Gavrilov (2017) 32 and 33 (fig. 12/3). Scrap metal in the form
of bronze sheet was also found in three graves at Rat’kovo; see Vishnevskii/Kir’ianova/
Dobrovol’skaia (2007), 94 and 93 fig. 3/48, 49; 99 fig. 5/13, 38, 39.
36 Ostanina et al. (2011), 168 fig. 1; 169 fig. 2/1, 2, 8–11; 171 fig. 4/12, 13.
37 Vishnevskii/Kir’ianova/Dobrovol’skaia (2007), 94 and 101 fig. 7/28, 29.
38 Gorodcov (1914), 76–77.
anvil, a plane, an adze, and an engraving tool have been found in a pile next
to fragments of clay crucibles in a grave of the large cemetery excavated in
Mladshii Akhmylovo (near Koz’modem’iansk, in the southern part of the Mari
El Republic; Fig. 28).39 Another tool kit made up of a hand plane, a gouging
instrument, a hammer, and tongs was deposited in a special niche carved on
the southern side of a grave pit from the Varni cemetery.40 All those examples
show that, much like in the Carpathian Basin, during the 6th and 7th centu-
ries, the skills of the craftsman, particularly those associated with the produc-
tion of jewelry, were highly appreciated within communities in the central and
eastern parts of the forest belt. The deposition of entire tool kits also raises
the question of how craftsmen were viewed in the community, and of their
social status. It is important to note that most tools deposited in graves found
in the forest belt are small, more appropriate for the trade of a jeweler than
for that of a smith. The deposition of jeweler tools in graves implies therefore
that it was that special craft that was socially valued, despite the clear evidence
that blacksmiths were also quite active. No smelting sites are known from the
region, but the metallographic analyses of series of implements and weapons
from various cemetery sites have indicated that the blacksmiths in the for-
est belt relied heavily on bog iron.41 The same analyses have also revealed the
importance of heat treatment, as well as the use of cementation and welding
for the production of blades.42 In other words, local blacksmiths had knowl-
edge of techniques, which, though quite simple, still required skill. No black-
smith tools have been deposited in any grave of the forest belt, and no smithies
39 Nikitina (1999), 52 and 107 fig. 25A. Adzes were often deposited singly in graves, with no
other tools. See Gorodcov (1914), 83 and 90; Polesskikh (1979), 32, 35, and 49; 35 fig. 2/2;
38 fig. 24/1; 48 fig. 31/17. Similarly, there is a significant number of engraving tools found
singly: Spicyn (1901), 77–78; Kravchenko (1974), 161, 179, 180; Gening (1979), 90; Krasnov
(1980), 137 and 215 fig. 49/18; Semenov (1980), 68 and 125 pl. XIX/14; Erofeeva/Travkin/
Utkin (1988), 115–16 and 118; Shitov (1988), 35 and 37; Nikitina (1999), 46 and 50; 87 fig. 5B/4;
89 fig. 7A/11; 101 fig. 19A/12. Distinguishing between engraving tools and awls is not always
easy: Gorodcov (1914), 134; Kravchenko (1974), 160, 163, 172, and 175; Polesskikh (1979), 32;
Krasnov (1980), 155; Semenov (1980), 94 and 125 pl. XIX/11; Erofeeva/Travkin/Utkin (1988),
122–23; Shitov (1988), 39 and 56 pl. X/6; Vishnevskii/Kir’ianova/Dobrovol’skaia (2007), 94
and 92 fig. 2/28.
40 Semenov (1980), 98–99 and 124 pl. XVIII/3, 11, 12.
41 According to Ostanina (1979), 194, fragments of blooms and slag have been found during
the excavation of the stronghold at Kuzebaevo. However, there were no smelting facilities
on the site, and no smithies have been discovered.
42 Peterburgskii (1974), 47; Zav’ialov (1992), 166–67 and 169–70; Perevoshchikov (2002), 18–19
and 63.
figure 28 Mladshii Akhmylovo (Mari El Republic), grave 115, plan and associated
artifacts: spear head, anvil, chisel, hammer, and adze-shaped axe
redrawn after nikitina (1999)
have so far been discovered in any stronghold.43 Nor is there any evidence (in
the form of loom weights or weaving sheds) for textile production, despite the
occasional finds of woolen fabric remains in burial assemblages.44
The deposition in graves of casting tools and implements was clearly a
means to represent social status symbolically. In other words, graves with
tools were not necessarily graves of craftsmen. A ladle was found in a grave
of the cemetery excavated in Bezvodnoe (on the right bank of the Volga, near
Nizhnii Novgorod), together with silver earrings, a diadem, many stone beads
and a large number of female dress accessories.45 On the shank bones of the
woman buried there was a bridle bit, while the ladle was found by the skull.
Both artifacts were obviously metaphors. Nonetheless, on the basis of that and
other burial assemblages, Leonilla Golubeva has advanced the idea that dur-
ing the early Middle Ages, women were the goldsmiths of communities in the
forest belt.46 Out of 16 assemblages she took into consideration, only five may
be dated to the 6th or 7th centuries, and only in two cases were the associated
skeletons properly sexed and identified as female.47 While the possibility can-
not be excluded that casting was done by both female and male members of
43 Arkhipov (1979), 49 believed that the grave with tools found in Mladshii Akhmylovo was
the tomb of a blacksmith. However, the associated tools are too small to have been used
in a smithy. The hammer is slightly longer than 15 cm, and the anvil is only 5 cm long.
Unfortunately, Zav’ialov (1992) contains no data concerning the metallographic analysis
of the hammer, the anvil, or any other tools and implements found in that burial assem-
blage. It is therefore not possible to decide on the basis of the physical properties of the
artifacts whether those tools were of local production (i.e., made by local blacksmiths) or
perhaps brought from the outside.
44 Gorodcov (1914), 132; Kravchenko (1974), 164–65 (most likely a woolen shirt onto which
the trapeze-shaped pendants were sewn; a different kind of fabric was found by the feet
and may have been the trim of a skirt or of a dress); Polesskikh (1979), 30; Semenov (1980),
94; Shitov (1988), 42 and 64 pl. XIX/13 (simple woolen tabby woven in a single yarn, with
fringes); Nikitina (1999), 124 fig. 42/16 (woolen fringes); Akhmedov (2003), 87. It is impor-
tant to note that despite the presence of woolen fabrics, there are no bones of sheep
in any of the burial assemblages from the corresponding cemeteries (Shatrishche, Varni,
and Staryi Kadom).
45 Krasnov (1980), 175–76; 216 fig. 50/6.
46 Golubeva (1984), 75–79.
47 Proper sexing is of crucial significance in this case, because most assemblages have been
attributed to females only on the basis of the presence of jewelry and dress accessories.
However, as Akhmedov/Belocerkovskaia/Rumianceva (2007), 135 have noted, male buri-
als in the Oka region often include “gifts” of female accessories. In some cases, casting
implements were found in double burials, in which one of the skeletons was undoubtedly
male; see Golubeva (1988), 32.
local communities, there is little to no evidence that women played such a key
role in society prior to the 9th century, when the practice of depositing casting
implements in female graves was established.48 Gender differences, however,
were made particularly salient in cemeteries of the forest belt. Diadems, torcs,
pectoral discs, and multiple bracelets typically appear in female burials.49
Male burials are marked by weapons (especially swords, spear heads and axes),
penannular fibulae, and belts with fittings of the so-called Martynivka type.50
As a matter of fact, there are more weapons in graves of the forest belt than
in those of any other part of Eastern Europe, including the steppe lands. In
this respect, the forest belt of Eastern Europe is directly comparable to the
Carpathian Basin in terms of military posturing. Most analogies for some of
the high-quality weapons in the forest belt may actually be found only in the
Carpathian Basin. That is the case of the ring-pommel sword from Shokshino,
for example, with good parallels in Early Avar assemblages of Hungary.51 Not
all swords were found with adult males. A 10-year old child, probably a boy,
was buried in Varni with a long sword on the right side of the body, and a belt
with bronze fittings next to it.52 As Igor Gavritukhin notes, this strongly sug-
gests ascribed status, most likely as a result of the fact that the child was from
a leading clan. Just like goldsmithing could be used symbolically for the burial
of a female, war could serve as a metaphor for the burial of a child.53 While
weapons symbolized the ability to fight, whips marked elevated social status
because of their association with horse riding.54 Only a few men were buried
with horses.55 In many other cases, bridle bits and stirrups were deposited in
graves as pars pro toto.56
On each site, there are only a few graves with weapons, commonly placed in
the middle of the cemetery, surrounded by female burials with large numbers
of grave goods, especially dress accessories.57 Among those dress accessories,
there are occasional finds of pierced coins—drachms struck for Khusro II in
the early 7th century.58 Earlier, non-pierced coins have been found in both
burial (a coin struck for Justinian) and in stronghold contexts (a coin struck
for Maurice).59 The transformation of the coins into pendants and their depo-
sition in graves leave no doubt as to their non-monetary use in local com-
munities. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the coins were
obtained by means of some form of exchange with the outside world.60 The
same is true for a Khwarazmian coin from the Kuzebaevo hoard, as well as
the Soghdian appliques (one of them bearing the image of a monster typically
decorating Hindu and Buddhist temples in South and Southeast Asia, known
as Kirtimukha) found in the Elshino hoard.61 Instead of trade, this points to
gifts between elites. At any rate, those exotic goods may have exchanged many
hands before reaching the forest belt of Eastern Europe.62 What kind of elites
55 Krasnov (1980), 137, 148–49, 150, 159 and 182–83. A few horses were buried separately:
Gorodcov (1914), 77, 107 and 109; Krasnov (1980), 143, 153–54, 159, 161, and 174.
56 For bridle bits, see Spicyn (1901), 75, 76, 80–81, 83–85, 88–89, 91–92, 94–95, 97–98, 100 and
102; Gorodcov (1914), 90; Zhiganov (1959), 218 and 223 fig. 5/4; Dubynin (1966), 69 and 72;
71 fig. 4/7, 8; 72 fig. 5/5; Cirkin (1972), 163; 152 fig. 2/25; Kravchenko (1974), 158, 160, 163, 170–
71, 175 and 181; Polesskikh (1979), 31–32, 37–39 and 49; 35 fig. 22/11; 38 fig. 24/2; 44 fig. 28/12;
48 fig. 31/18; Krasnov (1980), 149, 151, 155–56, 162, 166, 171, 173, 176, 178, and 183; 217 fig. 53/2,
5, 6; Semenov (1980), 71, 75–76 and 80; 126 pl. XX/1; Erofeeva/Travkin/Utkin (1988), 115,
117–19, 121–22 and 124–25; 133 fig. 8/6; Shitov (1988), 33–35, 39–41 and 43; 50 pl. IV/14; 52
pl. VI/4; 55 pl. IX/5; 59 pl. XIII/5; 64 pl. XVIII/5; 66 pl. XX/15; 69 pl. XXIII/13; Akhmedov/
Belocerkovskaia (1996), 132 fig. 20/6 and 133 fig. 21/7; Gavritukhin/Ivanov (1999), 99–105
and 150 fig. 7/10–12; Nikitina (1999), 46 and 50; 87 fig. 5B/2; 101 fig. 19A/11; Shitov (2002),
172–74; 173 fig. 2/5; Akhmedov (2016b), 68 and 73 fig. 5/7. There are fewer finds of stirrups:
Cirkin (1972), 163 and 162 fig. 2/21; Semenov (1980), 79–80; 127 pl. XXI/6; Akhmedov (2015),
43 and 47/7.
57 Zeleneev/Shitov (1979), 138.
58 Semenov (1980), 72 and 79.
59 Akhmedov (2016b), 65 and 68; 67 fig. 2/6, 7.
60 For other finds of Byzantine origin from the forest belt, see Akhmedov (2016a); Akhmedov
(2017). For finds of possibly Sassanian origin, see Bálint (1989), 41–42; 42 fig. 17.
61 Ostanina et al. (2011), 174 fig. 7/23; Akhmedov (2014a), 282–84; 293 fig. 2/1, 2. The Central
Asian origin of those appliques is confirmed by the chemical analysis of the alloys; see
Saprykina (2014).
62 This is also the case of the amber and crystal rock beads found in the Elshino hoard; see
Akhmedov (2014a), 282. A few such beads, as well as amber pendants have been found in
were those, whose members were buried in the central and eastern parts of
European Russia?
Some have interpreted graves with weapons as indicating military retinues.63
If so, where are the lords served by warriors buried with swords, spear heads
and battle axes? Soviet archaeologists were quick to note that some burial
assemblages were richer than others, and they took that to be a direct reflec-
tion of economic differences in society. Without any explanation for how that
inequality developed, societies in the forest belt were quickly pigeonholed as
“military democracy.”64 Like Lewis Morgan, who first introduced the concept,
Soviet historians understood the “military democracy” as the transitional stage
between kin-based and state societies. “Military democracy” presupposes the
existence of an elected and removable chief, a council of the elders, and a pop-
ular assembly. Like Friedrich Engels, Soviet historians also saw the “military
democracy” as exclusively concerned with war and the organization for war,
through which participants came to regard the acquisition of wealth as one of
the main purposes in life.65
The martial posturing in 6th- to 7th-century communities in the forest belt
is evident. However, there is no evidence either of chiefs with military retinues
or of councils of elders. In Engels’s terms, “military democracy” was a form
of social organization typically associated with the gradual disappearance
of communal ownership and with the emergence of private ownership and
exploitation based on tribute and clientship. Chiefs set themselves apart from
the agrarian substrate and rule through the retinue of warriors. The warrior
chief or king controls and exploits the farming communities through tribute
and taxation. As a hallmark of a complex pre-state society, scholars emphasize
the importance of inter-regional market-places, where trading activities were
controlled by kings or chiefs.66 There is no indication of trading communi-
ties in the forest belt, let alone tribute collection or clientship. The conspicu-
ous difference between the forest and the forest-steppe belts is the absence
from the former of the hoards so prominent in the archaeological record of
burial assemblages: Gorodcov (1914), 89; Krasnov (1980), 165 and 182–183; Nikitina (1999),
111 (fig. 29B/6). Akhmedov/Belocerkovskaia/Rumianceva (2007), 233 believe that all glass
beads found on burial sites in the central part of the forest belt are of Byzantine origin,
possibly from the Lower Danube region. For more evidence of long-distance contacts, see
Akhmedov (2014b).
63 Vikhliaev (1988), 17.
64 Vikhliaev (1988), 17.
65 Morgan (1877), 188, 249, 252, and 318; Engels (1968), 581. See also Tolstov (1935); Khazanov
(1974); Herrmann (1982), 15; Guhr (1984); Peršic (1988), 150.
66 Engels (1968), 581; Herrmann (1982), 20; Herrmann (1987), 263–64. See also Smith (1976).
the latter. Kuzebaevo and Elshino may seem like exceptions, but the former, at
least, is not a collection of valuables. Instead, it is a unique assemblage, a truly
artisanal hoard.67 The economic profile of communities in the forest belt may
well have been oriented toward agriculture and the consumption of cereal-
based foods. Without excavated, open settlements it is not possible to gauge
the spatial distribution of labor and the possible development of economic
inequality. Nor have strongholds produced so far any evidence of conspicuous
consumption or of special artisanal activities that would have turned them
into seats of local power. The only evidence that exists, that from cemeteries,
is deceiving, for the deposition of artifacts in graves and the selection of those
artifacts are not a direct function either of economic inequality or of power
organization. Vladimir Gening believed that the basic form of social organiza-
tion in the forest belt during the early Middle Ages was the village community,
but his idea was criticized for being incompatible with the slash-and-burn
agriculture.68 On the basis of the archaeological evidence of cemeteries, oth-
ers have advanced the idea of small social units, perhaps no more than a few
families.69 Membership in such groups may have been of paramount concern
and burial ceremonies may have been used for competition between small
groups. It is perhaps not an accident that most artifacts made of precious metal
(silver) that have been found in the forest belt are female dress accessories—
torcs, earrings, bracelets, pectoral discs, pendants, buckles, strap ends, and
belt or dress mounts. Through them, men related to those women may have
vicariously expressed claims to social prominence.70 Belt fittings made of sil-
ver have also been found in the grave of a man buried with a horse, which
was discovered in the early 20th century in Arcybashevo (near Skopin, south
67 The presence of dies in the Elshino hoard also points to the possibility that that was also
an artisanal hoard. However, without a complete and detailed publication of the assem-
blage, it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusion.
68 Gening (1958), 210. As Oborin (1961), 58–59 put it, the earliest evidence of village commu-
nities in the forest belt region along the Middle and Upper Kama river cannot be dated
before ca. 1000.
69 Efimenko (1937), 54; Dubynin (1949), 136; Zeleneev/Shitov (1979), 138.
70 Spicyn (1901), 72–81, 83–85, 89, 93–94 and 96; pl. XIV/7, 9; pl. XVI/4–7, 9, 11, 14, 15;
pl. XVII/2, 11; pl. XVIII/1; pl. XX/14; pl. XXI/13; pl. XXII/1; Gorodcov (1914), 107–09 and
131–33; Kravchenko (1974), 164–65, 171–72, 174–75, 177, 181 and 183; 144 fig. 23/2; 159 fig. 40;
Krasnov (1980), 134–136, 141–42, 145–46, 160, 163–65, 168, 175–76, 177–78, 180–86; 200
fig. 23/1, 5; 200 fig. 24/1; 201 fig. 25/2, 4; 206 fig. 34/1, 5; 208 fig. 38/10, 20; 212 fig. 41/1, 9,
14; Erofeeva/Travkin/Utkin (1988), 113–14 and 119–20; 127 fig. 2/29, 31, 32; 128 fig. 3/14; 131
pl. 6/16; Shitov (1988), 38 and 48 pl. II/16, 17; Menghin (2007), 346. Belt fittings made of
silver have occasionally been found inside strongholds as well: Morozov (2014), 80–82; 82
fig. 1; Akhmedov (2016b), 65 and 69 fig. 3/3, 5.
of Riazan’). However, a second belt set in that same assemblage was made
of gold and exquisitely ornamented with filigree.71 Those are in fact the only
early medieval artifacts made of gold that have been found in the forest belt.
Arcybashevo is located at the border between the forest and the forest steppe
belts, and the grave is dated to the first third or the middle of the 7th century.
As such, it is regarded as a testimony of a nomadic intrusion into the forest
belt in the context of the political turmoil that led to the establishment of the
Khazar qaganate. However, there are no indications of any “foreign” group—
nomadic or otherwise—on the southern border of the forest belt.72 That the
man, whoever he may have been, was buried alone, according to traditions
from the forest-steppe belt, and with artifacts with multiple parallels in that
region, suggests some kind of challenge to local customs of cemetery burial,
which were most likely tied to particular families and clans. Arcybashevo may
therefore represent a singular, desperate attempt to impose a different form of
power upon the local society. If so, it had no repercussions and no followers.
71 Efimenko (1937), 46; Mongait (1951), 124–25; 126 fig. 43; 128 fig. 45; Bálint (1989), 41 with
fig. 16.
72 Bálint (1989), 42; Akhmedov (2010),14–16.
1 Trever/Lukonin (1987), 109, 116, and 126; pls. 20, 21, 89 and 90. Another Sassanian (?) vessel
was found in 1878 in a grave excavated on the outskirts of Ufa; see Akhmerov (1951), 133.
2 Trever/Lukonin (1987), 109, 116, 121–23 and 125; pls. 18, 19, 96 and 97.
3 Khvol’son/Pokrovskii/Smirnov (1899); Leshchenko (1970); Trever/Lukonin (1987), 112, 118,
121–22 and 124; pls. 36–41, 107 and 108; Morozov (2005), 84 and 89; Goldina/Pastushenko/
Chernykh (2011), 120–21; 271 pl. 80; 272 pls. 81–83. Only five years before the Ufa hoard,
another small hoard of Sassanian silverware was discovered at Anikovo (near Cherdyn), the
northernmost such hoard so far known from Eastern Europe; see Trever/Lukonin (1987),
108–109, 113–114 and 126; (pls. 7, 16, 58 and 59).
4 Bader (1951), 191 and fig. 3; Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 121–123 and 124–26; 273
pl. 84; 274 pl. 85; 275 pl. 86; 276 pl. 87; 278 pl. 88; 278 pl. 89; 279 pl. 90; 280 pl. 91; 281 pl. 92; 282
pl. 94; 285 pl. 98/1. See also Belavin (2013), 52–53.
5 Savel’eva (1979), 95 and 95 fig. 3/2.
6 Savel’eva (1979), 95. Sassanian drachms struck for Peroz (five pieces minted between 459 and
484) and Khusro I (minted in 535) have also been found in graves 16 and 25 of the same cem-
etery; see Savel’eva (1979), 95.
figure 29 Principal sites mentioned in the text and in the notes. The insert
(shaded area) shows the extension of the taiga belt in northern Europe
base map from freeworldmaps.net (https://www
.freeworldmaps.net/russia/ural-mountains/map.html),
insert from ecoregion PA0608 (public domain, https://
wikivisually.com/wiki/Scandinavian_and_Russian_taiga)
routes reaching the easternmost parts of the Eastern Europe, as far north as
the taiga came from the Caucasus region.12 However, many hoards of coins
and silverware combine Byzantine and Sassanian items, while the political
situation in the 6th and early 7th century Caucasus region was hardly condu-
cive to a booming trade. Ever since the late 19th century, some Russian schol-
ars have therefore argued that the trade routes that brought silver, silk, and
“exotic” beads to the West Ural region came from Central Asia. This was after
all the so-called “Northern Silk Road” that crossed Soghdia, Khwarazm, and the
desert-steppe region of the Aral and the northern coast of the Caspian Sea to
reach the lands along the Middle Kama via the rivers Ural and Belaia.13 The key
agents of that trade were most likely Soghdian merchants, who are believed
to have developed the new route in order to avoid paying high tariffs charged
by the Sassanians.14 Some of the pieces of Sassanian and Byzantine silverware
from the Kama region have in fact secondary inscriptions either in Hephthalite
or in Bukhara script.15
Why were locals in the taiga so interested in the silver (either as coins or
as silverware)? Thomas Noonan believed that they “desired silver for reli-
gious and ritualistic purposes.”16 Russian scholars nowadays write of a “sacral
economy” that transformed not only furs into silver, but also the latter into a
most important medium for the expression of fundamental claims to social
status and power.17 There is no dispute about the interest that the (presum-
ably) Soghdian merchants had in the furs of the taiga. Yet, there has been no
scholarly exploration of the ways in which the fur trade modified and shaped
the local economic and social structures. Hunting fur-bearing animals in Late
Antiquity and the early Middle Ages still awaits its historian. The material cul-
ture correlates of such economic activities have been found during the excava-
tions carried out in the 1960s in the Vis bog (near Sindor, in the Komi Republic;
18 Burov (1983), 61 and 56 fig. 1/6, 7. Moreover, in the case of the beaver, the highly valued
castor oil was not spilled when the animal was hit with a blunt-tip arrow [Kovalev (2000),
36]. The Vis bog also produced evidence of weirs, in addition to wooden floats, fishing
hooks, and oars; see Burov (1984), 148–65; 156 fig. 5/4; 159 fig. 7/1, 2, 5, 6; 163 fig. 8/1–6.
19 Burov (1992) and Burov (1995). The bones of the sled dogs have been found on several
settlement sites; see Korolev/Murygin/Savel’eva (1997), 439.
20 Savel’eva (1981), 17; Korolev/Murygin/Savel’eva (1997), 438 Table 3; Korolev (1997), 47.
Hunting fur-bearing animals is also associated with the great number of stone scrapers
found on sites in the northern taiga. Such tools were used to clean the skins. See Murygin
(1980), 81 and 85 fig. 8/9, 15–17; Korolev (1986), 97 and 96 fig. 2/5–9; Chesnokova (1987), 93;
Ashikhmina et al. (1988), 6; Korolev (1997), 131 and 133.
21 Goldina (1985), 150 with table 25.
22 Goldina (1985), 148 with table 23; 149 with table 2; Goldina/Kananin (1989), 98 with table
29. By contrast, cattle, horse, and sheep bones at Vis 2 do not represent more than 3 per-
cent of the faunal assemblage; see Savel’eva (1981), 17; Korolev/Murygin/Savel’eva (1997),
439. Among wild animals, the bones of which were found at Oputiata, the largest propor-
tion is of elk, not beaver. A small number of pig bones even suggest that the local com-
munity was sedentary.
23 Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening (1969), 20–21, 29, 31 and 64; Volkov/Pastushenko (2005–2006), 7
and 9; Goldina (2012), 18–19 and 22. More often than not, the only parts of a horse’s body
that were found in graves are teeth or jaws. For cattle bones, see Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening
(1969), 21. See also Goldina (2008), 127.
figure 30 Vis (Komi Republic), plan of the bog excavation of fish weirs with a wood stake
and a basket withy, blunt wooden arrow heads and a reconstruction of the sled
found in the excavation of the settlement
redrawn after burov (1983), burov (1984), and burov (1995)
24 Prokopov (1983), 101; Pastushenko (2002), 270–71. According to Savel’eva (1978), 20, some
of the implements found in the Vis 2 settlement are wooden hoes supposedly used in
slash-and-burn agriculture.
25 Pastushenko (2002), 270 with table I. According to Tuganaev/Efimova (1985), 28, the mul-
titude of crops indicates three-field rotation. The cereal seeds from pit 28 in Bartym were
found in the filling, not on the bottom of the pit; see Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh
(2011), 23.
26 Tuganaev/Tuganaev (2007), 42–43. The samples include such weeds as lamb’s quar-
ters, Edmonton hempnettle, cleavers, henbit dead-nettle, common sorrel, and vetch. Of
those, at least Edmonton hempnettle and vetch are native to northern Europe. Except
Edmonton hempnettle, all are edible and may have been intentionally mixed with the
grain seeds.
27 For the sickle found in Bartym, see Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 202 pl. 11/2;
Pastushenko (2002), 269. For the fragment of a quern among the stones surrounding the
hearth in house 1, see Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 10. For mortars and pestles
from Oputiata, see Gening (1980), 116–17; 206 fig. 12/1–6. Goldina (1985), 159–60 mentions
a hoard of 185 hoes, nine spear heads and six bronze torcs in a stronghold excavated in
Buiskii-Perevoz (near Medvedok, on the Lower Viatka), but the site is located much far-
ther to the southwest, on the border between the forest belt and the taiga. Moreover, a
5th- to 6th-century date for the assemblage is not secured.
28 Gening (1980), 133–34.
of the tools and weapons found in Bartym and Verkh Saia shows that they were
all made by quenching.40 Cementation, multi-layering (especially sandwich-
ing a steel cutting edge between two flanks of ferritic, phosphoric, low carbon
steel or piled iron), and welding were all used for the production of those tools
and weapons.41 Occasional finds of crucibles indicate that non-ferrous metal-
lurgy was also practiced, most likely at a household level.42 However, no 6th- or
7th-century moulds or ladles are so far known from sites in the southern parts
of the taiga.43 Particularly troubling is the absence of any traces left by the
production of the so-called Permian bronze casts, plaque-like artifacts with
images of humans, animals, and fantastic creatures that have interpreted as
objects of cult, as many are known from hoards and sanctuaries in the Pechora
region.44 With no metallographic analyses of specimens dated to the 6th or
Pastushenko (2005–2006), 7 and 10–11; 22 pl. 4/7; 36 fig. 18/1; Goldina (2012), 13–17, 21,
23–25 and 29; 147 pl. 2/7;149 pl. 4/1, 2; 157 pl. 12/2; 163 pl. 18/4; 165 pl. 20/9; 175 pl. 29/8; 189
pl. 44/6; 224 pl. 79/4;246 pl. 101/4, 5; 254 pl. 109/13; 257 pl. 112/4; 298 pl. 153/8. The south-
eastern part of the taiga is the region in Europe with the largest number of 7th-century
stirrups, after the Carpathian Basin.
40 Perevoshchikov (2001), 249. It remains unclear whether any of the swords found in the
taiga was made locally, as none was the subject of metallographic analysis. See Gening
(1964), 143 and 159 pl. VIII/7; Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening (1969), 64; pl. II/2; pl. VII/6; pl. LIX;
Poliakov (1984), 172; Ashikhmina (1987), 163; Goldina/Vodolago (1990), 57; 242 pl. 97/1, 149
pl. LII/1–3, 8; Volkov/Pastushenko (2005–2006), 7 and 22 fig. 4/4.9; Goldina (2012), 226
pl. 81/5; 241 pl. 96/9; 245 pl. 100/12. Ovsiannikov (1998), 295–96 notes that most arrow
heads, battle axes, and spear heads found on cemetery sites in the Upper Kama region
are entirely new types of weapons with no traditions in the region. The mail coat found
at Vesliana was most likely made in Sassanian Persia, much like the silver rhyton together
with which it was associated in the same burial assemblage; see Savel’eva (1979), 95.
41 Perevoshchikov (2001), 51–54 and 61–62; Goldina (2008), 134.
42 For crucibles, see Murygin/Pliusnin (1993), 99 and 104; 105 fig. 2/23, 24; Goldina/
Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 84 and 87; 215 pl. 24/2, 7, 9; 228 pl. 37/1; 230 pl. 39/1.
43 By contrast, ladles and moulds have been found in the northern parts of the taiga. See
Murygin (1980), 81 and 85 fig. 8/6, 7; Makarov (1986), 29 and 25 fig. 2/3; Korolev/Savel’eva
(1988), 19; Korolev/Murygin/ Savel’eva (1997), 426–27. The bronze spoons deposited in
some graves were not meant for casting. See Gening (1964), 140 and 154 pl. III/31; Goldina/
Koroleva/Makarov (1980), 13; 163 pl. 22/13; 179 pl. 38/16; Goldina/Vodolago (1990), 137
pl. XL/21, 22. Four specimens with elaborate decoration on the handle have been found
in a hoard discovered in 1930 at Podcher’ie (near Vuktyl, Komi Republic) on the Upper
Pechora River; see Gorodcov (1937), 133 fig. 25/30, 31; 135 fig. 26/32–34. For the ritual signifi-
cance of such spoons deposited at a later time in burial assemblages of the central part of
the forest belt, see Grishakov/Sedyshev/Liubimkina (2016).
44 Oborin (1976); Oborin/Chagin (1988); Ignatov (1994); Lipin (1994); Krosigk (1999). A dis-
tinct variant has been identified for the Upper Pechora region; see Burov (1992). For a
plaque with images believed to represent a sable and a marten, see Korolev/Murygin/
Savel’eva (1997), 439 and 469 fig. 26/19. For a history of research on the Permian bronze
casts, see Ignat’eva (2007).
7th centuries, it is impossible to verify Rimma Goldina’s claim that the raw
material for the copper alloys came from cupriferous sandstones in the Upper
Kama region.45 All known specimens have been cast in one-piece moulds, but
no such moulds have been found. This suggests that some specimens may have
served as models for casting in clay moulds. Equally enigmatic remains the
production of mortuary masks, such as found in Demenki (near Il’inskii, on the
Upper Kama) and Vesliana.46 The masks were made of thin gold or silver sheet,
with holes for the eyes. No study has so far clarified the origin of the gold and
of the silver, the place and manner in which the metal was laminated, and the
technique employed to cut out eyeholes.
Judging from the existing evidence, most crafts seem to have been orga-
nized, unlike smelting, at a household level. That much results, for example,
from finds of half-manufactured bone artifacts in some of the settlement
features excavated in Bartym.47 Awls made of bone were occasionally depos-
ited in graves.48 However, the most conspicuous products of bone and antler
processing were arrowheads, each of a shape designed for a particular task in
hunting.49 Even though elks were hunted in the taiga, there is no indication of
antler being processed at all. Conversely, although the evidence of sheep bones
is meager, fragments of woolen fabric have been found in burial assemblages.50
Despite the prominent role of smelting, at least on some of the sites exca-
vated in the taiga, there is no evidence that craftsmen (in general, not just
smelters) had any special status. If they did, that status was definitely not
45 Goldina (1985), 160. For the lack of any chemical analyses, see Oborin/Chagin (1988), 15.
For the use of multi-component alloys for casts that could be dated earlier (5th to 6th cen-
tury), see Korolev/Murygin/ Savel’eva (1997), 420–21.
46 Gening (1964), 131 and 158 pl. VII/13; Ashikhmina et al. (1988), 8; Savel’eva (1979), 93 and 92
fig. 1/26, 27.
47 Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 80, 83 and 87; 160 fig. 12/3; 206 pl. 15/3; 207 pl. 16/2;
208 pl. 17/5. Two of the features excavated in Bartym have been interpreted as “ritual” pits.
48 Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening (1969), 24 and 28; pls. XXIII; LXXII/8.
49 Gening (1964), 128 and 143; 160 pl. IX/12, 14; Goldina/Koroleva/Makarov (1980), 13, 15, 22,
24, and 29; 154 pl. 9/2; 167 pl. 23/2, 3; 238 pl. 93/14; 251 pl. 106/5; 254 pl. 109/11; 298 pl. 153/3;
Goldina/Vodolago (1990), 33; 143 pl. XLVI/3, 5, 7, 25; Bagin/Chesnokova (1997); Volkov/
Pastushenko (2005–2006), 8 and 9; 25 pl. 7/6.6, 12, 13; 29 pl. 11/3; Bernc/Pastushenko
(2007); Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 83 and 195 pl. 4/4. Chesnokova (1987), 93
notes that arrowheads made of bone are particularly frequent in those regions of the taiga
that are closer to the Ural Mountains. Unfortunately, there is no study dedicated specifi-
cally to bone processing in the taiga during the early Middle Ages. As a consequence, it
remains unclear what animal species were preferred for what artifacts, and why.
50 Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening (1969), 66 and pl. II/1; Korolev/Murygin/Savel’eva (1997), 441;
Goldina (2012), 14 and 96 pl. 5/1. No loom weights have been found on any site in the
taiga. See also Goldina (2008), 127–28.
However, those were not the only hoards in that taiga. No less than 12 other
hoards are known so far, which makes the taiga region directly comparable
with the forest-steppe zone (see chapter 12).57 Unlike hoards for other regions
of Eastern Europe, those from the taiga have been traditionally studied either
from an art history or from a numismatic point of view.58 Others have dealt
with hoards in the taiga as the primary evidence in discussions regarding early
medieval trade.59 Because silver (in the form of coins or ingots) has been found
on sites regarded as sanctuaries, the hoards have been interpreted as commu-
nal property. However, silver vessels found in the taiga bear no traces of cult
usage—no secondary engravings, and no holes for suspension.60 Instead, the
evidence points to the individual ownership of those vessels.61 The hoards, in
other words, were simply another mode of displaying elevated social status,
which is directly comparable to burial assemblages, much like in the forest-
steppe zone. Hoards are also collections of valuables, and in the taiga they cer-
tainly indicate accumulation of wealth and social differentiation. Those were
neither the result of a gradual social evolution based on economic develop-
ment (primarily of agriculture), nor a symptom of the disintegration of the
“primitive” economy, as Soviet archaeologists had it. To judge from the exist-
ing evidence, the extraordinary prosperity of some communities in the taiga
was caused primarily by the intensification of the fur trade with Central Asia
and, perhaps, Byzantium.62 A local elite emerged which was capable to control
the collection and, probably, the commercialization of pelts, and, at the same
time, to organize ironworking in specific centers, on a scale without precedent
in the taiga region. Many more studies of the subsistence economy in that
region are needed, but from what has already been done it is already clear that
communities of hunters (and, perhaps, gatherers) could very well accumulate
a substantial amount of wealth within a relatively short period of time. Far
from being the scene of the last stage of the “primitive” commune, the far east
of Eastern Europe became in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages one of
its most prosperous regions.
57 Gorodcov (1937), 113–20, 122–25, 128, and 129–38; Trever/Lukonin (1987), 108–09, 112–14,
118, 121–22, and 124; Morozov (2005), 83–84 and 88–89; Goldina (2010), 170–71.
58 Maculevich (1940); Noonan (1982); Morozov (1996); Mingalev (2004).
59 Bader (1951); Goldina/Chernykh (2005), 56; Marshak (2006), 72–74.
60 By contrast, some coins found in graves were clearly pierced in order to be turned into
pendants. See Gening (1964), 128; Goldina (2012), 20–21.
61 Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2013), 924.
62 One of the most intriguing pieces of evidence that suggest commercial relations
with Byzantium is a bronze weight of 4 ounces (78.7 g) found at Verkh Saia; Goldina/
Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 288 pl. 101.
Property
A particularly resistant stereotype about the early Middle Ages is that “bar-
barian” societies were simple, with individual property being purely personal,
while land, the basic source of subsistence, was collectively held. In the late
1950s, the Romanian sociologist Henri H. Stahl envisioned the “archaic village”
in existence throughout the entire period between the 3rd and the 16th centu-
ries, as an egalitarian and democratic community, in which the arable and the
meadowlands was in common, and which practiced a form of shifting farming
based on forest clearing.1 Fifty years later, Chris Wickham still believed that
the absence of exclusive ownership rights (in other words, the predominance
of the communal property) was a good sign of the presence of a “ranked,
peasant-mode society.”2 Moreover, another stubborn misconception is that in
East Central Europe, the development of property relations lagged behind that
of Western Europe.3
No surprise, therefore, that property gets less attention nowadays than it
did half-a-century ago.4 As broadly understood, property determines exclu-
sive rights to things: property is something possessed, but also the exclusive
1 Stahl (1958–1965), vol. 1, p. 13; Stahl (1980), 37 and 63–79. Stahl’s notion of “archaic village”
is very similar to the peasant “closed corporate community,” a seminal concept proposed
about the same time by Wolf (1957). Like Stahl, Wolf believed that in the “closed corporate
community” of peasants land was in “outright communal tenure.” Both Stahl and Wolf
believed “closed corporate communities” forbade alienation of village land to outsiders. As
Guga (2015), 250 points out, the inspiration for Stahl’s idea of “archaic village” came from
Karl Marx’s 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich, in which Marx compared the agrarian commune of
Tacitus’ Germania to that of 19th-century Russia (mir). For Marx’s letter to Vera Zasulich, see
also Hinada (1975), 70 and Sawer 1977, 65–66.
2 Wickham (2006), 305. In northern Europe, the land tenure in the local “tribal type of soci-
ety” was presumably not organized along Roman lines of exclusive ownership; see Wickham
(2006), 541. Wickham does not neglect the fact that most economically valuable lands in his
“peasant-mode societies” remained in local private ownership. The underlying assumption
is that in northern Europe the transition was from a mode of production based on commu-
nal land ownership, the division of labor based on kinship, and the absence of market to a
“peasant mode of production” in which there is some individual ownership of land, a social
division of labor, and a political hierarchy separate from kinship.
3 Bakó (1972); Donat (1980); Donat (1982).
4 Herskovits (1940), 271–352; Hoebel (1954), 51–63. For a recent revival of interest in historical
studies of medieval property rights, see Khachaturian (2017).
right to hold, use, and or dispose of that something.5 If one takes property to
be the distribution of social entitlements, then one can investigate property
anywhere in time and space, even though the notion (and the word used to
describe it) are byproducts of a Western liberal paradigm.6 There is therefore
no anachronism in studying property relations in pre-capitalist societies.
Whether property involves legally established rights is still a matter of dispute,
particularly among historians of the early Middle Ages. Is exclusive ownership
the equivalent of private property? Can usufruct be used as a proxy for prop-
erty rights?7 Are communal and private property (rights) mutually exclusive?
Those are questions as important as the type of land tenure, the methods by
which wealth is channeled upwards, or the means by which kings exercise con-
trol over outlying areas.8 However, of much greater significance for the study
of early medieval property, especially from an archaeological point of view, is
the idea that at the core of property relations is the right to exclude.9 Moreover,
property being integral to all concepts of social institutions, its study is located
at the intersection of economics, politics, and law, and thus essentially about
“how people are related to resources and to each other.”10
The assumption of an extensive communal property in the early Middle
Ages is not (and cannot be) verified by archaeological sources. To Boris
Timoshchuk, eight pits found in the middle of what he believed to be the com-
munal area in the center of the settlement site at Kodyn 2 (near Chernivtsi,
Ukraine) were proof of the communal character of both property and pro-
duction inside the small community living there during the 6th and the
7th centuries.11 Leaving aside the lack of any finds indicating that any of those
pits served as silos, supposedly for the storage of food for the entire commu-
nity, several, similar pits have been found next to individual houses on the site.
The distribution of those pits strongly suggests that each one of them was in
use for the family or group of people living in each house. It would be tempting
to interpret that as an indication of private, or at least family property, but the
evidence points to those being refuse pits, not silos.12 Moreover, the absence
of material correlates of private property is no proof of communal property.
The two forms of property most likely coexisted in various types of combina-
tions. Rights to such resources as tracts of land of low fertility, grazing fields, or
forests located at a significant distance from the settlement were not necessar-
ily individualized. By contrast, any lands requiring a substantial investment of
time and labor—be it for intensified cultivation, or for restoring fertility—may
have been associated with rights of continuous cultivation, bequeathing, and
even sale. In fact, some have insisted that the 6th- to 7th-century village com-
munity on the territory of present-day Romania was based on each constitu-
tive family cultivating its own plot of land, which it retained in full property
(see chapter 8). Others have argued that the stable association of particular
plots with individual families and the development of private property were
typically associated with, if not caused by the intensification of farming.13 Jack
Goody has distinguished between technologies based on hoe (or digging stick),
which are conducive to egalitarian social relations, and technologies based on
plow which provide the basis for more hierarchical relations.14 Whether or
not such finds as the plowshare from Gropșani could serve as evidence for the
intensification of farming, there is very little evidence of hierarchical relations
between settlement sites excavated in Romania (see chapter 8). The author of
the military treatise known as the Strategikon knew that the Sclavenes in the
lands north of the Lower Danube “possess an abundance of all sorts of live-
stock and produce, which they store in heaps.” Moreover, the Sclavenes “bury
their valuable possessions in secret places, keeping nothing unnecessary in
sight.”15 However, there is no information in the Strategikon about who exactly
among the Sclavenes could have owned all of those possessions, especially
the livestock. Nor can the mention of “secret places” be interpreted as storage
facilities, supposedly under the local chief’s control, as some have argued.16 It
is quite possible that the passage in question refers to village reserves of food,
but keeping all valuable possessions in “secret places” may have been simply
the Balkans (some of them including personal dress accessories) are most
likely an indication of private ownership, even if restricted to the military (see
chapter 3).
The only argument that could be made in favor of exclusive ownership
to land is based on the archaeological evidence from Hungary: ditches and
fences surrounding farmsteads (such as those discovered in Kölked), as well
as the distribution of wells next to groups of sunken-featured buildings (see
chapters 6 and 7).21 There seems to be a strong correlation between the size
(and composition) of households and the size of the smallholding.22 Judging
from the archaeological evidence, particularly the size of the houses exca-
vated on settlement sites in East Central and Eastern Europe, the fields owned
and cultivated by each family must have been small. Much like the evidence
from the Miracles of St. Demetrius, the archaeological evidence from Hungary
strongly suggests therefore that the key productive unit was the household,
and that property rights were transmitted within the household.23 This does
not exclude the concomitant presence of common property, owned and regu-
lated by the corporate group of the residential community of households, all
deriving joint benefit from that resource. Indeed, the members of that commu-
nity most likely matched different types of tenure to various resources. While
retaining small fields under exclusive use rights, if not ownership, they con-
comitantly kept other resources under corporate control. It is therefore wrong
to assume that extensive land use (and shifting farming) always implies the
absence of private property of land.24
Some have claimed that in chiefdoms, privately owned, moveable objects of
symbolic significance, such as female dress accessories, are typically manufac-
tured by “attached” specialists (see chapter 18).25 If so, then the work of gold-
smiths is clearly attested by finds of pressing dies and occasional moulds in the
Early Avar period, even though the direct evidence for production in the pre-
Avar period (first two thirds of the 6th century) is relatively thin (see chapter 7).
see Lipp (1886), pl. II/5; Belošević (1965), 133 and pl. III/2, 3; Stare (1980), 112 and pl. 60/12;
Bolta (1981), 34 and pl. 10/11; Vinski (1989), 22, 30, 57 pl. VIII/3, 69 pl. XX/8, 70 pl. XXI/3;
Bârzu (2010), 359 pl. 81/9; Zhdrakov (2006); Komar/Khardaev (2012), 260 fig. 9/8.
21 It remains unclear whether the families who lived in fenced enclosures in Kölked were of
peasants who owned more land than others in the village, as Wickham (2006), 429 has
postulated for the (imaginary) village of Malling in Anglo-Saxon England.
22 Netting (1993), 101.
23 Netting (1993), 58–101.
24 Netting (1993), 172–73. In that respect, common property is not some kind of “quaint hold-
over of socialistic traditional communities,” but a “careful adjustment of social rule and
practices to ecological facts” [Netting (1993), 182].
25 Earle (1997), 155.
26 Wimmer (1894); Bóna (1956), 196; pl. XLVII/1–2; pl. XLVIII/1–2; Cseh (1999a), 67–68; 68
fig. 8. See also Tóth (2012), 99–106. For a gold pin with the name of the owner (Bonosa),
see Vida/Pásztor/Fóthi (2011), 440 and 420 pl. 2/6. For disc-brooches with inscriptions in
Greek referring to the owner, see Papp (1963), 115–16; pl. I/4; pl. XX; Preložnik (2008). Earle
(2000), 53 notes that the marking of objects can be associated with ownership and associ-
ated rights and responsibilities.
27 Kulakov (1990), 69 and 111 pl. XVIII/7; Hilberg (2009), 354–55; 579 pl. 3/15.
28 Earle (2000), 49. The argument is of course valid for other “barbarian” raiders, such as
the Sclavenes who crossed to Lower Danube during the second half of the 6th and the
early 7th century in order to plunder the Balkan provinces of the Empire. John of Ephesus
describes the Sclavenes of the early 580s as becoming rich and acquiring from the Romans
(through raiding) “gold and silver, herds of horses and a lot of weapons,” in sharp contrast
to the “simple people” they used to be, who never dared to “leave the woods” (John of
Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History VI 25, 249).
29 For a rare find of a fibula with property inscription in Greek letters, see Shramko,
‘Rann’oseredn’ovichne poselennia’, pp. 76 and fig. 3/9; 77 fig. 4/1, 2.
30 The reading and interpretation of those monograms have been debated for some time.
Irrespective of the meaning, the very existence of no less than three finger-rings with
(similar) monograms is a clear indication of exclusive ownership rights. See Zhdrakov
(2006); Rashev (2008); Iordanov (2016).
31 Stone/Downum (1999).
objects.32 The evidence from East Central Europe between the 5th and the
7th centuries is not entirely consistent with such conclusions. On one hand, if
slash-and-burn agriculture was practiced in Belarus and northwestern Russia
during that time, then the material correlates of corporate groups are group
cemeteries with so-called “long barrows” (see chapter 13). As many of those
barrows contain multiple burials, each barrow probably represented the burial
ground of a family or kin group. The form of property most likely associated
with such groups was corporate, but the barrows provided a visible and per-
manent territorial statement by groups whose ancestors were interred in the
landscape.33 On the other hand, slash-and-burn agriculture was also prac-
ticed, most likely, in northern Estonia, where remains of fossil fields have
been found (see chapter 11). Clearance cairns are undoubtedly markers of field
cultivation, but they also served as field borders marking territory and prop-
erty. Furthermore, there are clear archaeological indications of private prop-
erty of moveable objects, with high symbolic value in the form of hoards of
(Sassanian) silver from the taiga (see chapter 15). That, however, is a region of
hunters (“foragers”), not of agriculturists. Was there any connection between
the home range and the local camp?34 It remains unclear whether the sites
excavated in the taiga were permanent settlements or camps. No study exists
of the catchment areas of those settlements. On the basis of ethnographic
evidence, Roman Kovalev has advanced the idea of hunting patches, which
could be located at a considerable distance (up to 300 km) from settlements,
being hereditary and used only by males in the owner’s family.35 There is yet no
archaeological way to confirm that idea.
According to Timothy Earle, differential access to, as well as ownership of
productive resources and moveable wealth is a defining feature of chiefdoms.
Such societies are geared up for warfare, as indicated, among other things by
fortified settlements. Can one therefore call “chiefdoms” those societies in the
forest-steppe, forest, and taiga regions of Eastern Europe, in which strongholds
have been built in the 6th or 7th century? Neither strongholds in the forest
belt, nor those in the taiga could be regarded either as military sites or as “seats
of power” for the local elites (see chapters 12–15). On the other hand, if war was
32 Early (2000), 45. In such marginal environments of foraging as forests and mountains,
“common-pool resources” are preferred to any exclusionary property rights; see Bayman/
Sullivan III (2008).
33 Earle (2000), 43 and 52. The classic archaeological example of cemeteries used as markers
of group identity and territory is that of O’Shea (1996), 362–67.
34 Early (2000), 45.
35 Kovalev (2000), 48–56. Property of hunting patches was marked by special signs cut on
trees.
Subsistence Economy
1 Kuokkanen (2011), 219. Wickham (2006), 698 sets the subsistence of peasants in sharp con-
trast to agrarian specialization. Peasants “cannot afford to make mistakes” and their subsis-
tence economy must therefore have been mixed, “with a single peasant family producing as
many of its food needs as possible.” For a similar argument, see McCormick (2001), 35; Halsall
(2007), 144.
2 To Wickham (2006), 261 and 386, “subsistence” is what peasants in the Middle Ages did—
“cultivating largely for subsistence.” That cannot be true, though, as even hunter-herders
in northern Scandinavia practiced cereal cultivation after ca. 800; see Bergman/Hörnberg
(2015). Moreover, there are ethnographic cases of societies moving from an agricultural to a
predominantly hunting and gathering base and then, following large-scale faunal depletions,
back towards agriculture; see Walter/Smith/Jacomb (2006).
3 Earle (1980), 1. Wolf (1966), 19 writes of “paleotechnic ecotypes”—systems of “energy trans-
fers from the environment to man.”
4 Reindeer herding in the northeastern and northern parts of European Russia is a relatively
recent phenomenon. There is no archaeological evidence of reindeer herding for the early
Middle Ages.
5 For the phrase “ancillary cultivation,” see Freeman (2012), 3013. Most ancillary cultivators
acquire surplus crops through exchange or raid for consumption, which nicely dovetails
with the archaeological evidence of trade and military posturing from cemeteries of the
Riazan’-Oka group.
phase at Dichin. Sarantis (2016), 210 still hopes that with more archaeological research,
“our view of the situation is likely to change further.”
11 Ebersbach (2010), 165.
12 Strategikon XI 4, 372; transl., 120.
13 Wolf (1966), 20 called it “sectorial fallowing system.”
14 Netting (1993), 101; Earle (2000), 46.
15 Ebersbach (2010), 162.
The contrast with the regions on the opposite side of the Avar qaganate,
to the northwest, is evident. On sites in central Bohemia, there is clear evi-
dence of intensified agriculture, but no evidence of specialization. There is
also a much greater emphasis on pigs for meat procurement, with both cattle
and sheep playing a secondary role. Even starker is the contrast between fau-
nal assemblages in the Roman Balkans, which are dominated by sheep and
goats, and those in the barbarian lands north of the Lower Danube or in the
Carpathian Basin, which are dominated by cattle. However, much like sheep
and goats in the Balkans, cattle in the regions adjacent to the northern frontier
of the Empire were raised primarily for dairy, not for meat.16 Meat was pro-
cured from pigs and fowl, of which there is clear evidence on both settlement
and cemetery sites in the Carpathian Basin. There were of course many other
reasons for keeping large animals, as cattle served as a “mutual saving bank,”
for risk minimization, part of feasts, marriages (as bride price), or alliances (as
gifts and countergifts). Procopius mentions that the Sclavenes in the region
next to the Lower Danube sacrifice cattle to their god, the maker of lightning.17
How large were herds of cattle in the barbarian lands adjacent to the Empire?
No studies have so far attempted to gauge the size of the livestock in local com-
munities. However, ethnographic parallels suggest that the minimum size for
stable demographic conditions is between 30 and 50 animals, and the aver-
age grazing area of a cow is a circle with a radius of 8 to 12 km a day.18 It is
important to note that while land rights are often habitual rights, in that the
(family) unit that clears the land also “owns” it as long as it is in use, animals
are never shared with neighbors or members of other communities.19 Pooling,
however, could be of animals in a herd, of use rights in animals, and of grazing
grounds.20 In other words, the presence of cattle in relatively large number in
16 Another similarity in the subsistence economic profiles of the regions north and south
of the Lower Danube is the presence in faunal assemblages of wild animals (such as deer
or boar), which were hunted for meat. There is absolutely no evidence of fur-bearing ani-
mals in bone assemblages of Southeastern Europe.
17 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VII 14.23, 270; transl., 408. This does not of course imply
taking Procopius’ testimony about Slavic religion at face value. For the “maker of light-
ning” as a “typically Christian ‘monotheistic’ interpretation of primitive religions,” if not
Procopius’ fabrication, see Kalik/Uchitel (2018), 31. See also Loma (2004).
18 Ebersbach (2010), 163. In cattle herds, between three and five percent of cows are infer-
tile, and the average yearly loss of animals because of natural reasons can be as high as
15 percent.
19 Ebersbach (2010), 176–77.
20 Ebersbach (2010), 178, who notes that reciprocity and pooling are important patterns in
farming societies.
the lands adjacent to the northern frontier of the Empire is a strong argument
against the idea of communal property (see Chapter 16).
There was no shortage of pastoral or arable land in Eastern Europe during
the 6th and the 7th centuries, and as a consequence, subsistence farming in this
part of the continent was clearly of the so-called “open” system, in which the
only limiting factors are labor and its distribution over the year.21 Cultivation
of crops was just as successful in the forest-steppe region of Eastern Europe
as it was in the lands next to the northern frontier of the Empire. However, no
plowshares and no hoes are known from the forest-steppe region. Ukrainian
archaeologists therefore believe that the subsistence form favored there was
the long-term fallowing system.22 Known also as “swidden cultivation,” this
system was associated with clearing by fire and cultivation with the hoe.23
However, there is no evidence of slash-and-burn agriculture in the forest-
steppe zone, and the paleobotanical evidence from the western parts of the
forest zone (now within Ukraine, Belarus, and northwestern Russia) is equally
problematic.24 A strong argument against the existence of swidden cultiva-
tion, which is typically associated with scattered population of low density,
is the prominent presence of cattle bones in faunal assemblages of both the
western and the eastern parts of the forest-steppe region. Unlike the lands next
to the northern frontier of the Empire in present-day Romania and Hungary,
the cattle in the Middle Volga region seem to have been raised for meat, not
dairy. However, meat was also procured from horses and (domestic) fowl, the
evidence of which in that region is just as significant as in the Carpathian
Basin. Much like in the lands by the Lower Danube, hunting was a secondary
source of food.
There has been much emphasis placed on technology, as a distinction is
often drawn between systems based on hoe (or digging stick) and those based
on plow drawn by draught animals. Some have even proposed that technolo-
gies based on hoe were conducive to egalitarian social relations, while those
21 As opposed to both “closed” (with shortage of pastoral land, and low animal densities)
and “maximal” (with shortage of arable land, and short vegetation period) systems; see
Ebersbach (2010), 161–62. Wolf (1966), 30–31 notes that “Eurasian grainfarming” (short-
term fallowing systems) is typically associated with livestock raising, for it is suitable for
areas with abundance of arable land, but with shortage of labor (because of low popula-
tion numbers or low absolute population) and a short growing season.
22 Timoshchuk (1995), 133. For the forest zone in modern Belarus, see Shmidt (1972), 66–68.
23 Wolf (1966), 20. As an adjective, “swidden” refers to slash-and-burn agriculture and is a
dialect word from Yorkshire readopted as a technical term (sometimes used as a verb
as well).
24 For a critique of the attempt to read slash-and-burn agriculture in pollen spectra, see
Rowley-Conwy (1981), 85–88.
based on the plow provided the basis for more hierarchical social relations.25
However, the archaeological evidence contradicts such a simplistic interpreta-
tion derived from technological determinism. In both the Baltic region and
the central parts of Russia, the only areas of Eastern Europe in which hoes
were deposited in 6th- to 7th-century graves, social differentiation is amply
documented in burial customs and grave goods. Both areas have also produced
incontrovertible evidence of slash-and-burn agriculture. There are more pol-
len samples analyzed in Estonia than in central Russia, but they do indicate
a relatively rapid expansion of swidden cultivation, which coincides with the
introduction of rye as a main crop in the region. How could this transforma-
tion be explained? Why was slash-and-burn agriculture suddenly becoming
so prominent in the local subsistence economy? What prompted the change?
Scholars commonly apply the term “agricultural intensification” to qualitative
changes associated with permanent cultivation and meant to increase agricul-
tural production per unit of inputs (labor, land, time, fertilizer, seed, or feed).
Intensive techniques, such as the irrigation, can lead to dramatic production
gains, even though they require more labor. In that respect, swidden systems
are regarded as the exact opposite of intensified agriculture.26 On the other
hand, many believe that the primary cause of agrarian development is popula-
tion pressure. In Estonia, however, there is no sign of a sudden explosion of
population.27 In the absence of a demographic explanation, social-economic
pressure is the likely alternative. Despite claims to the contrary, the slash-and-
burn agriculture practiced in Estonia coincides in time with remarkable signs
of the rise of new social elites. Within one and the same sub-region of northern
Estonia, accelerated swidden cultivation, lavish burials (some with weapons),
and hoards of silver ornaments bespeak a social and economic nexus that has
not yet been sufficiently explored. It is quite possible that the introduction of
rye cultivation was a strategy to maintain control over a relatively small popu-
lation within an increasingly ranked society. Although no detailed data are so
far available for central Russia, the presence in that region of both hillforts and
cemeteries with lavishly furnished burials (some with weapons) invites com-
parison with the Baltic region. Slash-and-burn agriculture in central Russia is
indirectly documented by finds of axes, but there are no palynological studies
of the impact of human activity on the environment to confirm hypotheses
drawn from the archaeological data. Nonetheless, it is tempting to associate
the rise of local elites in the central region of Russia with accelerated swidden
systems. In early medieval Eastern Europe, the hoe was definitely not condu-
cive to egalitarian social relations.
4 That is precisely why the idea of workshops inside the postern of the Upper City or the south-
eastern tower of the Lower City in Caričin Grad cannot be accepted; see Ivanišević (2018),
712; Ivanišević/Stamenković (2010), 41–42.
5 Costin (1991), 15.
6 Evans (1978), 115.
7 That metal bindings of drinking horns found in Plinkaigalis and Pašušvys may have been
produced by the same specialist does not mean that that specialist produced for a market, as
drinking horns may have moved from one location to the other by means of exchanges (such
as gift giving between elites) that have nothing to do with production. The same explanation
applies to the extraordinary match between some of the dies found in Felnac and the strap
ends discovered in Sânpetru German.
8 Costin (1991), 4.
9 Werner (1961), 313; Werner (1970), 70. The inspiration for Werner’s idea must have been
Vere Gordon Childe’s idea of the Bronze-Age, inventive craftsmen, free of the control
of kings, priests, and bureaucracy, working on demand and enjoying high status; see
Childe (1930), 4–11 and 44; Childe (1939), 113–17; Childe (1958), 169–70. Childe’s idea is
now regarded as wrong, for “contrary to Childe’s caricature of them …, there is no liter-
ary evidence for craft specialists having been itinerant, and there are many grounds for
doubting this supposition prima facie”; see Gibson (1996), 115. There has been no attempt
to re-evaluate Werner’s thesis in the light of the evidence pertaining to the early Middle
Ages. On the contrary, the idea of itinerant artisans is still very popular in East Central and
Eastern Europe. See Comșa (1975), 189; Turčan (1984), 484; Čilinská (1986), 281 and 283;
Teodor (1996), 105; Teodor (2006), 190; Tănase (2010), 194–99; Rácz (2014), 20–21.
10 Ashby (2015), 15 and 25 fig. 2.2; Ježek (2015), 122. Nonetheless, Wickham (2006), 702 still
believes that “artisans were sometimes itinerant.”
11 Costin (1991), 3.
12 Peets (1991), 97; Gallina (2018), 426 and 429. Most archaeological experiments are inter-
ested in measuring productivity, and therefore focus on the yield, not on the time spent on
the task; see Pleiner (1969); Souchopová (1980). This is in sharp contrast to archaeological
on average for any particular craft remains unanswered. Equally elusive are the
answers to the other questions regarding the proportion of subsistence and
the payment for the specialist. Nonetheless, inscriptions from Thessalonica,
Odessos, Edessa, Athens, and Salona indicate that weavers, tanners, cloth
carders, furriers, and glassworkers were recognized as specialists and that their
activities were sufficiently important to become an identity marker in epi-
taphs. Those may not have been rich people, but their families were sufficiently
well-to-do to buy grave plots in the cemetery and have inscriptions carved for
their tombs. Those were families that must have been involved in the respec-
tive craft production. That, at least, is the conclusion drawn from the existing
evidence about the organization of the fish-salting industry in Chersonesus.
By contrast, nothing is known about the identity of the independent spe-
cialists in the settlements on the other side of the river Danube. Were they
free members of the family, or individuals (such as captives) in some servile
condition working for that family? In a few cases (such as Bernashivka), the
associated finds (such as amphora shards or coins) suggest that the occupants
of the building had privileged access to goods from the empire. This may be
further interpreted as an indication that crafting was practiced in that building
on behalf of a prominent, possibly elite family of the community. Some have
advanced the idea that the goldsmiths in the central part of the forest belt in
Eastern Europe were female, not male members of the community. Another
possibility is that they were members of the elite. That much results from the
careful analysis of burial assemblages with tools, such those found in Brno,
Poysdorf, or Band. The presence of weapons and trading implements strongly
suggest high status, as do forms of elaborate burial, such as funerary construc-
tions on top of the grave pit. Whether or not those buried in Brno, Poysdorf, or
Band were themselves gold- and blacksmiths, in the Carpathian Basin during
the 6th and early 7th century, high status could be associated with craft pro-
duction in reference to one and the same individual. The evidence, in other
words, is sufficiently strong to advance the idea that the members of elite
themselves produced some classes of objects in chiefdom societies.13 Such a
form of crafting is now known as “embedded production.”14
The main criterion for distinguishing “embedded production” from other
forms of organizing craft production is that the artisans are elite household
members. There is, however, another angle from which craft production may
experiments targeting such activities as house building or food preparation, which place
a lot of emphasis on timing activities; see Pleinerová (1986); Pleinerová/Neustupný (1987).
13 Costin (2001), 299.
14 Ames (1995).
15 Costin (1991), 4. Clark/Parry (1990), 297 offer a shorter definition that places a greater
emphasis on the consumer: “production of alienable, durable goods for non-dependent
consumption.”
16 Clark (1995), 291.
17 Brumfiel/Earle (1987), 5–6.
18 Costin (2001), 298.
19 Comșa (1978), 112. Comșa believed that at least some of those attached artisans were cap-
tives taken by the Slavs from the Empire.
20 Costin (2001), 298.
signal attached specialists, as they were found on sites that may be interpreted
as elite residences because of finds of moulds.21
Haćki, in eastern Poland, and Terekhovo, in central Russia were both strong-
holds, but nothing indicates that they were elite sites. The ladle, stone moulds,
engraving tools, pressing die, and the small hammer found there cannot there-
fore be interpreted as evidence of attached artisans. Nor can the archaeological
or production context of the evidence of casting and snarling found in Caričin
Grad and on a number of military sites in the Balkans be in any way inter-
preted in reference to attached production, even though it clearly indicates
specialization.22 A similar conclusion results from the careful examination of
the context of production for combs on such sites in the Carpathian Basin as
Biharea and Tiszafüred or for bronze artifacts on sites farther to the northwest,
at Považany, Věrovany and Pavlov. In other words, in all those cases, the most
appropriate model is of community specialization (autonomous individuals
or households aggregated within single communities and producing for unre-
stricted regional consumption), not individual retainers (artisans working full-
time for elite patrons) or nucleated corvée (part-time labor in special-purpose,
elite settings or facilities).23
Unrestricted local consumption may have also been on the minds of the
potters operating the specialized kilns found on a number of fortified sites in
the northern Balkans, as well as on open, settlement sites farther to the north,
such as Bucharest-Dămăroaia and Dulceanca, in the Lower Danube region,
as well as Bratei, Dipșa, Szelevény and Törökszentmiklós, in the Carpathian
Basin. Judging from the location of kilns inside their respective settlements,
those were specialized workshops, which produced for unrestricted regional
consumption. Unfortunately, no extensive study based on ceramic fabric anal-
ysis has so far been carried out in order to establish the size of that region
of consumption.24 However, studies based on the traditional morphological
and local sources of clay and/or temper, e.g., Damjanović et al. (2014). The regional distri-
bution of pottery from production centers in Greece results from provenance analysis of
selected shards; see Vionis (2017), 360–61.
25 Teodor (2000), 319; Teodor (2005), 220. For similar conclusions drawn on the basis of later
materials from neighboring sites in Lower Austria, see Herold (2009). For regional pat-
terns of pottery technology in the Middle Volga region, see Salugina (1988).
26 Herold (2014), 225.
27 For the question of power center(s) during the Early Avar age, see Kiss (1988); Vida
(2016b), 256. Attached production may also be surmised in the case of the ceramic pro-
duction center in Kantserka, although no power center has been identified in its vicinity
either.
28 Spielmann (2002), 202. Next to nothing is known about Avar feasting.
have used such a restricted class of pottery, but especially the beverages or
liquids associated with it, to solidify their privileged position.29 By contrast,
the production of those goods that, by virtue of being more ornate and there-
fore requiring more labor, could be used in competitive displays and forms of
exchanges was not attached. Despite many attempts, no “workshops” have so
far been identified, which could have been responsible for the production of
any of the luxury dress accessories or belt fittings known from Early Avar-age
burial assemblage.30 According to advocates of the “prestige goods theory”
that emphasizes craft production as an economic resource employed in elite
domination strategies, elites patronize crafts that use imported raw materials,
in addition to high skills.31 Many prestige goods produced in the Carpathian
Basin during the Avar age were made of gold, quite possibly of melted solidi
from the tribute that the Avars received from the Empire.32 While such goods
typically appear in burial assemblages associated with the Avar elites, the idea
that those elites sponsored production in order to gain exclusive access to pres-
tige goods or power and legitimacy is a relatively common assumption, not a
conclusion resulting from the archaeological evidence.33
Specialization has often been associated with the rise of complex society.
According to some, specialization is actually the cause of complexity, but
others see it rather as a diagnostic of complex forms of social and political
organization.34 Weaving is perhaps the best example in East Central Europe of
that articulation between specialized craft production and social complexity.
While finds of loom weights in forts and among grave goods found in the Balkans
suggest a household industry, the weaving sheds from Morești, Balatonlelle,
and Rákóczifalva signal part- or full-time artisans working in special-purpose
facilities, most likely for elite consumption. That two of the three weaving sheds
found in Rákóczifalva were located away from other domestic spaces, but next
to features with ovens that may have also been used for craft production is a
29 Flad/Hruby (2007), 10. Vida (1999), 51 notes that the distribution of two subspecies of Gray
Ware (his groups I B1 and IB2/a–e) was restricted to a small area in eastern Pannonia.
30 For the attempt to identify Avar-age workshops, see Stadler (1990) and Stadler (1996).
Equally surprising is the lack of any evidence of attached specialists involved in the pro-
duction of the so-called “Slavic” bow fibulae, another class of prestige goods that has been
linked to the rise of elites in the Lower Danube region and other parts of Eastern Europe;
see Curta (2012), 291 and 293.
31 Schortman/Urban (2004), 191.
32 Bóna (1990), 115 and 117; Pohl, (2018), 232–33. Flad/Hruby (2007), 11 note that it is the use
of prestige goods, and not necessarily their inherent qualities that make them prestigious.
33 For prestige goods and elites, see Costin (2001), 307.
34 Costin (2001), 274. Costin, (1991), 12 notes that attached specialization appears to evolve
along with social inequality.
clear indication of separate activity areas, where labor could be monitored and
controlled. Much like the Early Avar-age potters involved in the production
of wheel-made ceramics, weavers in the 6th-century Carpathian Basin were
attached specialists. Nothing is known about the intensity of their labor, which
makes it impossible to decide if the archaeological record in this case should
be interpreted as nucleated corvée (part-time labor for elites) or retainer work-
shop (full-time artisans engaged in a large-scale operation). Nonetheless, it
is remarkable that the only region in Eastern Europe in which pottery mak-
ing and weaving became forms of production with attached specialists is the
Carpathian Basin. Elsewhere, it was ironworking.
Some evidence of smelting is known from the Carpathian Basin (Sighișoara),
but the most impressive sites are those of the Middle Volga region—Karmaly,
Maklasheevka, Rozhdestveno, and Shigony. In all four cases, furnaces were
found in the proximity of strongholds, some of which produced clear evi-
dence of the prestige goods and of accumulation of food reserves, perhaps in
the form of tribute paid to elites inside the strongholds. As inside each one of
them, only a few dwellings have been found, it is possible that the smelting
furnaces nearby operated as nucleated corvée, with attached specialists work-
ing part-time, perhaps on a seasonal basis, but actually residing elsewhere.
Moreover, that local elites may have controlled the production and distribu-
tion of iron results indirectly from finds of axe-shaped ingots of standard size
and weight. A very similar situation has been documented archaeologically for
the lands farther to the east, at the southern border of the taiga. The smelting
and ironworking facilities found at Oputiata were all located on the northern
side of the stronghold, while the dwellings of the artisans were located on the
southern side. However, unlike the strongholds in the Middle Volga region,
Oputiata does not seem to have been an elite site, but rather an industrial
center, whether craft production was a seasonal or permanent activity. The
same may be also true about the blacksmithing site at Butrint in Albania, as
well as the much later smelting site discovered in Haivoron, on the Middle
Bug in Ukraine. In all three cases, it is not known for whom those supposedly
attached artisans actually worked, and where the respective elites may have
been located. Specialization, however, is beyond doubt in all those cases, as
neither smelters nor blacksmiths were involved in any subsistence activities
on the site. They must therefore have obtained their subsistence goods through
some kind of exchange for their craft products.
The same is true for the smelters in settlements of the Lower Danube region
(Bucharest-Lunca-Bârzești, Budureasca, and Șirna), and of Belarus (Sniadzin),
despite the presence of local pottery—both hand- and wheel-made—in those
settlement features that had furnaces. Moreover, the furnaces discovered in
Șirna (both those of the earlier settlement phase dated between the mid-5th
and the early 6th century, and those dated later to the 6th and 7th century) were
in proximity of domestic spaces, which strongly suggests a part-time activity
and small-scale, independent production. Neither in Bucharest-Lunca-Bârzești,
nor in Șirna have any artifacts or features been found that could possibly be
associated with elites. While it is possible that both smelting sites were nucle-
ated workshops producing for unrestricted local consumption, elites inter-
ested in controlling the production and distribution of iron may have resided
elsewhere in the vicinity. At any rate, elites are visible in and near other smelt-
ing sites. The belt buckle with open-work ornament from Sniadzin has good
analogies in the Middle Dnieper region and Slovakia, both indications of long-
distance contacts, perhaps between elites.35 Settlement 5 in Budureasca is
located less than a mile to the south from settlement 4 (Puțul Tătarului), which
produced some of the most impressive pieces of evidence of long-distance
contacts in the region, including a “Slavic” bow fibula and pressed belt mounts
with good, Early Avar-age analogies in the Carpathian Basin.36 It is there-
fore possible to interpret those finds as indications of the presence of elites,
in which case the smelters in Sniadzin and Budureasca 5 may have been
attached specialists.
It cannot be an accident that despite clear evidence of specialization of
various crafts, the only one selected for attached production were weaving in
the Carpathian Basin during the 6th century, pottery making in the Early Avar
age, and smelting in the Lower Danube and Middle Volga regions, as well as
in the northwestern parts of the forest belt and on the southern border of the
taiga. Weaving in the 6th-century Carpathian Basin must have been targeted
because of the importance of the dress in communicating social status, even
though the concomitant production of dress accessories was not organized in
the same way. The production of wheel-made pottery in the Early Avar age is
most likely linked to the importance of feasting, to which may also be linked
such archaeological phenomena as the deposition in high status graves of
spoons (for the consumption of oysters) and strainers (for mulled wine).37
The symbolism of iron, and its great role in the production of both tools and
weapons is no doubt responsible for the selection of smelting.38 It is impor-
tant to note that evidence of crop cultivation, including agricultural tools, is
35 Viargei (1997), 35 and fig. 2/1; Korzukhina (1996), 681 fig. 91/20; Robak (2015), 55 fig. 3/8.
36 Teodorescu/Peneș (1984), 47 fig. 22/2; Măgureanu (2005); Măgureanu (2012). A fibula
with bent stem is known from a sunken-floored building in settlement 5; see Teodorescu
(2009), 342 fig. 22/1.
37 Tóbiás (2001); Lőrinczy/Straub (2003); Lőrinczy/Straub (2004); Lőrinczy/Straub (2005).
38 For the ritual symbolism of iron, see Menander the Guardsman, fr. 10.3, 116 and 118.
known especially from the two regions with the largest numbers of smelting
sites—the Lower Danube and the Middle Volga. Moreover, a strong association
was established by the 6th century between ironworking and social complex-
ity. Smelting as attached specialization appeared along with social inequality
and the rise of new polities. The large smelting sites at Zamárdi (Hungary) and
Haivoron (Ukraine) emerged in the late 7th century at the same time as, and
probably in association with the reorganization of the Avar and the rise of the
Khazar qaganate, respectively.
Even though “we know little about Avar trade,” “the fundamental economic cir-
cuits of the Avar Empire” do not seem to have been “commercialized.”1 Walter
Pohl’s shrug of resignation stands in sharp contrast to Michel Kazanski’s
overconfident postulate of a Scandinavian fur trade network across Eastern
Europe during the 6th and early 7th centuries.2 Both scholars employed a nar-
row definition of trade as a form of exchange that is market-based in terms of
individual interactions, as well as on a systemic scale.3 There is no evidence of
markets either inside the Avar qaganate or on the southern and eastern shores
of the Baltic Sea.4 However, at least the Avars are known to have engaged in
commercial exchanges. Avar envoys purchased goods from the market in
Constantinople, while the qagan set a price for the ransom of his Roman pris-
oners of war.5 According to the chronicle of Fredegar, Samo came to the Slavs
living in close proximity to, if not within the Avar qaganate, in the company
of several merchants doing business in the region.6 Nonetheless, archaeolo-
gists believe that most goods of Byzantine origin, which have been found in
1 Pohl (2018), 250 and 253. Nonetheless, Pohl believes that at least some “objects produced in
the Byzantine world came to the Carpathian Basin as trade goods” and that “perhaps there
was trade in half-finished alloys”; see Pohl (2018), 102 and 249.
2 Kazanski (2010c).
3 Agbe-Davies/Bauer (2010), 15.
4 According to Rosner (1990), 127, trade is the only possible explanation for the distribution in
northern Pannonia, the lands between the Danube and the Tisza, as well as beyond the Tisza
of the Great Ware produced in the kilns discovered at Szekszárd and several other neighbor-
ing sites. However, marketplace exchanges typically make a wide range of products available
to most, if not all households. The distribution patterns shown in Vida (1999), 52 fig. 8, 53
fig. 9, 54 fig. 10, and 55 fig. 11 betray rather non-commercial exchanges based on clientage or
other similar social bonds. Such a patchy distribution shows marked differentials in access to
Gray Ware, most likely because of class and prestige considerations. A regional production-
distribution approach to the same ceramic category in the Carpathian Basin before the Avar
age may lead to similar conclusions. For the method and its use for distinguishing between
marketplace and other, non-commercial forms of exchange, see Hirth (1998), 451–67; Stark/
Garraty (2010), 45.
5 Menander the Guardsman, fr. 5.4, 53; Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia 6092, transl.,
279. For ad-hoc trade under the walls of Thessalonica, see the Miracles of St. Demetrius
II 2.214, 189.
6 Fredegar IV 48, 144. The Latin words for merchants and business are neguciantes and negu-
cium, respectively. Exactly what was the object of the trade with the Wends has been a matter
of some debate. See Labuda (1949), 274; Eggers (2001), 66; Charvát (2001).
Avar-age graves, have entered the Carpathian Basin not through trade, but
as gifts or as booty.7 On the other hand, few, if any market-based exchanges
took place between the Avars and the neighboring provinces of the Empire
in the Balkans, because there were no markets in those provinces. Most com-
mercial exchanges involving goods piggybagged on annona transports (such as
lamps or lamp moulds) took place inside forts, within the same rooms in which
the annona was stored.8 Throughout the sixth century, the northern part of the
peninsula remained largely disconnected from commercial networks in the
south, which may explain why amphorae appear in Avar-age assemblages only
exceptionally.9 Similarly, few copper coins reached the Carpathian Basin, and
even fewer were specimens struck in Thessalonica as a response to the con-
siderable demand for cash in the 6th century.10 In other words, the absence of
trade in the Carpathian Basin may be, at least in part the result of the absence
of any market-based exchanges in the northern Balkans, a region almost com-
pletely dominated by the state-run redistributive mechanisms involving the
annona. The economy of the northern Balkans was a command economy, in
which market exchanges played a relatively modest economic role.11 After
ca. 620, there was no imperial presence in the northern Balkans, so no incen-
tive for any kind of exchanges with the Carpathian Basin.
The situation of that region during the Avar age is in direct contrast with
the previous period, particularly the first two thirds of the 6th century. Much
of the current discussion of trade in archaeology is based on the use of archae-
ometry to characterize materials—stone, ceramics, or metals.12 For example,
the petrographic analysis of some of the quern stones discovered on 6th cen-
tury sites in the Carpathian Basin has brought to light interesting conclusions,
particularly that the source of material was often at a considerable distance.
To judge from that evidence, market(place)-based exchanges must have taken
place inside the Carpathian Basin during the 6th century.13 The distribution
pattern for those querns made of rhyolite or andesite cannot be explained in
any other way.14
Sixth-century burial assemblages in the Carpathian Basin have produced
beads made of semi-precious gemstones—agate,15 amethyst,16 carnelian,17
chalcedony,18 garnet,19 magnesite,20 rock crystal21—and coral.22 Beyond mere
recognition of those stones, no attempt has been made to characterize and
source them.23 At any rate, the beads must have entered the Carpathian Basin
by means of exchange, whether from the Empire, Central or Western Europe.24
13 A similar situation is archaeologically documented for the 8th century, when most quern
stones found on settlement sites in Hungary were made of rock quarried in the southern
Carpathians or in the valley of the Mureș River; see Bajkai (2016), 409.
14 In a study of exchange and procurement on the basis of demography and distance, Carr
(2005), has demonstrated that marketplace exchange typically occurs at a regional and
interregional scale between communities located at a distance of more than 320 km from
each other.
15 Cseh et al. (2005), 100 and 252 pl. 22/5.
16 Sági (1964), 377 and pl. XXXI/3.
17 Bárkoczi (1968), 286 and pl. LXVII/4; Bóna/Nagy (2002), 219, 220, 222, 224, 249, 320
pl. 46/130.1, 321 pl. 47/139.1, 323 pl. 49/157.2, 324 pl. 170.1, 328 pl. 54/C, 335 pl. 61/15.3; Bârzu
(2010), 187, 204, and 289 pl. 11/G57.4; Nagy (2012), 155 and 161 fig. 15/17.
18 Bóna (1956), 192 and pl. XLIV/8; Csallány (1961), 31, 56, 63, and 220; pl. VIII/11, pl. XXXVIII/4,
pl. XLI/4; pl. CCIV/3; Kiss/Nemeskéri (1964), 102 and 103 fig. 5/44; Popescu (1974), 229 and
233 pl. 16/7; Horedt (1979), 147 and pl. 42/8; Tomka (1980), 13 fig. 9/4 and 17 fig. 13; Freeden/
Vida (2005), 366; Hajnal (2008), 315.
19 Csallány (1961), 35, 56, 76, 80, 104, 113, 130, 173, 175, 178, 179, 182, 186, and 190; pl. III/18;
pl. XXXVIII/4; pl. LXXIII/17; pl. LXXXIII/16; pl. CX/7; pl. CXI/3; pl. CXIV/14; pl. CXXIV/10;
pl. CXXVI/4; pl. CXXVII/13–14; pl. CXXXVI/10–13; pl. CCXLIV/13–14; pl. CXC/22; Cseh et al.
(2005), 130 and 287 pl. 57/1.
20 Tejral et al. (2011), 103, 171, 179, 195, and 197; 336 pl. 3.10/VIII.1–2, 343 pl. 10/23; 347 pl. 14/14;
352 pl. 19.71/5; 352 pl. 19.78/2.
21 For a list of finds, see Zábojník/ Mitáš/ Štubňa (2017), 346–47. To that list, one needs to add
Csallány (1961), 179 and pl. CXXIV/4; Papp (1963), 116 and pl. I/10, 11; Bárkoczi (1968), 279
and pl. LVII/7; Bóna (1998), 112 fig. 2/3; 116 fig. 3; Bóna/Nagy (2002), 222 and 323 pl. 49/157.2.
22 Horedt (1979), 190 and 168 fig. 83/8.
23 This is particularly difficult for carnelian, which exists in many places in Europe
(Germany, Bohemia, Poland, as well as in the Crimea), Asia Minor, and India, in addi-
tion to the Arabian Peninsula and northern Africa. No information exists about the early
medieval quarrying of carnelian in any of those places.
24 According to Zábojník/ Mitáš/ Štubňa (2017), 354 the rock crystal beads found in
the Carpathian Basin were made in the Rhineland, “in the Alemannian territory.”
Gavritukhin/Mastykova (1995), 17 rightly ascribe a Mediterranean origin to coral beads.
The same is almost certainly true about millefiori glass beads, for which see Koch (1974),
500–01; Mastykova/Plokhov (2010), 344. However, contrary to Koch’s assumptions, a great
number of millefiori beads appear in 6th-century burial assemblages, and occasionally in
Was that trade? The number of beads per site is rather small, and less than
20 sites are currently known in the entire Carpathian Basin for such finds.25
This is in contrast to the situation in a much smaller area of southern Crimea,
where agate, alabaster, amethyst, aragonite, carnelian, chalcedony, coral, and
rock crystal (but neither garnet nor magnesite) beads have been found in
abundance.26 There can be no doubt that the Crimean beads came from the
Empire, even though some at least may have been produced locally on the
basis of imported materials. It is therefore not difficult to imagine that either
the raw materials or the (half-finished) beads were part of a commercial net-
work. Crimea was connected to the long-distance commercial exchanges inside
the Empire. In the early 7th century, the lucrative trade attracted the atten-
tion of kommerkiarioi appointed by the imperial government, as indicated by
those of the Early Avar age as well. See Kovács (1913), 406 and 309 fig. 30/29; Kovrig (1954),
87 and pl. XX/3; Bóna (1956), 187 and 192; pl. XXVII/6; pl. XLIV/8; Kovrig (1963), 28 and
pl. XIX/44; Papp (1963), 116; Svoboda (1965), 287 and pl. XCVI/14; Kiss/Nemeskéri (1964),
100, 109 and 110; 113 fig. 9/6; 114 fig. 10/3; Bóna (1970–1971), 63 fig. 8/6; Kiss (1977), 94 and
pl. XXXVI/28; Erdélyi (1988), 193; Nagy (1998), 150 and 111 pl. 102/M17.4; Straub (2000), 205
and 222 fig. 3/2, 3; Bóna (2001), 192 and 193; 207 fig. 2/1, 2; 211 pl. I/1, 4, 10; Pásztor (2001),
137; Bârzu (2010), 226 and 308 pl. 30/G181.1; Müller (2010), 126 and 336 pl. 89/1; Tejral et al.
(2011), 203 and 355 pl. 22.86/3–6; Nagy (2012), 155 and 161 fig. 15/2, 3; 162 fig. 16; 163 fig. 17;
Vaday (2015), 187 and 185 fig. 9/8.
25 The exception is the necklace of no less than 26 carnelian beads found in grave 170 of the
cemetery excavated in Szolnok-Szanda; see Bóna/Nagy (2002), 224.
26 Agate: Repnikov (1932), 165; Loboda (1976), 137 and 139 with fig. 4/23; Aibabin/Khairedinova
(2009), pl. 155/13; Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014), 200 pl. 52/6. Alabaster: Veimarn/Aibabin
(1993), 6. Amethyst: Repnikov (1932), 163. Aragonite: Omel’kova (1990), 79 and 80 fig. 5/12.
Carnelian: Repnikov (1906), 13, 17 and 27; Repnikov (1907), 111, 115 and 117; Repnikov (1909),
107; Repnikov (1932), 154, 159, 160, 162, 163, and 165; Veimarn (1963), 54; Loboda/Choref
(1974), 100 and 101 fig. 1/10; Loboda (1976), 139 and 141; 140 fig. 5/16; Aibabin (1982b), 187;
Omel’kova (1990), 79, 80, 84, 87 and 90; 74 fig. 4/27, 28; 80 fig. 5/22, 25; 84 fig. 8/22, 23; 88
fig. 11/5; 89 fig. 13/3; Veimarn/Aibabin (1993), 5, 6, 16, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 40–42, 46, 49, 68,
95, 97, 98, 107, 112, 114, 117, 127, 130; 106 fig. 76/34; Aibabin/Khairedinova (2009), pl. 138/2g;
Bemmann et al. (2013), 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 53, 56, 59, 61, 86, and 91; pl. 3/5; pl. 6/2; pl. 24/2,
3; Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014), 171 pl. 23/3d; 175 pl. 27/13, 15; 178 fig. 30/4; 186 fig. 38/1;
201 fig. 53/8, 9; 203 fig. 55/11, 12; 209 pl. 61/14; 254 pl. 106/19; 279 pl. 13/17; 192 pl. 144/13; 343
pl. 195/20; 344 pl. 196/18; 347 pl. 199/5. Chalcedony: Repnikov (1907), 110 and 147 fig. 127;
Aibabin (1982b), 187; Aibabin/Khairedinova (2009), pl. 132/2k; Aibabin/Khairedinova
(2014), 153 pl. 5/15; 175 pl. 27/14; 355 pl. 207/9. Coral: Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014), 157
pl. 9/16; 160 pl. 12/8; 175 pl. 27/8, 12; 251 pl. 103/8; 254 pl. 106/14; 297 pl. 149/13. Rock crystal:
Repnikov (1906), 12, 16–18, 20, 24, 25; pl. III/4, 9; Repnikov (1907), 109, 110 and 119; Veimarn/
Aibabin (1993), 16, 41, 95, and 102; 105 fig. 75/15; Zaseckaia (1997), 447 and 469 pl. XIII/4;
Aibabin/Khairedinova (2009), pl. 6/22; Bemmann et al. (2013), 55 and pl. 20/6; Aibabin/
Khairedinova (2014), 150 pl. 2; 347 pl. 199/20. No less than 34 carnelian beads have been
collected from the burial chamber 316 of the cemetery excavated in Skalistoe, and many
other burial assemblages produced between 10 and 20 specimens.
27 Alekseenko, (2004), pp. 265–67. Alekseenko (2003b), 79 notes that those were govern-
ment officials working for the apotheke of Abydos and for that of Constantinople. Even
though kommerkiarioi of Cherson appear only later, the correspondence to which the
7th-century seals were attached indicates the presence of the government staff in the
Crimean city and, indirectly, the interest in the lucrative trade.
28 Trade in agate, alabaster, amethyst, garnet, or magnesite is unlikely, for such beads (or
gemstones) do not appear anywhere in the Balkan provinces of the Empire. Only one
chalcedony bead is known from the large, 5th- to 6th-century cemetery excavated in
Belgrade (Serbia): Ivanišević/Kazanski (2002), 129 and 151 pl. III/1. Similarly, only one
coral bead is known from the entire Balkan Peninsula: Cîrjan (1970), 385 and fig. 4. For a
few carnelian and rock crystal beads, see Ivanišević/Kazanski (2002), 127, 130, 134 and 136;
149 pl. I/2.3; 151 pl. III/19.1; 153 pl. V/58.3; 155 pl. VII/79.5; Balabanov (2010), 352. Gemstone
beads appear sporadically in the western and northwestern parts of the peninsula. See
Radimsky (1893), 306 and fig. 5; Stare (1980), 115–117; pl. 78/10; pl. 80/6, 8;pl. 88/9; Torcellan
(1986), 80 and pl. 36/6, 8; Vinski (1989), 27 and 31; 54 pl. V/9; 69 pl. XX/2; Bavec (2003), 328.
29 Earle (1994) and Earle (2002). Earle opposes wealth finance to staple finance. The lat-
ter happens when elites appropriate and mobilize bulk resources (such as agricultural
products), in order manipulate that surplus for public displays of power and ideological
legitimacy. See also Oka/Kusimba (2008), 355.
30 According to Pásztor (2014), 294, carnelian beads appear singly or in pairs in Early
Avar-age burials. However, some of them, at least, are in fact recycled material of an older
age; see Pásztor (2018), 93.
31 The following paragraph is based on Curta (2007).
even the taiga belts in Eastern Europe).32 However, the quantity of amber
decreased markedly in those regions that were closest to the Baltic coast: there
were now greater quantities of amber farther away from the source than there
were close to it, with a vast region in East Central and Eastern Europe devoid
of any amber finds. Despite claims to the contrary, this spotty pattern of dis-
tribution suggests an exchange system very different from the down-the-line
trade postulated for this period by many scholars.33 Amber traveled in the
6th century from the Baltic coast to the Middle Danube and to Crimea as
wealth finance.34 As long as elites in all three regions maintained their local
bases of power, the exchange system continued to serve their needs. Unlike
gemstones from the Empire, amber continued to move southwards during the
7th century. During the second half of that century, amber beads appear in the
Carpathian Basin in female burials, often in the company of rich grave goods,
such as silver earrings, glass beakers, or drinking horns.35 At that same time,
amber beads also appear in hoards of bronze in Right and Left Bank Ukraine.36
The disappearance of amber from archaeological assemblages in the Middle
32 During the first three centuries AD, amber traveled along the trade route linking the
Baltic coast to the Roman provinces in central Europe and to the Adriatic coast; see
Wielowiejski (1984); Giovannini (2002); Kolendo (2007). For amber in the Far East of
Eastern Europe, see Akhmerov (1951), 133; Alikhova (1959), 139; Mazhitov (1959), 122, 124,
125, 128, 129 and 132; Mazhitov (1968), 87, 95–100, and 104–106; 131 pl. 12/10; 141 pl. 20/5;
Erdélyi/Ojtózi/Gening (1969), 59 and pl. X/8; Gening (1976), 97, 99 and 103; 93 fig. 3/30–
32; 98 fig. 6/3–8; 100 fig. 7/2, 3; 102 fig. 9/12, 13; Polesskikh (1979), 16 fig. 9a/2; Goldina/
Koroleva/Makarov (1980), 13, 153 pl. 12/10–22, 155 pl. 14/8; Krasnov (1980), 165 and 183;
Ashikhmina (1986), 3; Vaskul (1987), 7; Shitov (1988), 40, 56 pl. X/21–24; Goldina/Vodolago
(1990), 27; Bagautdinov/Bogachev/Zubov (1998), 32 and 179 fig. 81/14; Kazakov (1998), 109;
119 fig. 7/6, 9; 125 fig. 13/5–7; Nikitina (1999), 60 and 107 fig. 25Б; Shcheglova (2010), 154;
Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 23, 95 and 97; 244 pl. 53/21, 23–32; 253 pl. 62/12–15,
18; Akhmedov (2014a), 283; Stashenkov (2016), 236 fig. 5/4. While characterization stud-
ies conducted on beads from Hungary have established the Baltic origin of the amber
[Sprincz (2003), 203], no such studies exist for any of the finds from Eastern Europe.
The possibility cannot be excluded, therefore, that that amber came from elsewhere, for
example from India.
33 Werner (1950), 167; McCormick (2001), 693; Kontny (2011), 68. “Down-the-line” trade is
part of the theoretical model of how frequencies of goods should change over space
under different forms of distribution. That model has been proposed by Renfrew (1975),
41 and 43; 42 fig. 10; see also Renfrew (1977).
34 This applies even to occasional finds of raw amber, as published in Liubichev (1993), 30;
Bóna/Nagy (2002), 64 and 357 pl. 83/3.7, 8.
35 Garam (1979), p. 17; Kiss (1996), 142.
36 Rybakov (1949), 80 fig. 32b; Braychevs’kyi (1952), pl. IV/1–9; Shcheglova (1990), 198 fig. 7/5;
Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1996), 128 fig. 23/1–12; Korzukhina (1996), 397, 402, 419, 612
pl. 22/27, 637 pl. 47/4–6; Prykhodniuk (2005), 52 and 155 fig. 49/10; Rodinkova (2010), 82
fig. 5/16–18.
Danube region cannot be dated earlier than ca. 700 and must be understood as
an interruption of contacts with elites on the Baltic Sea coast.37
Gemstone beads have also been found in the easternmost part of the for-
est and taiga belts of Eastern Europe.38 There seems to be no doubt that they
got there by trade.39 However, they were not necessarily trade goods, but may
have been brought as gifts for local elites.40 The main commodities brought
to Eastern Europe along the Northern Silk Road were silver and silk, a clear
indication of elite consumption. They were exchanged for furs collected at
key points by local elites. The fur trade was therefore implemented and oper-
ated by elites. The main agents were the Soghdian merchants, all of whom,
as Etienne de la Vaissière has shown, were aristocrats.41 Local elites gained
power through control of rare and exotic materials, as well as the long-distance
trade route reaching deep into Central Asia. Local markets, yet to be identi-
fied archaeologically, were specialty markets, in that the dominant emphasis
there was on the high-value of both furs and the exotic goods brought from
afar, even though staple goods for the consumption or provision of the foreign
merchants may have also been present.42 Because of the emphasis on exotic
goods that were easily controlled by elites, the market for furs must have been
small and limited in both size and scope. As a consequence, exchanges may
37 Nonetheless, after 700, amber continues to appear occasionally in the forest and taiga
regions of Eastern Europe. See Krasnov (1980), 170 and 202 fig. 27/25; Goldina/Koroleva/
Makarov (1980), 13 and 179 fig. 38/22; Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 23 and 180
fig. 32/4.
38 Most beads are of carnelian and rock crystal: Akhmerov (1951), 133; Semenov (1967), 164
and 165; 170 pl. II/6, 10, 11; 171 pl. III/1; Mazhitov (1968), 86–87; Gening (1976), 97 and 103;
98 fig. 6/19; 101 fig. 8/14; Goldina/Koroleva/Makarov (1980), 13; 151 pl. 10/5, 11; 152 pl. 11/2;
156 pl. 15/7; 179 fig. 38/3, 4; Volkov/Pastushenko (2005–2006), 6. For isolated finds or
carnelian and coral beads in the Middle Volga region, see Kalinin/Khalikov (1960), 246;
Kazakov (1998), 119 fig. 7/2. For rare finds of chalcedony beads, see Goldina/Koroleva/
Makarov (1980), 13 and 156 pl. 15/7. For exceptional finds of coral and rock crystal beads
in the forest-steppe region, see Lipking (1974), 149; Gavritukhin/Oblomskii (1996), 210
fig. 34a/33–37.
39 Ruslanova (2014), 22–23. Goldina (1996), 242 and Goldina (2011), 116 believes that the car-
nelian beads came from Iran.
40 For the coexistence of “market mentality” with other forms of exchange in premodern
societies, see McC. Adams (1974), 239; Blanton/Fargher (2010), 222.
41 Vaissière (2002), 158–60.
42 For the notion of “specialty market” dominated by prestige goods, see Hirth (2010), 233.
It is possible that cereal seeds identified at Verkh Saia 1 (see chapter 15) were not for local
consumption, but remains of grain stored on the site for the provision of foreign mer-
chants in transit or visiting a market nearby.
have taken place in restricted places, such as the stronghold at Verkh Saia.43
It is probably through such “restricted places” that the Sassanian drachms and
the Byzantine hexagrams entered the region of the Sylva and Upper Kama
rivers in what is now the northeastern part of the Volga Federal District of
Russia. Like silver plate, gemstone beads, and silk, some of those coins were
redistributed inside that region, or even farther to the west (into the region of
the Middle Volga). However, because of their deposition in hoards, graves and
especially, at sanctuary sites such as Ust’-Sylva, once acquired through market
exchanges, the coins ceased to circulate as such and turned into “inalienable
possessions.”44 In other words, at a local scale, between communities located
within a relatively short distance from each other, the main forms of exchange
were non-commercial.
A very similar picture results from the examination of coins in the region
north of the Lower Danube now within Romania, the Republic of Moldova,
and Ukraine. Unlike the coins found in the easternmost parts of the forest and
taiga belts of Eastern Europe, those were mostly copper coins, each one worth
relatively little inside the Empire, where their conventional, fiduciary value
was guaranteed by the imperial government. How were those coins acquired
by those living outside the Empire? Some believe that the presence of cop-
per coins in the lands north of the Lower Danube river is a sure indication of
outright or even permanent commercial relations between merchants in the
Empire—whether based in cities and forts south of the Danube, or traveling
north of that river—and the local population.45 Under such assumptions, the
local population exchanged such goods as salt, honey, cattle, “possibly furs and
skins” for the coins in question.46 Others rightly noted that such exchanges, if
they ever took place, must have been imbalanced, unequal and even unjust, for
the exchange value of the copper coins varied considerably in the 6th century,
as a consequence of the variations in reckoning the follis (main denomination
of the copper coinage) to the solidus (as money of account) introduced by
several emperors through their respective monetary reforms.47 While in the
43 The commercial nature of the site is betrayed by the bronze weight of four ounces that
was found there; see Goldina/Pastushenko/Chernykh (2011), 288 pl. 101.
44 The six hexagrams struck for Heraclius recovered from Ust’-Sylva, together with silver
ingots, a great number of carnelian and rock crystal beads, as well as a large amethyst
piece, were struck with the same dies as the coins found in the Bartym and Shestakovo
hoards; see Mel’nichuk/Vil’danov/Godobin (2004), 126–28. For “inalienable possessions,”
see Weiner (1992).
45 Teodor (1981), 28; Oberländer-Târnoveanu (2003), 41; Ciupercă (2007–2008), 130.
46 Gândilă (2009), 457.
47 Gândilă (2018a), 272, points out that barter would have been preferable to such unequal
exchanges. For the compulsory rate of exchange between copper and gold, see Hahn
mid-6th century, a solidus was worth about 200 folles, the rate more than dou-
bled by the end of that same century.48 Moreover, because of their fiduciary
nature, the copper coins reaching the lands north of the Lower Danube would
have to return to the Empire through market exchanges in order to have any
value at all. Such exchanges were not possible in any of the fortresses along
the Danube, for no markets existed in any of them.49 Because of those and
other similar considerations, “the idea that the coins reflected trade between
the Empire and local communities is untenable.”50 Instead, the relatively large
number of copper coins found in Romania, the Republic of Moldova, and
Ukraine must be explained in terms of “displaced Romans,” namely captives
from the numerous Sclavene raids into the Balkan provinces of the Empire. In
addition, some coins were probably brought to those lands by barbarian veter-
ans, who returned home after serving for a while in the Roman army.51
The problem with such an interpretation is that it is based on a number of
unwarranted assumptions, while ignoring some obvious features of the distri-
bution and structure of the numismatic material. Most coins found north of
the lower course of the Danube and its delta come from a band of territory no
wider than 62 miles from the river. While the lack of an archaeological context
prevents any interpretation of specific finds, the distribution itself is very sig-
nificant, as it shows a clear pattern of fall-off from the supply zone (in this case
the Empire located south of the Danube frontier).52 This pattern is the exact
opposite of that identified for the distribution of amber. It is unlikely that all
prisoners of war or all veterans moved only to the region closest to the river
Danube, where they began dropping coins out of their pockets. Moreover, the
careful study of the structure of the coin material shows that there was no
(1973a), 27–28; Hahn (1975), 15–16; Hahn (1981), 16–20. The somewhat modified values
advanced by Hahn (2000), 9–11 are based on the inclusion of the light-weight solidi, the
purpose and monetary role of which are still a matter of debate. For a succinct presenta-
tion of the various scholars’ calculations of the rate of exchange between solidus and
follis during the entire period between 498 and 615, see Curta/Gândilă (2011–2012), 68
table 2.
48 According to Hahn (1973b), 177 the main reason for so many alterations of the compulsory
rate of exchange was the government’s desperate attempt to fund Justinian’s wearisome
wars.
49 Gândilă (2018a), 284: “frontier fortresses could not export a monetized economy in the
lands north of the Danube simply because they did not develop one themselves.”
50 Gândilă (2018a), 271.
51 Gândilă (2018a), 269–70.
52 For recently updated maps of the distribution of 6th- to 7th-century coins north of the
Lower Danube and the Black Sea, respectively, see Gândilă (2018a), 164 fig. 26 and 165
fig. 27.
significant difference between the numismatic profiles of the lands south and
north of the river Danube. In western Walachia (to the west from the river Olt),
for example, “coin circulated through the mediation of the Byzantine fortresses
on the northern bank of the Danube” (Drobeta and Sucidava). As for the rest of
Walachia, Moldavia, Moldova, and the steppe lands in the northwestern region
of the Black Sea, “the coin flow was dictated by developments” in the neigh-
boring provinces of Moesia Secunda and Scythia.53 If coins reached the lands
north of the Lower Danube through POWs or veterans, the structure of the
coin series would be considerably different from that of the Balkan provinces
of the Empire closest to the Danube, because the Sclavene raids reached much
deeper into the Balkans, while veterans may have fought and lived in, as well
as procured coins from many other parts of the Empire.
Underlying the rejection of commercial exchanges between communities
on both sides of the river Danube is the assumption of a free, perfectly self-
regulating market for which neither the “primitives” in barbaricum, nor the
soldiers in hilltop forts were economically prepared.54 There is, however, clear
evidence that the Sclavenes understood the meaning of money and were ready
to set free their prisoners of war in return for a small ransom.55 This suggests
that they were capable of rational utility-maximizing choices of the sort that
59 Only a few copper coins are known from burial assemblages discovered in the Carpathian
Basin. See Rhé/Fettich (1931), 25 and pl. III/14; Nagy (1959), 62 and pl. XXV/6; Csallány
(1961), 145 and 292; Erdélyi/Németh (1969), 194 and 195 pl. XXV/6; Lovász (1986–1987), 138
and pl. IV/3; Kiss (1996), 74; pl. 455/253.9; pl. 138/10; Ruttkay (2007), 336; Winter (2009),
342; Bârzu (2010), 229.
60 Wickham (2006), 694 believes that commerce is “fueled by the existence of agrarian sur-
pluses and artisanal production on one side, and demand on the other.” Such a definition
is much too narrow, at least in the case of the fur trade in Eastern Europe. In a typically
Marxist stance, Wickham treats trade as inherently unequal and as a destabilizing mech-
anism in which labor and resources are transferred to another as traders, while more pow-
erful communities take advantage of weaker or less developed groups; Wickham (2006),
p. 707. For such an approach as ideologically driven, see Oka/Kusimba (2008), 354.
societies is far from clear, but, judging from the evidence available for 6th- to
7th-century Southeastern and Eastern Europe, local elites had no say over the
immediate procurement and production of goods.61
What kinds of exchange were in operation in other parts of Eastern Europe?
According to Chris Wickham, “normal exchange was strictly local and small
scale, and not necessarily commercial—gift-exchange is as likely a basis for
much of it,” at least in Anglo-Saxon England before ca. 700.62 Opposing com-
merce to “gift-exchange” betrays a strongly substantivist approach, but the
underlying assumption is that the early medieval societies were rural, corpo-
rate communities that were basically self-sufficient. The only reason for the
exchange of material goods between such communities was to cement social,
marital, and political alliances, an idea well attuned to the notion that gifts
were the “glue” of society.63 Substantivists treat “gift-exchange” as “reciproc-
ity,” involving two or more relatively equal parties.64 By contrast, redistribu-
tion refers to “appropriational movements towards a center,” in other words
to the controlled mobilization of surplus for institutional finance.65 The larg-
est and by far the most impressive example of a redistribution system in the
6th century was the “tax-induced transfer of food” to some cities, the army,
and the civil administration of the Roman Empire.66 The annona was in fact
the mechanism through which the provinces in the northern Balkans could be
kept inside the Empire even without having the ability to support themselves
economically. Large amounts of supplies, primarily food, moved to the Balkans
from the Aegean, as indicated by the distribution of LR 2 amphorae.67 In fact,
the relative prosperity of the cities on the western coast of the Black Sea was
based on their role as ports of entry for the annona shipped to the northern
61 That applies both to the production of bulk goods in Greece and the Crimea, and to the
procurement of furs in Eastern Europe. As Earle (1982), 3 has noted three decades ago, “no
coherent body of theory exists to explain exchange and its linkage to broader sociocul-
tural forms.”
62 Wickham (2006), 808. Similarly, Pohl (2018), 235, believed that the characteristic for Avar
society was the “exchange of gifts.”
63 Bijsterveld (2001); Wickham (2006), 694. The idea of the gift as social “glue” goes back
to Mauss (1923–2924). Inspired by Mauss, Grierson (1959) is largely responsible for the
dichotomy gift(-giving) vs. trade. For the influence of the debate between formalists and
substantivists on the current preoccupation with gifts and gift giving, see Graeber (2001).
64 Polanyi (1957), 251.
65 Polanyi (1957), 250. For the subsequent transformation of the concept of redistribution,
primarily in economic anthropology, see Earle (2011), 238–39.
66 For the annona, see Durliat (1990); Carrié (2007). The phrase “tax-induced transfer of
food” is from McCormick (2001), 86.
67 Karagiorgou (2001); Curta (2016a), 309–11.
Balkans from the richer provinces in the southern part of the Mediterranean
region. Some have rightly noted that, at the point of collection, the annona
system cannot be understood without the compulsory purchase of goods by
the state, at state-determined prices, for the state’s needs (coemptio).68 Almost
no scholarly attention has been paid, however, to the manner in which the
annona was distributed at the receiving point, in the Balkans. It was most likely
brought by sea to the entrepots on the western coast of the Black Sea, the most
important of which was Tomis (now Constanța, Romania).69
How did the annona move into the interior? Recent finds of donkey, mule
and camel bones in faunal assemblages from Caričin Grad strongly suggest that
pack animals were employed for the task.70 Meanwhile, the distribution in the
Balkans of certain categories of lamps, cast fibulae with bent stem, and small
denominations of the copper coinage has been explained in terms of trans-
ports of annona.71 Actually, none of those artifacts was part of the annona,
so their presence on hilltop sites in the interior implies that they were com-
modities of small-scale trade piggybacked on transports of annona. On a few
sites, there is in fact clear evidence of rooms for the storage of the annona, as
well as of other necessities, pieces of military equipment, or even agricultural
implements, all of which could be obtained by soldiers in the local garrisons at
a price to be paid in coin.72 In other words, in the absence of any marketplaces,
rooms reserved for storing the annona also served as retail shops. If commer-
cial exchanges took place on military sites in the interior, it is possible that in
charge with the capillary distribution of both annona and other goods were
local merchants, peddlers who moved from one fort to another or within a
restricted, small area.73 It is equally possible, however, that the annona moved
68 Wickham (2006), 75. Coemptio was also introduced by imperial edict into the Balkans
in the late 5th century. That was as a reaction to the fact that, already at that time, the
annona could not be collected from those provinces.
69 Constanța is the site in the Balkans that has produced the largest number of LR 2 ampho-
ras dated to the 6th century; see Rădulescu (1973). Most amphorae come from the large
warehouse known as the Building with Mosaic Pavement, for which see Canarache (1967).
70 Baron/Reuter/Marković (2019), 120; Marković/Reuter/Birk (2019), 26–27. Both camel and
donkey appear also in faunal assemblages from Roman sites on the Lower Danube; see
Stanc (2006), 97, 137 and 172; Benecke (2007), 394; Kroll (2010), 60.
71 Curta/Gândilă (2011), 66; Curta (2016f), 96, 102 and 104; Curta (2017a), 450.
72 Popović (1987), 28; Uenze (1992), 477–78; Opriș/Rațiu (2017).
73 However, there is no direct evidence of such peddlers either in the historical, or in the
epigraphic record. For inscriptions attesting merchants active in the entrepots of the
Black Sea coast, see Beshevliev (1964), 66–67; Popescu (1976), 23, 28, 44 and 92–93. That
commerce was flourishing in the area results, among other things, from the commercial
seals found in the Balkans, the majority of them in the Dobrudja; see Curta (2016a), 319.
Moreover, the seal of a kommerkiarios named Areobindus, who was also prefect (possibly
into the interior along the lines of military communication and provisioning,
and those in charge with its local distribution and the sale of other commodi-
ties were members of the military.74 Such a blending of military and commer-
cial functions was, after all, the essence of the new administrative unit of the
quaestura exercitus created in 536, and may have encouraged the proliferation
of middlemen who were at the same time officers in the army.75 The strong
association between the army and the redistributive mechanisms involving
the annona may well explain the sudden collapse of the Roman power in the
Balkans in ca. 620. The definite cessation of grain supplies from Egypt, at that
time occupied by the Persians, made it impossible to maintain troops in the
Balkans.76 In the absence of any substantive, local production of food, the
withdrawal of troops (some of which were relocated in western Anatolia) was
accompanied by a mass evacuation of all settlements, with the exception of
the coastal cities. By 630, the interior was sparsely inhabited, if not completely
deserted (see chapter 4).
The redistributive system involving the annona had no visible impact on the
Crimea, despite the obligation of both Chersonesus and Bosporus to feed the
fleet, as indicated by a novel of Emperor Tiberius II (see chapter 5). Outside
the empire, the evidence of redistribution as a form of exchange is even more
elusive. According to Chris Wickham, tribute in early medieval tribal societies
was a form of redistribution.77 As far as East Central Europe is concerned, such
an idea finds no support in the historical sources. For example, the qagan of
the Avars sent an embassy in 578 to a Sclavene chieftain named Daurentius
(or Dauritas) asking him and his people to obey the commands of the Avars
and “to be numbered amongst their tributaries.”78 His demand was met with
indignation and his envoys were killed on the spot. In spite of an Avar punitive
expedition against Daurentius, his Sclavenes never paid tribute to the Avars.
More than half-a-century later, Samo moved to a group of Slavs who were
of the East), suggests that trade on the western Black Sea coast has attracted the attention
of the imperial government; see Lazarenko (2011); Curta (2016a), 314–15.
74 Curta (2017a), 449 believes that middlemen such as the officers in charge of the distribu-
tion of the annona took advantage of their position to enrich themselves.
75 For the quaestura exercitus, see Szádeczky-Kardoss (1985); Torbatov (1997); Curta (2002);
Gkoutzioukostas (2008); Gkoutzioukostas/Moniaros (2009); Curta (2016a); Opriș/
Rațiu (2019). For the military role of the quaestura exercitus, see Wiewiorowski (2004);
Wiewiorowski (2006); Madgearu (2009); Mărculeț (2017).
76 Curta (2001c), 189. As McCormick (2001), 116 aptly put it, the annona system “worked up
until the very moment when the supplying region was conquered by enemy forces.”
77 Wickham (2006), 695.
78 Menander the Guardsman, fr. 21, 194–95. For this episode, see Curta (2001c), 91–92;
Kardaras (2006), 31–33; Pohl (2018), 81–82.
paying tribute to the Avars for some time, in addition to many other abuses
that they had to endure.79 Soon after that, the Wends rose in rebellion against
the Avars and stopped paying them anything. Was that redistribution? If so,
how exactly did the Wends pay their tribute to the Avars—in bulk staple or in
prestige goods?80 And once collected, to whom were the resources obtained
as tribute subsequently redistributed by the Avars? In reality, the indigna-
tion caused by the demand of the qagan of the Avars that Daurentius and his
Sclavenes obey his command and pay tribute suggests a very different type of
transaction. Alain Testart has called “third-type transfers” (t3t) those transac-
tions that are both required and forced by juridical norms (and often backed by
a threat of violence), but which have no required counterpart.81 Taking tribute
from the Sclavenes or the Wends was no “pooling,” because it did not sustain
any community, and at least in the former case, it did not at all result in sus-
taining the “corporate structure” of the qaganate.82 “Pooling” was something
very different from tribute-taking, as it stipulated “a social center where goods
meet and thence flow outwards, and a social boundary too, within which per-
sons (or subgroups) cooperate.”83 As a matter of fact, in a study of a particular
ceramic category, the clay pans, I have recently advanced an archaeological
model of intrasite analysis of 6th- and 7th-century settlements, which is meant
to highlight the redistribution of local products, especially flat loaves of bread,
through communal ceremonies. At Davideni (eastern Romania), clay pans sig-
nal the existence of one or two areas of communal activities involving, among
other things, the production and consumption of pita-like, unleavened, or
slightly leavened flat bread. It is reasonable to believe that the relatively large
quantities of flour necessary for baking many flat loaves of bread for the occa-
sion were “pooled” from the resources of the entire community, members of
79 Fredegar IV 48, 208. For the relations between the Avars and the Wendish Slavs men-
tioned in Fredegar’s chronicle, see Pohl (2018), 138–39.
80 Pohl (2018), 142. The Avars also asked for tribute from two Roman cities in the Balkans
(John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History VI 45, 259). In this case, the context clearly indi-
cates that the tribute was to be paid in agricultural produce.
81 Testart (2007), 21 and 51–57. Testart also treats taxes as t3t, not as redistribution. To
Wickham, they are sometimes species of the same genus (redistribution), and other
times very different notions; Wickham (2006), pp. 70 and 695. Wickham is also wrong
when taking “war booty and piracy” to be a form of redistribution; see Wickham (2006),
695. They are in fact what, building upon Testart’s path-breaking work, Athané (2011),
222–32 has called “fourth-type transfers,” along with theft, fraud, and racketeering: “des
transferts exigés et obtenus mais non exigibles.” For a typology of such illegitimate trans-
fers, see Darmangeat (2016), 28–29.
82 For redistribution as “pooling” and its social purposes, see Sahlins (1972), 188–90.
83 Sahlins (1972), 189.
84 Curta (217b), 130–41. Curta (2001c), 303 and 307 notes that all sites examined by means
of the intrasite analysis of artifacts were sociopetal settlements, in which the communal
front region, where activities involving the entire community were performed, was placed
at the center. This area may have been an arena of social competition, a “beyond-the-
household context” for displays of symbols of leadership by some of those who organized
ceremonies of redistributive character.
85 Peisker (1905); Preidel (1946–1952); Grafenauer (1955); Zastěrová (1958); Koroliuk (1963);
Tyszkiewicz (1989).
86 Pohl (2018), 140.
87 Theophylact Simocatta, History VI 2.12, 223; transl., 160. For this episode, see Wołoszyn
(2014); Prostko-Prostyński (2015); Wołoszyn (2016); Kotłowska/Różycki (2018), 20–22.
88 Miracles of St. Demetrius II 2.197, 185. Živković (2008), 50 believes that in the eyes of the
anonymous author of Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius, Chatzon and the qagan
of the Avars were equals, since they were both called “exarch.” Nonetheless, according
to Pohl (2018), 286, when offering gifts to the qagan, Chatzon and his Sclavenes “rather
appear as supplicants,” namely as socially inferior. That the gifts offered to the qagan were
“impressive” is clearly a sign of status differentiation, but in the opposite direction. In
interpersonal relationships, the so-called “spread of status value” occurs when the value
of an exchanged object is linked to the status of the giver. Since the value of the object
that a higher status person gives is higher, the lower status person, in return, feels obli-
gated to give more to the higher status person in frequency or quantity to compensate for
the differences in status value; see the Park/Kim (2017), 142. It is unlikely that the qagan
regarded the gifts sent by Chatzon as the price (or the equivalent) of his military coopera-
tion. He definitely took some time to respond, as the Avar attack on Thessalonica (the
“qagan’s war”) began only two years later. This strongly suggests that the qagan was not
quite sure how to interpret Chatzon’s gesture. When relative status is unclear, “individuals
subtly claim superiority and dominance through delayed gift reciprocation” [Park/Kim
(2017), 143].
89 Such an interpretation most certainly applies to gifts sent from Constantinople to the
Avars, as well as to occasional gifts that the emperor received from the qagan, such as those
Chris Wickham, following Marcel Mauss, would call “reciprocity,” namely “the
exchange of objects or services for the express purpose of establishing social
links between two or more parties.”90 To both Chris Wickham and Walter Pohl,
reciprocity is another word for “exchange of gifts.”91 However, to the extent that
gift-giving transactions are never equivalent, even when apparently balanced,
gift-giving cannot be reduced to the notion of (reciprocal) exchange: a true gift
never requires a counter-gift, because its underlying premise is to give gener-
ously. As a consequence, the idea of an exchange of gifts makes no sense: it is in
fact an oxymoron.92 If the qagan or Chatzon wanted military assistance from
the Slavs, then they were not truly giving any gifts, since they had calculated
the return. Gifts, however, are explicitly mentioned in the sources, but in only
one direction. So, this was not truly an exchange of gifts.
Theophylact Simocatta narrates an episode of the war between the Avars
and the Romans. In 598, Easter caught the Roman armies fighting the Avars
in the hinterland of Tomis (now Constanța, Romania). They were famished
and with no supplies, so, in a surprising move, the qagan offered food to
Priscus’ troops and proposed a truce to allow them to celebrate Easter. He
then requested from Priscus some Indian spices in exchange, and accepted the
93 Theophylact Simocatta, History VII 13–15, 268; transl., 197. According to Pohl (2018), 188,
the episode supposedly shows that “high rank created an obligation to great gifts.”
94 Earle (1994) and Earle (2002). Moreover, the emphasis with wealth finance is on sumptu-
ary goods, much like the Indian spices that Priscus “offered” to the qagan of the Avars
in 598.
95 Rudnicki (2009–2010); Bliujienė/Curta (2011). See also Quast (2018).
96 Mikhailova (2016).
97 Curta (2012).
98 Shcheglova (1990); Ailincăi et al. (2014).
99 Ambroz (1968); Kazanski (2017).
100 Ambroz (1970).
101 Akhmedov (2014b) and Akhmedov (2016b).
102 Tóth (1999); Vida (2000); Hilberg (2003); Kazanski/Mastykova (2005); Vida (2005); Quast
(2008). For contacts with Italy, see Stein (2005). For contacts with Scandinavia, see Quast
(2004); Magnus (2006); Magnus (2007); Hilberg (2009), 196–204; Kazanski (2010b);
(2010). For contacts with the Caucasus region, see Gavritukhin/Kazanski (2010). For very
long-distance contacts, see Gil (2014).
was primarily used to establish marital alliances.103 Much more attention has
been paid to the objects themselves than to the social context in which they
appear and were most likely exchanged. How did the objects move or, more
importantly, with whom did they travel at long distances? How was the value
of those objects communicated to the recipient?104 How were such “exotic”
objects used to build social prestige with the recipient’s group? Were there any
differences between the social value of the exchanged object in the societies
of the sender and recipient, respectively? Given the current state of research,
none of those questions can be answered satisfactorily.105 Nonetheless, it is
simply not true that “gift-exchange … was seldom large-scale enough to char-
acterize whole systems.”106 The considerable extent of the network established
by means of wealth finance bespeaks the importance of such exchanges for
early medieval elites. In Eastern Europe, they were an important element of
social differentiation within “whole systems.”
103 Koncz (2018). As Sahlins (1972), 220 has put it, “balanced reciprocity is the classic vehicle
for peace and alliance contracts”; see also Sahlins (1972), 222–30 for marital alliances.
104 This raises another very important question: what language(s) were used for wealth
finance? Exchanges seem to have been eased by shared culture and similar languages; see
Whitaker et al. (2008).
105 There has so far been no attempt to apply social network analysis to wealth finance in
6th- to 7th-century Eastern Europe. Such an approach may reveal degrees of mutuality
and propinquity, as well as nodes and structural holes in the communication network.
For an example of successful application of network analysis to wealth finance, see
Mizoguchi (2013).
106 Wickham (2006), 695.
Social Change
1 Mägi (2003), 45–46, 49 fig. 2, and 53–54, who notes that the dispersion of bones and arti-
facts strongly suggests that they were all initially buried in a box made of some perishable
material.
2 Mägi (2006), 61. No DNA analysis of the skeletal remains has been done, in order to establish
whether the individuals buried in the mortuary house were genetically related.
3 Mägi (2005). The mortuary house discovered in 2002 near Röösa has a good parallel at Paju
(western Saaremaa), which is also dated to the 5th or 6th century; see Mägi (2003), 55.
4 Threpsiadis (1971), 10–11. For the coins, see Mina Galani-Krikou et al. (2006), 54; Morrisson/
Popović/ Ivanišević (2006), 225.
family vaults were common in Greece, as well as on the western coast of the
Black Sea and in the interior of the Balkan Peninsula. In such tombs, the bodies
were laid on ledges along the walls or inside the funeral chamber(s). Moreover,
the walls were often painted. For example, in Louloudies, a vaulted tomb dis-
covered next to the southwestern corner of the basilica had murals depicting
large foliate Latin crosses.5 That similar tombs found on the Black Sea coast in
Romania served as family vaults results from the anthropological sexing and
ageing of skeletons. For example, the barrel-vaulted tomb found in Cernavodă
(western Dobrudja) contained five skeletons—two men, two women, and one
child.6 Simpler versions without murals, such as found in Nea Anchialos (near
Volos, Greece) or Slatino (near Brod, Macedonia) were also employed for mul-
tiple burials, most likely of members of the same family.7
One of the most extraordinary 6th-century sites in Greece is the cave found
on the slopes of Mount Zavitsa between the villages of Andritsa and Velanidia
near Lerna (Argolis). The speleological exploration and archaeological excava-
tions carried out in 2004 and 2005 inside the cave have identified 33 skeletons,
many of them of children and teenagers. Several of them were laid directly
on the ground around a stalagmite, an arrangement imitating the layout of a
burial chamber with bodies placed on ledges along the walls.8 It is impossible
for the moment to establish the kin relations between the individuals buried
in the Andritsa Cave. In the Crimea, it was relatively common to carve into
the rock cave-like burial chambers for multiple burials of individuals, most
likely members of the same families, laid next to, but also on top of each other,
in layers. A great number of cemeteries in the mountains consist of burial
chambers, each with a large, rectangular room and with numerous skeletons.9
5 Marki (1997). For the accompanying inscription, see Kiourtzian (1997), 31–32. For other 6th-
century vaulted tombs with murals, see Gkini-Tsophopoulou (1990); Pazaras (2001); Marki
(2001), 274 and 276 fig. 3; Paliouras (2004), 58–59.
6 Rădulescu/Lungu (1989), 2578, 2582, and 2584–87. There were 11 skeletons in the vaulted
tomb found in Mangalia, for which see Pillinger (1992), 99–102. Vaulted tombs with murals
dated to the 6th century are also known from the interior of the Balkan Peninsula, but no
skeletal remains have been found in any of them. See Gerasimov (1966); Gerasimov (1976);
Lilčić (1981); Rakocija (2004); Nallbani (2007), 50; Milinković (2014), 41 and 36 fig. 28. Only a
few bones have been retrieved from the vaulted tomb found in Mariolata (Greece), for which
see Mailis (2001), 312–14.
7 Sotiriou (1956), 113–15; Babić (1980), 31–33. The same is true for the vaulted tombs discov-
ered in Morodvis (Macedonia) and Stranjani (near Zenica, in central Bosnia); see Paškavalin
(1959), 155; Trajkovski (1989).
8 Kormazopoulou/Chatzilazarou (2005), 24–47.
9 Repnikov (1932); Veimarn (1963); Loboda/Choref (1974); Loboda (1976); Omel’kova (1990);
Veimarn/Aibabin (1993); Aibabin/Iurochkin (1995); Ushakov/Filippenko (2004); Aibabin/
Khairedinova (2009) Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014); Bemmann et al. (2013); Turova/Chernysh
Masonry family vaults, some of them with murals, have been found in the cem-
eteries of such urban centers as Chersonesus and Bosporus.10 As in Greece,
burial in multi-generational family vaults has old traditions.11 Although fam-
ily or clan affiliation seems to have been a paramount concern, there are
clear and sharp differences between individuals buried in different vaults or
even between those buried within one and the same vault. Perhaps the most
interesting aspect of the social differentiation apparent in the archaeological
record of 6th- to 7th-century cemeteries is the abundance of dress accessories
in female graves, in as great numbers and specific combinations as to make
Elzara Khairedinova postulate the existence of a specific “female costume” of
the mountain population in the Crimea.12 Even more significant is that that
“costume” was given in death to children (most likely girls), an indication of
status bestowed by surviving members of the family.13 By contrast, only a few
men were buried in family vaults together with their weapons.14 Moreover,
swords appear in separate grave pits (as opposed to family vaults) only in
Kerch, where the tradition of high-status male burials with weapons goes back
to the late 4th century.15
Mortuary archaeology in the Balkans has produced evidence of stone-
lined graves and burials with pitched tile covers, often in relatively large num-
bers grouped around a cemeterial church or chapel.16 Since in some cases,
(2015). Skalyste (near Bakhchysaray) is the site with the largest number of burial cham-
bers dated to the 6th or 7th century (485). The largest number of individuals buried
within one and the same family vault is 22 in burial chamber 54 discovered in Luchyste
(near Alushta); see Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014), 65–77. For burial chambers in Crimean
cemeteries as family vaults, see Jacobi et al. (2013), 348.
10 Zubar’/Pillinger (2000–2001); Zubar’ (2002); Khrushkova (2008); Zavadskaia (2009);
Zubar’ (2009). For the cemetery excavated in Kerch (Bosporus), see Zaseckaia (2003). As
Fomin (2011) points out, much like in the mountains, family vaults came into use in urban
cemeteries in the 4th century and continued well into the Middle Ages.
11 Aibabin (2013), 379.
12 Khairedinova (1999); Khairedinova (2000); Khairedinova (2002); Khairedinova (2007);
Khairediov (2010).
13 Khairedinova (2007), 25–26, 43 fig. 16, and 44 fig. 17.
14 Veimarn/Aibabin (1993), 25, 103, 116, 121, 126 and 155; 26 fig. 14/18; 105 fig. 75/27; 116 fig. 84/12;
122 fig. 89/20, 22; 125 fig. 92/18; 149 fig. 110/13; Zaseckaia (1997), 446–47; 471 pl. XV/4, 7–9;
475 pl. XIX/27; Aibabin/Khairedinova (2014), 59 and 179 pl. 31/1.
15 Kazanski (2018).
16 Marušić (1956); Miletić (1956); Miletić (1975); Slabe (1975); Miletić (1978); Ercegović-Pavlović
(1980); Preda (1980); Stare (1980); Šonje (1980–1981); Bolta (1981); Tabakova-Canova (1981);
Toropu (1981); Brukner (1982); Maneva (1985–1986); Boltin-Tome (1986); Ivanovski (1986),
124; Paprenica (1986); Petre (1987); Marin (1989); Simoni (1989); Vaklinova (1989); Ujčić
(1992); Jeremić (1994–1995); Bospachieva (1998); Gatev (1998); Toska/Chatzakis (2001);
Koicheva (2002); Daskalov/Trendafilova (2003); Snively (2003); Bitrakova-Grozdanova
cemeteries were found next to forts, those buried there must have been mem-
bers of the military. The same may be true for similar cemeteries found near
such cities as Heraclea Lyncestis (now Bitola, Macedonia) and Iustiniana Prima
(Caričin Grad, Serbia). Dress accessories and jewelry associated with some of
those burials indicate the presence of women, perhaps wives of soldiers in the
city or fort garrisons.17 However, the general appearance of those grave goods is
rather modest, especially when compared with the rich artifacts found in fam-
ily vaults. Moreover, with a few, but notable exceptions, men were rarely buried
with weapons in individual graves.18 The exceptions are located on the north-
ern and northwestern frontier, at Viminacium (now Stare Kostolac, in Serbia),
Singidunum (now Belgrade), and in Istria. Burial assemblages from those sites
contain swords, seaxes, lance and arrow heads, shield bosses, and even armor
plates.19 Such an abundance of weapons deposited in male graves is unusual
and deserves explanation. Mesmerized by such artifacts as bow fibulae found
in female graves, archaeologists have rushed to attribute those cemeteries to
barbarians federates, and debated whether the specific group to which they
may have belonged were the Gepids or the Herules.20 Many overlooked the
striking gender imbalance most visible in the latest phase of each one of those
cemeteries. For example, out of 69 burials found in the cemetery excavated in
Više Grobalja (Viminacium II, south from the Roman city) and dated between
the late 5th and to the 6th century, more than half are of men, with only
(2006); Marki (2006), 197–204; Jurčević (2007); Chamilaki (2009); Chamilaki (2010);
Gkini-Tsophopoulou/Giankaki (2010); Popović (2017). See also Laskaris (2000); Rusev
(2012).
17 Much like in the Crimea, the lavish display of ornaments in graves of women has led to
the idea of a specifically (north) Balkan, “barbarian” female costume. See Stanev (2012).
18 Agallopoulou (1975); Ivanov (1997); Daskalov/Trendafilova (2003), 149–50; Khrisimov
(2008), 52–54.
19 Marušić (1962), 455–61; pl. I/5; pl. III/2; Marušić (1979), 112; Torcellan (1986), 64, 72–74,
and 77; pl. 4/9; pl. 11/3, 4; pl. 25/10; pl. 26/9, 10, 12, 13; pl. 28/4, 8, 11; pl. 32/13; Ivanišević/
Kazanski (2002), 128, 133, 139, 163 and 168; 150 pl. II/6.2–4; 153 pl. V/56.1–5; 156 pl. VIII/103.1;
Ivanišević/Kazanski/Mastykova (2006), 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 174, 176, 177, 182, 188, 190,
194, 196, 198, 203, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223, 229, 230; 163 pl. 11/T103.1; 165 pl. 12/T113.5, 6, 8,
10, 11; 167 pl. 13/T115.1, 3, 8–10; 171 pl. 15/T118.1; 172 pl. 15/T120.1, 3; 175 pl. 18/T121.5, 7, 9; 182
pl. 22/T123.3 and T129.5; 183 pl. 23/T127.1 and T135.4; 190 pl. 26/T143.3; 191 pl. 27/T142.5; 192
pl. 28/T145.3, 8–19; 197 pl. 30/T149.2; 199 pl. 31/T152.4, 6–10; 206 pl. 33/T572.7; 217 pl. 36/
T1876.1, 2; 219 pl. 39/T2047.1–9; 221 pl. 41/T2083.6; 224 pl. 42/T2093.1; 227 pl. 44/T2142.6;
231 pl. 45/T23.6; 233 pl. 46/1–5. For other burial finds in the hinterland of Viminacium, see
Cunjak (1992), 35–37; pl. II/1, 2; Ivaniševič/Bugarski (2018), 101 and 102 fig. 9/3, 4. See also
Bugarski/Ivanišević (2018), 293–309 and 318–319 table 1.
20 Zotović (1992); Ivanišević/Kazanski (2010).
21 Mikić (1992–1993), 192 notes the great disparity between male and female graves, but
without any comment.
22 Grave 115 was the tomb of a man buried with a sword, a lance head, and a bridle bit; see
Ivanišević/Kazanski/Mastykova (2006), 166. According to the cemetery plan published by
Bugarski/Ivanišević (2018), 301 fig. 5, he was surrounded by other male burials (114, 116, 123,
152, 352 and 357), two of which also produced weapons. Grave 56 found in Belgrade—the
only one with a sword—was isolated on the southern edge of the cemetery, with only a
four year-old child buried nearby; see Mikić (2007), 11 pl. 5.
23 For weapon graves in the Carpathian Basin, see Cseh (1989); Keresztes (2015); Keresztes
(2017).
24 Dimitrijević (1964), Y59. For the position of the grave within the cemetery, and the sur-
rounding graves, see Dimitrijević (1960), 10 and pl. 2. A sword, a lance head, a shield boss
and a luxury helmet have been accidentally found during World War II on the north-
western outskirts of Belgrade, at Batajnica. They most likely belonged to one and the
same burial assemblage, but whether that was an isolated grave or part of a cemetery
remains unclear. See Vinski (1954); Csallány (1961), 238–39; pl. CCLXXV/8; CCLXXVII/1,3;
pl. CLLXXVIII/1, 2; Škrgulja/Gračanin (2014), 19 and 29.
25 Amorim et al. (2018), 6 and fig. 4. For the diet rich in animal protein, see also Alt/Müller/
Held (2018). For the cemetery, in general, see Freeden (2008).
community results from the fact that most other graves in Szólád have fewer
or no goods at all.
Even in poorer cemeteries the organizing principle was family affiliation.
The analysis of the epigenetic traits of the 20 skeletons excavated in Gorenji
Mokronog, at the foot of the Trebelno Mountain (central Slovenia) has shown
that all were members of the same kin group.26 Similar conclusions may be
drawn from the analysis of 5th- to 7th-century cemeteries in the Sambian
Peninsula (now within the Kaliningrad region of Russia). No richly furnished
burial of a male found in that northern part of Eastern Europe was isolated. All
were located within small cemeteries that could easily be compared to Szólád
or Gorenji Mokronog, except for the use of cremation. The male graves were
surrounded by burials of people of lower social status, judging from the fact
that few, if any of them were accompanied by grave goods.27 Those were most
likely family groups.
No rich male graves, and no signs of social differentiation are so far known
from any burials under the so-called “long barrows” of northwestern Russia
and Estonia However, it is quite possible that each one of them represented
the North European equivalent of the family vault in the south. Unlike the
latter, the long barrows had no local traditions and must have been a major
innovation for the local population in the forest belt.28 Family affiliation was
also the principle behind the organization of the small cemetery discovered
at Bartym, in the Perm region of the Far East of Eastern Europe.29 Out of
19 graves, 13 were multiple burials, with one of them including 9 individuals—
a situation directly comparable to the family vaults of the Balkans and in the
Crimea. Slightly less than half of all bodies buried in Bartym are of children,
many of them aged between 2 and 9. Among the identified adults, there are
as many men as women. Such multiple burials have rightly been interpreted
26 Leben-Seljak (2003), 411 and 414. For the cemetery, in general, see Bavec (1999) and Bavec
(2003). Besides fragments of two glass beakers found in the grave of a two year-old child,
there are no other markers of social distinction. The oldest man in the cemetery (41 to
60 years at the time of death) was buried with no grave goods whatsoever.
27 Cremated remains cannot be analyzed by means of molecular anthropology, as no colla-
gen may be extracted from bone material exposed to high temperatures that have modi-
fied the bone tissue. It is therefore impossible to establish the relation between the men
buried with many grave goods of high value and the individuals buried next to them, but
without any grave goods. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the cremated remains
of important men were sometimes buried in wooden boxes; see Skvorcov (2013), 360–61.
28 For the absence of any elite or military assemblages in the area of the Long Barrow culture
as a sign of an “egalitarian” society, operating in much the same way as others farther to
the south in Belarus, see Mikhailova (2015a).
29 Goldina/Vodolago (1984).
The change in burial customs towards a strong emphasis on weapons was most
likely associated with societies that may be described as warrior-oriented.
However, the signs of a new era of individualism are apparent even in contexts
where warrior status was of no concern. A vaulted tomb built at the eastern
end of the southern aisle of the episcopal basilica in Stobi (Macedonia), fol-
lowing its restoration in the first half of the 6th century, was used not for a fam-
ily, but for single individual. The man, who died in his 40s or 50s, was buried
dressed in a robe and wearing leather shoes, but without any grave goods.46
Whether or not this was the tomb of Bishop Philip of Stobi, who is known to
have paid for the building of the episcopal basilica, burying important persons
in vaulted tombs inside or close to the church was a practice that is attested in
Greece even before 500. On the basis of a few surviving inscriptions, Carolyn
Snively has advanced the idea that burial in (urban) churches was a privilege
of the clergy.47 The implication is that members of the clergy were entitled to
burial inside the church, because that was an attribute of their social group.
However, not all members of the clergy were buried inside churches Moreover,
the grave goods found in one of the two vaulted tombs in Stamata strongly
suggest that wealthy female donors could also have been given such a treat-
ment in death.48 That burial inside the church was less a matter of member-
ship in a social group, and more a question of personal merit results also from
the widespread practice of euergetism and commemoration of generous
donors, including women.49 One of the richest burial assemblages from the
6th-century Balkans is the tomb of a woman inside or next to a martyrium in
Gračanica (Lipljan, Kosovo).50 Because of the pair of Scandinavian brooches,
but also of the freshly minted solidus of Justinian (dated after 538), all of which
were found in the grave, Mihailo Milinković has interpreted the burial assem-
blage in Gračanica as a case of advanced acculturation.51 However, such an
(1956), 14, 15 and 17–18; pl. I/1, 10; pl. II/4; Belošević (1968), 239 and 240–41; pl. VII/13, 14;
pl. IX/1. For axes found in Rakovčani, see Miletić (1975), 178 and 180; pl. I/1; pl. III/13.
46 Veljanovska (1987). Tombs inside churches are also known from Gela (near Smolian,
southern Bulgaria) and Nicopolis (Epirus, Greece). See Vaklinova (1999), 59–60; Snively
(2007), 746.
47 Snively (1998), 494–95. For privileged burial in churches, see also Marano (2018).
48 Gkini-Tsophopoulou (1990), pl. 41. The Stamata vault was built inside a basilica, on the
northern side of the nave. For the associated pottery, see Gkini-Tsophopoulou/Chalkia
(2003). For other examples of female burials inside churches, see Gkini-Tsophopoulou
(2001), 152; Poulou-Papadimitriou/Tzavella/Ott (2012), 384.
49 For female donors in the 6th century, see Feissel/Philippidis-Braat (1985), 374; Moutzali
(2002), 179; Paliouras (2004), 56; Handley (2010), 123 and 137.
50 Popović/Čerškov (1956); Milinković (2003).
51 Milinković (2002), 352.
52 Sotiriou (1935), 60–64; Williams/Macintosh/Fisher (1974), 9–10; Tartari (1984), 230–31 and
241; Milinković (2005), 315. The vaults in Durrës and Šas are the largest so far known from
the late antique Balkans, each with 30 skeletons.
53 Nallbani (2004a), 487; Nallbani (2007), 56 and 252 fig. 12. Nallbani believes that such
graves represent the kin groups that controlled the forts and towns in (or next to) which
the cemeteries were established. Some were buried together with weapons. See Nallbani
(2003), 114–15 for one of the earliest swords found in northern Albania. For arrow heads
deposited in graves, see Agolli (2006).
54 Anamali/Spahiu (1963), 16 34–35, 57–58, fig. 13 and pl. 12/2. For the pair of fibulae, see
Curta (2011d), 66–67. For the buckle, see Anamali (1993), 443 and 445 fig. 4/2. Curta
(2005b), 127 notes that the combination of fibulae and buckle is very rare in the western
or southern Balkans.
55 Davidson (1974).
soldier” grave appear during the Early Avar period in Hungary primarily in very
rich, male burials. The same is true for the double-edged sword with cross-bar,
very similar to specimens found in burial assemblages in Hungary that have
been dated to the mid-7th century.56 A unique assemblage was recently found
during salvage excavations in Davidovac (near Vranje, southeastern Serbia)
that brought to light the grave of a 30 to 40-year old man. He has been buried
together with a belt set with good analogies in rich, male graves of the Early
Avar age, but also with a purse buckle with analogies in the Mediterranean
region.57 The only weapon in the grave was a hammer-butted axe, with good
analogies in northern Albania dated to the same time, as well as in somewhat
later assemblages in Hungary.58 The combination of battle axe and purse
buckle also reminds one of male burials from northern Albania.59 Assessing
the significance of the finds in Davidovac against the evidence of weapon
burials in the Mediterranean region, Sofija Petković has concluded that the
Davidovac grave is the symptom of dramatic social changes taking place in the
early 7th century, the most important part of which was the individualization
of power.60
Early Byzantine sources mention a number of 6th-century warlords in the
lands north of the Lower Danube, and the analysis of their actions suggests
that those were leaders of different kinds competing against each other, rep-
resenting highly individualized forms of power. They had to prove themselves
constantly, some as military commanders of successful raids into the Balkan
provinces of the empire, others by organizing feasts.61 Some scholars tend to
think of the former as “weak” leaders, who were in the end incapable of creat-
ing stable polities and succumbed to outside pressure.62 Others have revived
56 Curta (2016c), 422–23 regards the grave of the “wandering soldier” as a “major innovation
in the context of the late antique burial practices in Greece.”
57 Petković/Bugarski/Miladinović-Radimilović (2016), 247–49, 250–53 and 260; 248 fig. 1; 249
fig. 2; 250 fig. 3; 251 fig. 4; 252 fig. 5; 254 figs. 6–7; 255 fig. 8; 156 fig. 9. The best analogy for the
Davidovac purse buckle is that found in the basilica in Arapaj, on the southern outskirts
of Durrës, in Albania. See Hidri (1991), 216 and 229 pl. XI/12.
58 Papp (1963), 126 and pl. VII/16; Anamali (1971), 217 and pl. I/3; Prendi (1979–1980), 127 and
162 pl. XVI/16; Fancsalszky (1999), 116 and 117 fig. 8/46.3. For Avar-age hammer-butted axes,
see Szücsi (2012), 126.
59 Anamali (1971), 217; pl. I/3; pl. VII/2, 3.
60 Petković/Bugarski/Miladinović-Radimilović (2016), 270.
61 Curta (1999).
62 According to Hardt (2016), the Slavic warlords were leaders of “failed states.” This is in
fact a variation of the 19th-century idea that the Slavs were incapable of governing them-
selves and had to be ruled by non-Slavic outsiders. For a recent reiteration of that idea,
see Urbańczyk (2002). Homza (2018) believes that the Slavs were secret brotherhoods
the lower Danube had no future of their own in the conflict zone between
Byzantines, Avars, and later Bulgars.”70 The archaeological evidence of elite
residences, such as found in Copăceanca and Udești (see chapter 8) shows
that the raids of the Roman troops into the Sclavene territory during the last
decade of the 6th century and the first two years of the 7th century had no
consequences for the rise of elites and the development of power, despite the
elimination of such leaders as Ardagastus, Peiragastus, and Musocius.71 The
same conclusion may be drawn from the analysis of hoards of silver found in
Romania and southwestern Ukraine, which most likely represent bribes or gifts
from the emperor to local potentates.72 While little, if any evidence exists of
social differentiation in 6th-century cemeteries in the Lower Danube region,
the rich female burial from Coșovenii de Jos with its luxury fibula, the torc, and
the gilded earrings represents the clear sign of wealth and status, if not of an
established aristocracy.73
Social change is also visible in Avar-age burials of the Carpathian Basin.
It has long been noted that despite the mention in the written sources of a
powerful ruler (qagan) named Baian and of leaders and elites under his com-
mand, there are no elite graves that could be attributed to the first genera-
tion of Avar warriors and therefore dated between ca. 570 and ca. 630.74 Much
like in pre-Avar cemeteries of the 6th century, some men were buried with
weapons, particularly in the region between the Tisza and the Danube.75
However, the cemetery with the largest number of edged weapons is Környe
70 Pohl (2018), 125. That no such “principalities” appear in the written sources pertaining to
the 7th century is no indication of their absence. After all, no sources mention the power-
ful aristocracy of the Middle Volga region that built elite residences, collected tribute, and
organized ironworking inside strongholds such as Staraia Maina and Maklasheevka (see
chapter 12).
71 As Lutovský (2014), 94, notes, in Bohemia no residence of the (early) Slavic elite has so far
been found.
72 Somogyi (2008), 141–42; Gândilă (2018a), 188. Somogyi’s idea (that the hexagrams found
in the Lower Danube region represent stipends to the local Slavs, not to the Bulgars) is
indirectly confirmed by the absence of such finds from the lands south of the Lower
Danube, in the northeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, where early medieval Bulgaria
emerged.
73 Nestor/Nicolaescu-Plopșor (1938), 33–41 and figs. 7–8. For the fibula, see also Curta (1994),
246–47 and 249–50.
74 Vida (2013a), 316. For Baian, see Pohl (2018), 217–19.
75 Balogh (2019), 119, believes that the power center during the Early Avar age was in that
region, for some of the weapons found there are ring swords, for the political symbolism
of which see Csalog (1959). For examples of rich, early 7th-century burials of warriors in
the region between the Tisza and the Danube, see Garam (2005); Balogh/Wicker (2012).
See also Szentpéteri (1993), 163 and 165.
(near Tatabánya, to the west from Budapest), and most polearms of the Early
Avar age are also from Transdanubia.76 The practice of burying men with their
horses is also typical for that region of present-day Hungary.77 On the basis
of her analysis of the large cemetery excavated at Zamárdi-Rétiföldek (not far
from Szólád, on the southern shore of Lake Balaton), Éva Garam noted that
in Transdanubia, swords were typically deposited by the human skeleton,
while bows and quivers were placed on the accompanying horse skeleton.78
Others have rightly pointed out that the only Early Avar burials that may be
attributed to elites are from Transdanubia.79 At a closer examination, however,
those are female, not male burials.80 Sword belts decorated with gold or gilded
may occasionally appear in graves of men, but the most lavishly furnished are
burials of women.81 That rich female burials were found in large cemeteries,
such as excavated in Kölked-Feketekapu (near Mohács, in southern Hungary)
or in Zamárdi is an indication that the status of those women depended upon
affiliation to prominent families.82 In fact, Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska has sug-
gested that the phenomenon was directly associated with the idea, which was
common in Late Antiquity, that women were the mirror of the wealth and sta-
tus of their husbands and families.83 None of those graves of women could be
dated later than the first third of the 7th century. In fact, all traces of elites in
Transdanubia disappear after ca. 630.84 Male burials changed dramatically, as
neither swords, nor any other weapons were buried with men anymore.85
Shortly before and after the middle of the 7th century, most rich burials
were located in the northern part of the region between the Danube and the
Tisza rivers.86 Those were all graves of men, not women. The richest burial
76 Csiky (2015a), 26, 355, 357 and 384, who notes that a relatively large number of edged
weapons in Környe (especially short seaxes) were found in graves of infants or juveniles.
77 Bede (2012), p. 43.
78 Garam (2016), 279.
79 Vida/ Pásztor/Fóthi (2011), 416; Schmauder (2015), 678. The only family vault known so far
from territories outside the empire has been found at the western end of Lake Balaton,
in Keszthely; see Müller (2002a). Vida (2008), 31 believes that the high-ranking members
of the local elite were buried inside the basilica at Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, while graves
of less influential aristocrats were in the cemetery by the horreum, and commoners were
buried beside the southern wall of the late antique fort.
80 Vida (2009).
81 Vida (2008), 29.
82 Kiss (2001); Bárdos/Garam (2009); Balogh (2018).
83 Heinrich-Tamáska (2011), 102.
84 Vida (2008), 31; Heinrich-Tamáska (2011), 103.
85 As Garam (2016), 279–80 points out, all other weapons (bows, arrows, and lances) were
now deposited next to the accompanying horses.
86 Balogh (2019), 132 fig. 1.
87 Horváth (2019).
88 Stark (2009). Daim (2017b), 412 goes as far as to claim that the burial of the qagan in
Kunbábony “deliberately excluded any references to Byzantium.” However, the largest
artifact in that burial assemblage is a 13-gallon amphora of the Late Roman 2 type, which
probably carried some exotic stuff—Somalian olibanum, turpentine, or Arabian myrrh.
See Tóth (1986); Curta (2016a), 320.
89 Daim (2017a), 146–47.
90 Chalices: Garam (1993), 107 and 218 pl. 93/1; Prohászka (2010), 248–49; Szenthe/Szőke
(2016), 16; Szentpéteri (2018), 43. See also Szentpéteri (1985). For finds of silver plate, see
Supka (1913), 397 fig. 1 and 399 fig. 2. For the Byzantine origin of those artifacts, see Mango
(1998), 220–21.
91 Schmauder (2015), 679.
burial practices may have been connected with claims to the ancestors suppos-
edly buried underneath the mounds (see chapter 9). It is now the moment to
point out that those were by no means unique practices.
At Boķi (near Jēkabpils, in central Latvia), the grave of a woman was dug
into an Iron-Age barrow.99 The reuse of prehistoric burial grounds in order to
lay claims to the local landscape and its natural, symbolic, and ritual resources
is archaeologically documented in the Carpathian Basin as well.100 In Moravia,
for example, prehistoric barrows were chosen for the 6th-century, high status
burial of a woman in Žuráň (near Brno),101 as well as for the 32 graves of the
cemetery excavated in Borotice (near Znojmo) and dated to the same time.102
The cemetery recently discovered in Mušov (near Břeclav, Czech Republic) was
established immediately next to a number of graves with stone perimeters that
have been dated to the Bronze Age.103 On the eastern side of the Carpathian
Basin, the grave of a man recently discovered during the salvage excavation at
Florești, near Cluj-Napoca (Romania) was dug into a prehistoric mound with a
stone crown.104 Prehistoric mounds were targeted for new burials in the west-
ern Balkans as well. One of the most conspicuous signs of change in the burials
customs of the interior region of Dalmatia is burial in Iron-Age barrows, as in
Krneza and Privlaka (both near Zadar, Croatia).105 The 6th-century cemetery
excavated in Korita (near Tomislavgrad, in southwestern Bosnia) was located
on the site of a Bronze-Age hillfort.106 Sixth-century burials in prehistoric
mounds have also been documented archaeologically in central Albania, at
Klos.107 When burying in Malai near Krasnodar a man who had died between
35 and 40 years of age, members of his family must have been torn between the
old and the new traditions. They placed on his left side a sword with a guard
decorated with cloisonné ornament (like those in fashion in the 5th century),
but with P-shaped attachment loops like the swords of their own lifetime
(6th century). They also decided to bury the man with two bronze cauldrons,
one of which was very similar to those of the Hunnic era, but also with a belt
with mounts decorated with an open-work ornament most typical for the
6th century.108 In doing so, those people may have attempted to reconcile tra-
dition and innovation. In the rest of East Central and Eastern Europe, however,
most communities felt that social change was coming too fast. They therefore
(re)invented a past onto which they wanted to hold.
108 Kazanski (2017), 68; 69 fig. 4; 73 fig. 7.
For the eastern part of the European continent, the long 6th century was a
watershed. It was a century longer than others because the transformations
were still going on during the first decades of the seventh century. As a mat-
ter of fact, in certain parts of Eastern Europe, the first effects of the turning
point became apparent only after the middle of that century. Economically
and socially, therefore, by 700 Eastern Europe was very different from what it
had been around 500. The transformations taking place in the region between
500 and 700 were far greater than those taking place during the two centu-
ries before 500, as well as those happening between 700 and 900. The long
sixth century is the most important period for the transition from Antiquity to
the Middle Ages. In Eastern Europe, both continuity and discontinuity apply to
that period of transition. Many cities survived and even flourished during the
subsequent “Dark Ages.” Cherson and Thessaloniki relied on the salt industry,
while Mesembria, Develtos, and Sugdaia (Sudak) became major commercial
centers. The interior of the Balkan Peninsula, however, as well as the lands now
within Poland experienced a severe demographic collapse. In both cases, what
followed the collapse was radically different from what had been in existence
in earlier centuries. The establishment of Bulgaria in the Balkans, much like
the Avar and Khazar qaganates in the Carpathian Basin and the East European
steppe lands, respectively, coincided with a drastic reorientation of the econ-
omy, a realignment of rural society, and the rise of completely new social hier-
archies. At least in the case of the Balkans, the Middle Ages began in earnest
only after 700.
The Roman perspective on Eastern Europe in 6th and early 7th century was
essentially peninsular, and in that respect strongly associated to the sea. For
both the Istrian and the Crimean peninsulas, the sea was the only link to the
center of the Empire. In both cases, that isolation may paradoxically explain
continuity. Istria did not suffer as much destruction as Italy during the wars
that Justinian waged against the Ostrogoths. Growth and prosperity are appar-
ent throughout the 6th and 7th centuries, and were largely based on agricul-
ture, despite the gradual militarization of the local group of landowners.1 Much
like in the 6th century, coloni were the main labor force.2 No landowning aris-
tocracy is known in the Crimea, despite the prosperity made possible by trade
both in the 6th and well into the 7th century. Unlike Istria, that prosperity was
largely fueled by fishing, as well as the salted fish industry.3 The growth of trade
in the 7th century results also from the establishment of Sugdaia (now Sudak
on the southeastern coast), which was probably the western terminal of the
trade routes employed by Soghdian merchants.4
In the Balkans, there are no signs of that prosperity, despite clear evidence
of continuity on the western coast, in Dalmatia.5 Despite claims to the con-
trary, no landowning aristocracy existed in the 6th-century Balkans.6 The large
network of (hill)forts in the central, northern, and eastern parts of the pen-
insula relied primarily on the annona, and on a very low level of agriculture
(better described as “gardening”) to supplement the supplies from the outside.
The evidence of amphorae shows that the annona penetrated deeply into the
interior of the Balkan Peninsula, but apparently not to Macedonia. There, local
garrisons may have been supplied with goods from Thessalonica, as indicated
by the massive presence of coins struck in the mint of that city.7 However, a
little more than a century later, Thessalonica relied on its hinterland for grain
supplies, as indicated by the events of 677, when the besieged Thessalonicans
received supplies of grain from Thessaly.8 While several crafts continued into
the 7th century, the production of salt from pans seems to have meanwhile
become quite profitable. In September 689, Justinian II granted all profits
from the city’s salt pans to the Church of St. Demetrius as a form of financial
assistance.9 Those in power were not members of the city council, but nota-
3 Sedikova (2013); Albrecht (2016), 355–62. For early medieval Crimea, see also Sorochan
(1995); Aibabin (1997).
4 Vaissière (2006), 179; Shandrovskaia (1995).
5 Gračanin/Kartalija (2018), 366–67.
6 No army officer serving in the Balkans is known to have invested in, or to have owned lands
there. There are nonetheless examples of several generations within one and the same family
originating from the Balkan provinces of the Empire, such as the family of Justin I or that of
Belisarius; see Parnell (2017), 28, 134 and 205.
7 Metcalf (2000), 172–74; Gândilă (2018b), 431–32. See also Hadži-Maneva (2009) and
Hadži-Maneva (2009b). For Macedonia in the 6th century, see Irmscher (1993).
8 Miracles of St. Demetrius II 4.254, 214; II 4.268, 218. Prior to the siege of 677, a large amount
of grain from the public granaries was sold to private merchants at a price of 1/7 nomisma
per modius (about two gallons). That transaction brought the city a hefty profit of over 7,800
gold coins, the equivalent of over 700 tons of sold grain; see Bakirtzis (2007), 97, relying on
the testimony of the Miracles of St. Demetrius II 4.244, 211–12. The grain sold before the siege
must have come from the outside as well.
9 Bakirtzis (2007), 98; Nigdelis (2007). Thessaloniki was also a trade center, as indicated by
numerous seals of kommerkiarioi and abydikoi. Three different kommerkiarioi are known
for the early 8th century, followed by ten anonymous seals of the imperial kommerkia of
Thessaloniki; see Curta (2004), 181–83.
bles, many of whom have profited from trade.10 Trade was also prominent in
Mesembria (now Nesebăr, on the Black Sea coast in Bulgaria). Finds of Glazed
White Ware, the staple import from Constantinople for the late 7th century,
substantiate the evidence of several seals of general kommerkiarioi of the apo-
theke of Mesembria.11 The picture for the rest of the Balkan Peninsula in the
7th century is very different. Judging from the a few mentions in the second
book of the Miracles of St. Demetrius, as well as from the numismatic evidence
from Athens and Corinth that suggests the existence of food markets for the
benefit of sailors of the imperial navy, agriculture was practiced in the hin-
terland of the coastlands of Greece. Agriculture was most certainly practiced
also in the northern part of the peninsula, on sites located on the right bank
of the Danube, such as Garvan. Pastoralism, and not the cultivation of crops
was the dominant economic activity for communities in the northwestern
part of the Balkan Peninsula, along the Mura and Drava rivers in what are now
Slovenia and northern Croatia. Meanwhile, archaeological assemblages in
northern Albania, northwestern Greece and southwestern Macedonia point to
the survival of a numerous post-Roman group, possibly including refugees from
the formerly Roman provinces in the northern and central Balkans.12 Some
have even drawn comparisons between the burial assemblages in Albania and
those on the Adriatic coast, particularly in Istria, particularly in terms of the
deposition of weapons in the graves of leading men.13 In short, none of the
changes predicted by the model of the “transformation of the Roman world”
seems to apply to those parts of Eastern Europe that were within the Empire
by 500. The main consequence of the deterioration of the state-run system
of anonna was not a drastic decrease of investments in the urban structures.
Cities survived, albeit on a reduced scale—in Dalmatia, in Greece, on the east-
ern Black Sea coast, and in the Crimea. The annona, on the other hand, played
a key role in the 6th-century Balkans, precisely because it was a response to the
inability of the northern provinces in the peninsula to produce the food neces-
sary for the troops coming to their defense. The decline of taxation was abrupt
and did not make it possible for farmers to retain the surplus previously paid
to the state. By 600, there were no farmers left in the Balkans to take advantage
of the supposedly advantageous situation resulting from the inability of the
state to collect taxes. The system implemented by Justinian to cope with the
deteriorating situation, which is commonly associated with his introduction of
the quaestura exercitus, was ultimately unsustainable. When Egypt and other
provinces fell first to the Persians and then to the Arabs, it became impossible
to maintain the military and administrative infrastructure in the Balkans. With
the general withdrawal ca. 620, the central and northern Balkans experienced
a serious demographic collapse and remained depopulated until at least the
end of the century. No Slavs from the territories north of the river Danube
rushed to grab the lands supposedly left behind by early Byzantine farmers,
and no “remainer” who refused to go away took that opportunity to enlarge
his property.14 The only pocket of population in the interior of the Balkans is
that of the so-called Komani culture in northern Albania and the neighboring
mountain territories. Next to nothing is known about the economy of those
communities, but it is unlikely that they engaged in agriculture on a large scale.
Shortly before and after 700, wealth in the Balkans and in the Crimea was not
derived from the land, but primarily from other activities, such as local indus-
tries and trade. Only in Istria was land still a major source of wealth, but the
local aristocracy eventually lost its positions of power in the aftermath of the
Carolingian take-over in the late 8th century.15
In sharp contrast to the state dependence in the northern and central
Balkans is the relative self-sustenance of communities in the lands beyond the
rivers Danube and Sava, to the north. The form of itinerant agriculture prac-
ticed in southern and eastern Romania in the 6th century took advantage of
the fertile luvisoils and chernozems in alluvial plains. The abundance of pro-
duce made possible by such agrarian techniques is clearly documented in both
written and archaeological sources. The Lower Danube region was not the only
part of Eastern Europe to experience such abundance. Slash-and-burn agri-
culture in the Baltic region is most likely responsible both for the successful
introduction of rye and for the settlement growth in Estonia. In that case, at
16 For service settlements inside the Carpathian Basin, see Szentpéteri (2009).
17 Smelting sites appear in the Carpathian Basin and in the steppe region shortly before and
after 700, at the same time as the intensification of agricultural production documented
archaeologically by many more finds of agricultural tools (some of them deposited in
graves), increased evidence of cereal cultivation in paleobotanical samples, and larger
bone assemblages with the predominant role of domestic species.
In the Carpathian Basin, the Lower Danube and the Middle Volga regions,
the metallographic analyses of iron and steel artifacts indicate that local
blacksmiths controlled a number of elaborate techniques, which they skill-
fully applied to specific needs. Judging by such evidence, blacksmiths must
have been attached specialists, much like the smelters, even though no smithy
has so far been found that could be compared to smelting sites. By contrast,
the evidence of relatively simple casting techniques in the form of ladles and
moulds discovered on several sites in Eastern Europe is almost always associ-
ated with household activities, strongly suggesting a “do-it-yourself” produc-
tion environment with no attached specialists. Nonetheless, the privileged
position of craftsmen in societies of the Carpathian Basin and central Russia
results from the deposition of tools in graves of men, some of which were also
buried with weapons. In other words, crafting in those societies was regarded
as a badge of social distinction, and “embedded production” as an exclusive
privilege of the elite.18
Were those “peasant-mode societies,” such as Chris Wickham has postulated
for contemporary (western) Europe?19 To be sure, there is no reason to doubt
that in the Lower Danube region, for example, individual households were the
basic production units. Markers of private or family property, such as found
in Rákoczifalva and Kölked, suggest that the same is true for the Carpathian
Basin. Similarly, the intrasite analysis of several settlement sites in the Lower
Danube region shows that “surplus” was indeed given away and/or collectively
consumed in communal celebrations. While “pooling” as a strategy for social
and political differentiation in communities of 6th- and 7th-century settle-
ments excavated in Romania, potlatch-like disposal of valuables (in the form
of hoards of bronze and silver) in the western parts of the forest-steppe belt
is the material culture correlate of desperate attempts to compensate for the
weakening position of local elites. In that respect, it is true that judging from
the archaeological evidence, ranking in some parts of Eastern Europe was not
structurally permanent, at least not in the western parts of the forest-steppe
belt. Elsewhere in the 6th and early 7th century, elites already gave out less
goods, and instead expected to receive more, supposedly in exchange for “less
18 The versatility implied by the variety of tools deposited in graves (tools of jewelers, but
also smiths and carpenters) may point to the same conclusion. In an environment of
“embedded production,” the craftsman appears as a “jack-of-all-trades,” for the emphasis
is on his skills and thorough command of advanced techniques, and not on the relative
demand of his products.
19 Wickham (2006), 536–41. As Ensor (2017), 236 put it, what anthropologists call “peas-
antries” are basically Marx’s “Germanic mode of production,” typified by “nuclear or
extended families that own small agricultural landholdings as means of subsistence.”
26 Stahl (1958–1965), vol. 1, 19–20; Comșa (1967), 441. As Guga (2015), 306 points out, Stahl
noted that “tributary” referred to the mode of exploitation, not to production properly
speaking. As a consequence, he insisted upon the idea that the elite extracting the tribute
from local village communities was nomadic, because he could thus explain why that
elite had no interest to intervene in the organization of production.
27 Similarly, while the qagan of the Avars asked the Sclavenes in what is now southern
Romania to pay him tribute, nothing is known about them obeying his orders.
28 Haldon (1993), 53.
29 Wickham (2006), 827.
30 The only area in which such changes are not visible is the northwestern part of the forest
belt, where long barrows have been interpreted as family burials and strongholds as com-
munal centers. There is no evidence of social differentiation in that region, and elites, if
they existed at all, are archaeologically invisible.
Sources
Agathias, Histories
Edition: Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. Keydell, Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 2 (Berlin, 1967).
Transl.: Agathias, The Histories, transl. J.D. Frendo, Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 2A (Berlin, 1975).
Cassiodorus, Variae
Edition: Varie, Volume V, Libri XI–XII, ed. A. Giardina, G.A. Cecconi, and I. Tantillo
(Rome, 2015).
Transl.: The Letters of Cassiodorus, Being a Condensed Translation of the Variae
Epistolae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, transl. Th. Hodgkin
(London, 1886).
Codex Iustinianus
Edition: Corpus Iuris Civilis 2. Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krüger (Berlin, 1892).
Codex Suprasliensis
Edition: Suprasl’skaia rukopis, ed. S.N. Severianov, vol. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1904).
Comes Marcellinus, Chronicle
Edition: “Marcellini V.C. comitis Chronicon,” ed. Th. Mommsen, Chronica Minora
Saec. IV, V, VI, VII, vol. 2, MGH AA 11 (Berlin, 1894), 37–108.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus
Bilingual: De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and transl. R.J. H. Jenkins,
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 1 (Washington, 1967).
Fredegar, Chronicle
Edition: “Chronicarum Fredegari libri IV cum continuationibus,” ed. B. Krusch,
Fredegarii et aliorum chronica. Vitae sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hannover,
1888), 18–193.
John Lydus
Edition: Ioannes Lydus, On Powers, or The Magistracies of the State, ed and
transl. A.C. Bandy, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society149
(Philadelphia, 1982).
John Malalas
Edition: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. H. Thurn, Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 35 (Berlin/New York, 2000).
Transl.: The Chronicle of John Malalas, transl. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott
Byzantina Australiensia 4 (Leiden/Boston, 2017).
John of Ephesus
Bilingual: Iohannis Ephesini Historiae ecclesiastica pars tertia, ed and transl.
E.W. Brooks (Paris, 1935–1936).
Jordanes, Getica
Edition: “De origine actibusque Getarum,” ed. Th. Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et
Getica, MGH AA 5.1 (Berlin, 1882).
Transl.: The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Version, transl. C.C. Mierow
(Princeton, 1915).
Menander the Guardsman
Bilingual: The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. and transl. R.C. Blockley,
ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 17 (Liverpool,
1985).
Menologion
Edition: Menologii nonymi Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt. Fasciculos 2 sump-
tibus Caesareae Academiae Scientiarum e codice Mosquensi 376 Vlad., ed.
V.V. Latyshev (Petrograd, 1911–1912).
Miracles of St. Demetrius
Bilingual: Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration
des Slaves dans les Balkans, ed. and transl. P. Lemerle (Paris, 1979).
Narrationes
Bilingual: “Narrationes de exilio sancti papae Martini,” ed. and transl. B. Neil,
Seventh-Century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius
Bibliothecarius, Studia Antiqua Australiensia 2 (Turnhout, 2006), 166–233.
Novellae
Edition: Corpus Iuris Civilis 3. Novellae, ed. R. Schöll and G. Kroll (Berlin, 1895).
Paul the Deacon
Edition: “Pauli Historia Langobardorum,” ed. G. Waitz, Scriptores rerum
Langobardicorum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX, MGH SS rer. Lang. 1 (Hannover,
1878), 45–187.
Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings
Bilingual: Procopius in Seven Volumes, ed. J. Haury and transl. H.B. Dewing, vol. 7,
Loeb Classical Library 343 (Cambridge, Mass., 1940).
Procopius of Caesarea, Wars
Bilingual: Procopius in Seven Volumes, ed. J. Haury and transl. H.B. Dewing, vol. 1–5,
Loeb Classical Library 48, 81, 107, 173, and 217 (Cambridge, Mass., 1914–1928).
Transl.: The Wars of Justinian, transl. H.B. Dewing and A. Kaldellis (Indianaopolis/
Cambridge, 2014).
Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor
Bilingual: The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. Church and War in Late Antiquity,
ed. and transl. G. Greatrex (Liverpool, 2011).
Secondary Literature
Akrivopoulou, Sophia, “He anaskaphe sten odo Basileos Herakleiou 45 ste Thessalonike,”
in AEMT24 (2010), 255–62.
Aksenov, Viktor S., “Kompleksy predsaltovskogo i rannesaltovskogo vremeni s territorii
Kharkovskoi obl.,” SLP (2012), 32–50.
Aksenov, Viktor S. and L.I. Babenko, “Pogrebenie VI–VII vekov n.e. u sela Mokhnach,”
RA, no. 3 (1998), 111–21.
Aladzhov, Andrei, “The final stage in the development of the early Byzantine towns
on the Lower Danube,” in Der Donaulimes in der Spätantike und im Frühmittelalter,
eds. A. Schwarcz, P. Soustal, and A. Cholakova, Miscellanea Bulgarica 22 (Vienna,
2016), 259–78.
Aladzhov, Dimcho, “Rezultati ot arkheologicheskite razkopki na Konstanciia,” in
“Marica-iztok”. Arkheologicheski prouchvaniia, eds. I. Panaiotov et al., vol. 3 (Radnevo,
1995), 181–226.
Alapy, Gyula, “Lovasnomád sírok a Vágduna alsócsallóközi jobbpartján,” Nemzeti
Kultúra 1 (1933), 36–43.
Albrecht, Stefan, Quellen zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Krim, Monographien des
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 101 (Mainz, 2012).
Albrecht, Stefan, “Cherson als Zentralort auf der südwestlichen Krim (6.–10.
Jahrhundert),” in GrenzÜbergänge. Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch
als Kategorien der historisch-archäologischen Forschung an der mittleren Donau.
Akten des 27. internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschicht-
lichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Ruma, 4.–7.11.2015, eds. I. Bugarski,
O. Heinrich-Tamáska, V. Ivanišević and D. Syrbe, Forschungen zu Spätantike und
Mittelalter 4 (Remshalden, 2016), 355–84.
Alekseenko, Nikolai A., “Klad rannevizantiiskikh monet iz okrestnostei Sevastopolia,”
KS 12 (2003a), 339–54.
Alekseenko, Nikolai A., “Les relations entre Cherson et l’empire, d’après le témoignage
des sceaux des archives de Cherson,” SBS 13 (2003b), 75–83.
Alekseenko, Nikolai A., “Chinovniki Balkano-maloaziiskogo regiona na molivdovulakh
Khersonskogo arkhiva,” in Numizmatichni i sfragistichni prinosi kăm istoriiata na
zapadnoto Chernomorie. Mezhdunarodna konferenciia, Varna, 12–15 septemvri 2001 g.,
eds. V. Iotov and I. Lazarenko, Acta Musei Varnensis 2 (Varna, 2004), 265–75.
Alekseenko, Nikolai A., “Denezhnoe obrashchenie okrugi vizantiiskogo Khersona v
VII v.,” MAIET 11 (2005), 437–51.
Alekseenko, Nikolai A. “Torgovyi i voennyi port vizantiiskogo Khersona po dannym
pechatei predstavitelei morskogo vedomstva imperii,” SS 3 (2008), 8–15.
Alfen, Peter G. van, “New light on the 7th-c. Yassi Ada shipwreck: capacities and stan-
dard sizes of LRA1 amphoras,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996), 189–213.
Anghelinu, Mircea, “Failed revolution: Marxism and the Romanian prehistoric archae-
ology between 1945 and 1989,” AB 11, no. 1 (2007), 1–36.
Anke, Bodo, László Révész, and Tivadar Vida. Reitervölker im Frühmittelalter: Hunnen,
Awaren, Ungarn (Stuttgart, 2008).
Antonaras, Anastasios, “Glass working activities in late Roman-early Christian
Thessaloniki. Local workshops and vessels,” in Glass in Byzantium. Production,
Usage, Analyses. International Workshop Organized by the Byzantine Archaeology
Mainz, 17–18 January 2008, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, eds.
J. Drauschke and D. Keller, RGZM Tagungen 8 (Regensburg, 2010), 93–105.
Antonaras, Anastasios, “An early Christian glass workshop at 45, Vasileos Irakleiou
Street in the centre of Thessaloniki,” in Neighbours and Successors of Rome.
Traditions of Glass Production and Use in Europe and the Middle East in the Later
1st Millennium AD, eds. D. Keller, J. Price, and C.M. Jackson (Oxford, 2014), 95–113.
Antonaras, Anastasios, “Palaiochristianikoi yalolithoi megalou megethous apo te
boreia Ellada,” AEMT 28 (2014), 397–404.
Antonaras, Anastasios, Arts, Crafts, and Trades in Ancient and Byzantine Thessaloniki.
Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence, Byzanz zwischen Orient und
Okzident 2 (Mainz, 2016).
Antonaras, Anastasios, “Artisanal production in Byzantine Thessaloniki (4th–15th cen-
tury),” in Hinter den Mauern und auf dem offenen Land. Leben im Byzantinischen
Reich, eds. F. Daim and J. Drauschke, Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 3
(Heidelberg, 2017a), 113–40.
Antonaras, Anastasios, Glassware and Glassworking in Thessaloniki, 1st century BC–
6th century AD, Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 27 (Oxford, 2017b).
Antonova, I.A., “Oboronitel’nye sooruzheniia Khersoneskogo porta v srednevekovogo
epokhu,” ADSV 7 (1971), 102–18.
Arkhipov, G.A., “Arkheologicheskie svidetel’stva o remesle drevnikh mariicev,” in Iz
istorii khoziaistva naseleniia Mariiskogo kraia, eds. G.A. Arkhipov and G.A. Sepeev,
Arkheologiia i etnografiia Mariiskogo kraia 4 (Ioshkar-Ola, 1979), 43–50.
Artamonov, Mikhail I. Srednevekovye poseleniia na nizhnem Donu (po materi-
alam Severo-Kavkazskoi ekspedicii), Izvestiia Gosudarstvennoi Akademii istorii
material’noi kul’tury im. N. Ia. Marra 131 (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe social’no-
ekonomicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1935).
Arthur, Paul, Naples, from Roman Town to City-State. An Archaeological Perspective,
Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome, 12 (London, 2002).
Arthur, Paul, “Local pottery in Naples and northern Campania in the sixth and sev-
enth centuries,” in Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di
John W. Hayes, Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995, ed. L. Saguì, Biblioteca di archeologia medi-
eval 14 (Florence, 1998), 491–510.
Arthur, Paul and Helen Patterson, “Local pottery in southern Puglia in the sixth and
seventh centuries,” in Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo. Atti del Convegno in onore di
John W. Hayes, Roma, 11–13 maggio 1995, ed. L. Saguì, Biblioteca di archeologia medi-
eval 14 (Florence, 1998), 511–30.
Asdracha, Catherine, “Inscriptions chrétiennes et protobyzantines de la Thrace orien-
tale et de l’île d’Imbros (IIIe–VIIe siècles). Présentation et commentaire historique,”
AD 53 (1998), 455–521.
Ashby, Steven P., “‘With staff in hand, and dog at heel?’ What did it mean to be an ‘itin-
erant’ artisan?” in Everyday Products in the Middle Ages. Crafts, Consumption and the
Individual in Northern Europe c. AD 800–1600, eds. G. Hansen, S.P. Ashby and I. Baug
(Oxford/Philadelphia, 2015), 11–27.
Ashikhmina, L.I., “Issledovaniia v basseine Vychegdy,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia
1984 goda, ed. V.P. Shilov (Moscow, 1986), 3.
Ashikhmina, L.I., “Issledovaniia Borganăel’skogo kompleksa na Nivshere,” in
Arkheologicheskii otkrytiia 1985 goda, ed. V.P. Shilov (Moscow, 1987), 163.
Ashikhmina, L.I., “Zhertvennoe mesto Borganăel’ v basseine srednei Nivshery,” in
Polevoi simpozium “Sviatilishcha i zhertvennoe mesat finno-ugorskogo naseleniia
Evrazii”, ed. A.F. Mel’nichuk (Perm, 1996), 5–6.
Ashikhmina, L.I., A.V. Volokitin, K.S. Korolev, Eleonora A. Savel’eva and V.S. Stokolos,
“Issledovaniia v Komi ASSR,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1986 goda, ed. V.P. Shilov
(Moscow, 1988), 6–10.
As’keev, Igor’ V., Diliara N. Galimova, and Oleg v. As’keev, “Arkheozoologicheskie issle-
dovaniia Tetiushskogo II gorodishcha (raskopki 2009 i 2010 gg.),” in Issledovaniia po
srednevekovoi arkheologii Evrazii, ed. K.A. Rudenko (Kazan’, 2012), 8–22.
As’keev, Igor’ V., Diliara N. Galimova and Oleg V. As’keev, “Pticy srednego Povolzh’ia
v V–XVIII vv. n. e. (po materialam arkheologicheskikh raskopok),” PV, no. 3 (2013),
116–44.
Atavin, Andrei G., “Pogrebeniia VII-nachalo VIII vv. iz Vostochnogo Priazov’ia,” in
Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e., eds. A.F. Kochkina,
L.V. Kuznecova and D.A. Stashenkov (Samara, 1996), 208–64.
Atgāzis, Māris, “Raskopki poseleniia Iaunlive,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1975 goda,
ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1976), 446.
Atgāzis, Māris, “Arheoloģisko pieminekļu apzināšana Dobeles rajonā un izrakumi
Anšķinu senkapos 1977 gadā,” ZAS (1977), 12–17.
Atgāzis, Māris, “Raskopki mogil’nika Balias-Shkerstaini i Aluksnenskogo zamka,” in
Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1979 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1980), 384–85.
Athané, François, Pour une histoire naturelle du don (Paris, 2011).
Bakó, Géza, “Despre organizarea obștilor sătești ale epocii feudale timpurii în sud-estul
României,” SCIVA 26, no. 3 (1975), 371–80.
Balabanov, Todor, “Otnovo za gotite i episkopskiia centăr ot IV–V v. do s. Khan Krum,
Shumensko,” in Velikotărnovskiiat universitet “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodii” i bălgarskata
arkheologiia, ed. B. Borisov, vol. 1 (Veliko Tărnovo, 2010), 349–62.
Bálint, Csanád, Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau
vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert (Vienna/Cologne, 1989).
Bálint, Csanád, “Methodologische Probleme der archäologischen Untersuchung der
frühmittelalterlichen Gesellschaftsstrukturen bei den Steppenvölkern,” in The
Prehistory of Asia and Oceania. The Evolution of Nomadic Herding Civilisations in
the Northern European Steppes: the Tools of Archaeology and History Compared,
eds. M. Tosi and G.E. Afanas’ev, The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of
Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences 16 (Forli, 1996), 115–20.
Bálint, Csanád, “Der Reichtum der Awaren. ‘Fürstengräber‘, Prunkgräber,
Schatzfunde,” in Herrschaft, Tod, Bestattung. Zu den vor- und frühgeschichtlichen
Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-historische Quelle. Internationale Fachkonferenz
Kiel, 16.–19. Oktober 2003, eds. C. von Carnap-Bornheim, D. Krausse, and A. Wesse,
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 139 (Bonn, 2006), 147–59.
Bálint, Csanád, “Avar goldsmith work from the perspective of cultural history,” in
“Intelligible Beauty”. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, eds. C. Entwistle and
N. Adams (London, 2010), 146–60.
Bálint, Marianna, “Az avar kor köbetétes övei,” in A népvándorláskor kutatóinak kilen-
cedik konferenciája. Eger, 1998, szeptember 18–20, ed. T. Petercsák vol. 2 (Eger, 2000),
125–34.
Balla, Márta, “Provenance studies of Avar ceramics by neutron activation analysis,”
WMME 15 (1990), 131–33.
Balogh, Csilla, “Avar kori juhbőrös temetkezés Szabadszállás, B. gyakorlótéren,”
Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon (2003), 75–83.
Balogh, Csilla, “Avar kori ló, lovas és lószerszámos temetkezések a Duna—Tisza
közén,” in “In terra quondam Avarorum …” Ünnepi tanulmányok H. Tóth Elvira 80.
Születésnapjára, eds. A. Somogyvári and Gy. Székely, Archaeologia Cumanica 2
(Kecskemét, 2009), 9–42.
Balogh, Csilla, “Csontlemezes skatulyák és dobozkák a Kárpát-medence avar kori any-
agbán,” DENMER 19 (2014), 131–58.
Balogh, Csilla, “A homokrévi 8. sír faragott csontlemezei. Új adatok az avar kori tegezek
típusaihoz,” in … in nostra lingua Hringe nominant. Tanulmányok Szenpéteri József
60. születésnapja tiszteletére, eds. Cs. Balogh, Zs. Petkes, B. Sudár and Zs. Zsidai
(Budapest/Kecskemét, 2015), 39–72.
Balogh, Csilla, “Karpat havzası’nda bir avar yay ustasının mezar kalıntalırı eski türklerde
bileşik,” Art Sanat 6 (2016), 109–20.
Balogh, Csilla, “Orta Tisa bölgesi’nde doğu avrupa bozkır kökenli göçebe bir topluluğa
ait mezarlık ‘Makó, Mikócsa-Halom, Macaristan’,” Art Sanat 7 (2017), 53–70.
Balogh, Csilla, “They Vanished Away like the Avars …” Avar Period Cemetery in Zamárdi-
Rétiföldek (Budapest, 2018).
Balogh, Csilla, “Új szempont a kora avar hatalmi központ továbbélésének kérdéséhez.
Az avar fegyveres réteg temetkezései a Duna-Tisza közén,” in Hatalmi központok az
avar kaganátusban, eds. Cs. Balogh, J. Szentpéteri and E. Wicker (Kecskemét, 2019),
115–38.
Balogh, Csilla and Erika Wicker, “Avar nemzetségfő sírja Petőfiszállás határából,” in
Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. T. Vida
(Budapest, 2012), 551–82.
Baltag, Gheorghe, “Date pentru un studiu arheologic al zonei municipiului Sighișoara,”
Marisia 9 (1979), 75–106.
Balvanović, Roman, Milica Marić Stojanović, and Žiga Šmit, “Exploring the unknown
Balkans: early Byzantine glass from Jelica Mt. in Serbia and its contemporary neigh-
bors,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 317, no. 2 (2018), 1175–89.
Banaji, Jairus, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity. Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic
Dominance, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2007).
Banaji, Jairus, “Aristocracies, peasantries and the Framing of the Early Middle Ages,”
Journal of Agrarian Change 9, no. 1 (2009), 59–91.
Banaji, Jairus, Exploring the Economy of Late Antiquity. Selected Essays (Cambridge,
2015).
Banner, János, “Asatások a hódmezővásárhelyi határ batidai és gorzsai részében,”
Dolgozatok a Ferenc József-Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből 9–10
(1933–1934), 251–71.
Baran, Iaroslav V., “Planirovochnaia struktura zhilykh kompleksov slavianskogo
poseleniia Rashkov I na Srednem Dnestre i ee social’noe znachenie,” in Trudy V
Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa arkheologov-slavistov, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed.
P.P. Tolochko, vol. 2 (Kiev, 1988), 15–20.
Baran, Iaroslav V., “Slov’ians’ka obshchyna (za materialamy poselennia Rashkiv I),” in
Problemy pokhodzhennia ta istorychnogo rozvytku slov’ian. Zbirnyk naukovykh statey
prysviachenyy 100-richchiu z dnia narodzhennia Viktora Platonovycha Petrova, eds.
V.D. Baran, R.V. Terpylovs’kyi, and N.S. Abashina (Kiev, 1997), 176–83.
Baran, Iaroslav V. and A.A. Kozlovs’kyi, “Die Nomaden der südrussischen Steppen
im 1. und beginnenden 2. Jahrtausend n. Chr.,” in Gold der Steppe. Archäologie der
Ukraine, eds. R. Rolle, M. Müller-Wille and K. Schietzel (Neumünster, 1991), 233–38.
Baran, Volodymyr D., Ranni slov’iani mia Dnestrom i Pripiat’iu (Kiev, 1972).
Baran, Volodymyr D., “Die frühslawische Siedlung von Raškov, Ukraine,” Beiträge zur
allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 8 (1986), 73–175.
Baran, Volodymyr D., Prazhskaia kul’tura Podnestrov’ia po materialam poselenii u s.
Rashkov (Kiev, 1988).
Baran, Volodymyr D., Slov’ians’ke poselennia seredyny I tysiacholittia nashoi ery bilia
sela Teremtsi na Dnistri (Kiev, 2008).
Baran, Volodymyr D. and S.P. Pachkova, “Poselenie poblyzu s. Gorosheve na sredn’omu
Dnistri,” Arkheolohiia 18 (1975), 87–95.
Baranowski, Tadeusz, “Pochówki koni z Tumian w woj. Olsztyńskim,” APol 41 (1996),
65–130.
Baranowski, Tadeusz, “Fundkatalog (Metall-, Knochen- und Geweihfunde), mit
Kommentar,” in Völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlung von Tumiany (Daumen) im
Kreise Allerstein, ed. T. Baranowski, Vetera et nova 7 (Warsaw, 2017), 445–66.
Baranowski, Tadeusz, and Robert Żukowski, “Lageplan und Bebauung der Tumiany-
Siedlung,” in Völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlung von Tumiany (Daumen) im Kreise
Allerstein, ed. T. Baranowski, Vetera et nova 7 (Warsaw, 2017), pp. 329–40.
Barbiera, Irene, “Sixth-century cemeteries in Hungary and Italy: a comparative
approach,” in Die Langobarden. Herrschaft und Identität, eds. W. Pohl and P. Erhard,
Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 (Vienna, 2005), 301–20.
Bárdos, Edit, “La necropoli avara di Zamárdi,” in L’oro degli Avari. Popolo delle steppe in
Europa, eds. E.A. Arslan and M. Buora (Milan, 2000), 76–141.
Bárdos, Edit and Éva Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Zamárdi-Rétiföldek,
Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 9 (Budapest, 2009).
Barford, Paul M., Zbigniew Kobyliński, and Dariusz Krasnodębski, “Between the Slavs,
Balts and Germans: ethnic problems in the archaeology and history of Podlasie,”
ArchPol 29 (1991), 123–60.
Bárkoczi, László, “A 6th century cemetery from Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” AAASH 20
(1968), 275–311.
Barnea, Alexandru, “Prosopographia Scythiae Minoris nach den epigraphischen und
sphragistischen Quellen von 284 bis zum 7. Jh.,” in Siegel und Siegler. Akten des 8.
internationalen Symposions für byzantinische Sigillographie, ed. C. Ludwig, Berliner
byzantinische Studien 7 (Frankfurt a.M./Berlin/Bern, 2005), 1–29.
Barnea, Ion, “Sceau de Constantin IV empereur de Byzance, trouvé à Durostorum,”
Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 20 (1981), 625–28.
Baron, Henriette, Anna Reuter, and Nemanja Marković, “Rethinking ruralization in
terms of resilience: subsistence strategies in sixth-century Caričin Grad in the light
of plant and animal bone finds,” Quaternary International 499 (2019), 112–28.
Bartosiewicz, László, “Animal remains from the Avar period cemetery of Budakalász-
Dunapart,” AAASH 47 (1995), 241–55.
Begović, Vlasta and Ivančica Schrunk, “Preobrazbe rimskih vila na istočnom Jadranu u
kasnoj antici i ranom srednjem vijeku,” Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 18,
no. 1 (2001), 157–72.
Behr, Charlotte, “The power and function of images in northern Europe during the
migration period,” Cultural and Social History 7, no. 4 (2010), 453–66.
Bejan, Adrian, “Un atelier metalurgic de la Drobeta-Turnu Severin,” AMN 13 (1976),
257–68.
Bekić, Luka, “Keramika praškog tipa u Hrvatskoj,” in Dani Sjepana Gunjače 2. Zbornik
radova sa znanstvenog skupa “Dani Stjepana Gunjače 2”, Hrvatska srednjovjekovna
povijesno-arheološka baština, Međunarodne teme, Split, 18.–21. listopada 2011, ed.
T. Šeparović (Split, 2012), 1–15.
Bekić, Luka, “New 14C dates from Slavic settlements in northwestern Croatia,” in The
Early Slavic Settlement in Central Europe in the Light of New Dating Evidence, eds.
M. Dulinicz and S. Moździoch, Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies 3 (Wrocław,
2013), 237–50.
Bekić, Luka, Rani srednji vijek između Panonije i Jadrana. Ranoslavenski keramički i
ostali arheološki nalazi od 6. do 8. stoljeća, Monografije i katalozi 27 (Pula, 2016).
Belavin, Andrei M. “‘Serebro Zakamskoe’ v istorii i arkheologii Permskogo Predural’ia,”
Vestnik Permskogo Nauchnogo Centra 2 (2013), 50–61.
Beliaev, O.S. and I.O. Molodchikova, “Pokhovannia kochivnykiv na r. Orel’,” Arkheolohiia
28 (1978), 84–92.
Beliaev, S.A., “Baziliki Khersonesa (itogi, problemy i zadachi iz izucheniia),” VV 50
(1989), 171–81.
Belocerkovskaia, I.V., “Pogrebeniia s darami iz mogil’nika Korablino (po materialam
raskopok 1986–1991 gg.),” in Arkheologicheskii sbornik. Pogrebal’nyi obriad, ed.
I.V. Belocerkovskaia (Moscow, 1997), 20–28.
Belocerkovskaia, I.V., “Raskopki mogil’nika Zarech’e v Riazanskoi oblasti,” in Arkheolo-
gicheskie otkrytiia 1999 goda, eds. V.V. Sedov and N.V. Lopatin (Moscow, 2001), 61–62.
Belošević, Janko, “Prvi arheološki tragovi velike seobe naroda na području sjeverne
Dalmacije,” Diadora 3 (1965), 129–43.
Belošević, Janko, “Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola u selu Kašić kraj Zadra,” Diadora 4
(1968), 221–46.
Bemmann, Jan, Katharina Schneider, Aleksandr G. Gercen and Sergei Chernysh. Die
frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Adym Čokrak, Južnyj I und Južnyj II am Fuße
des Mangup, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 108
(Mainz, 2013).
Bencze, Sándor and András Morgós, “A Csepel-hárosi koraavar bronz lószerámdísz for-
rasztási módjának vizsgálata röntgenfluoreszcens elemzéssel,” MM 7 (1980), 48–53.
Bernc, V.A. and Igor Iu. Pastushenko, “Raboty v Ius’venskom raione Komi-Permiackogo
nacional’nogo okruga,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 2004 g., eds. S.V. Kuz’minykh,
V.N. Lopatin and S.Z. Chernov (Moscow, 2005), 333–36.
Bernc, V.A. and Igor Iu. Pastushenko, “Raboty v Ius’venskom raione Komi-Permiackogo
AO,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 2005 goda, ed. N.V. Lopatin (Moscow, 2007), 355.
Bertašius, Mindaugas, “Zentrum und Peripherie bei den Westbalten. Zu den Beziehun-
gen zwischen dem Samland und der Region um Kaunas vom 5. bis 8. Jh. n.Chr.,”
ArchB 4 (2000), 135–48.
Bertašius, Mindaugas, Marvelė. Ein Gräberfeld Mittellitauens (Kaunas, 2005).
Bertašius, Mindaugas, “Central Lithuanian cemeteries,” in A Hundred Years of Archaeo-
logical Discoveries in Lithuania, ed. G. Zabiela, Z. Baubonis and E. Marcinkevičiutė
(Vilnius, 2016), 226–35.
Beshevliev, Veselin, Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien,
Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten 30 (Berlin, 1964).
Beshevliev, Veselin, “Zu Theophanis Chronographia 359, 5–17,” BF 2 (1967), 50–58.
Biborski, Marcin, Piotr Pudło, Janusz Stępiński, and Gregorz Żabiński, “A ‘barbarian’
weapon? A sax find from the vicinity of Malbork in Prussia,” in Barbarians at the
Gates. A Monograph Based on Material from the VI International Study Session on the
History of the Peoples of the Baltic Sea, Wolin, 5–7 August 2011, ed. M. Franz (Toruń,
2013), 27–53.
Bidzillia, Vasyl’ I., “Zalizoplavyl’ni gorny seredyny I tysyacholittia n.e. na pivdennomu
Buzi,” Arkheolohiia 15 (1963), 123–44.
Bieńkowski, Piotr, “O skarbie srebrnym z Chomiakowa na Wolyniu,” Światowit 13 (1929),
149–81.
Biermann, Felix, “Über das ‘dunkle Jahrhundert’ in der späten Völkerwanderungs- und
frühen Slawenzeit im nordostdeutschen Raum,” in Die frühen Slawen—von der
Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte
des 8. deutschen Archäologiekongresses in Berlin, 06.10.Oktober 2014. 1. Beiträge zum
Schwerpunktthema, eds. F. Biermann, T. Kersting and A. Klammt, Beiträge zur
Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 81.2 (Langenweissbach, 2016), 9–26.
Biernacki, Andrzej B., Wczesnobyzantyjskie elementy i detale architektoniczne Chersonezu
Taurydzkiego (Architektura wczesnobyzantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu
Taurydzkiego), Architektura wczesnobyzantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu
Tauridzkiego 2 (Poznań, 2009).
Biernacki, Andrzej B. and Elena Iu. Klenina, “Sakral’naia arkhitektura vizantiiskogo
Khersona (po rezul’tatam raskopok i aerosnimkov),” KS 15 (2006), 37–58.
Biernacki, Andrzej B. and Elena Iu. Klenina, “Early Byzantine coarse ware from
Novae: production and chronology,” in LRCW 4 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking
Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry.
Bollók, Ádám, “Byzantium on the Theiss. Of Byzantine diplomacy, the emperor’s image
and the Avars,” in Many Romes. Studies in Honor of Hans Belting, eds. I. Foletti and
H.L. Kessler (Turnhout, 2015), 166–81.
Bolta, Lojze, “Rifnik—provinzialrömische Siedlung und Gräberfeld,” in Problemi seobe
naroda u Karpatskoj kotlini. Saopštenja sa naučkog skupa 13.–16. decembre 1976, eds.
D. Dimitrijević, J. Kovačević, and Z. Vinski (Belgrade, 1978), 49–56.
Bolta, Lojze, Rifnik pri Šentjurju. Poznoantična naselbina in grobišče, Katalogi in mono-
grafije 19 (Ljubljana, 1981).
Boltin-Tome, Elica, “Predloka, antična in zgodnjesrednjeveška lokaliteta,” Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 11 (1986), 189–207.
Bóna, István, “Die Langobarden in Ungarn. Die Gräberfelder von Várpalota und
Bezenye,” AAASH 7 (1956), 183–242.
Bóna, István, “A szentendrei langobard temető régészeti elemzése az embertani és a
kémiai vizsggálatok fényében,” Régészeti Dolgozatok 9 (1968), 33–40.
Bóna, István, “Langobarden in Ungarn (Aus den Ergebnissen von 12 Forschungsjahren),”
AV 21–22 (1970–1971), 45–74.
Bóna, István, “L’agglomération avare de Dunaujváros: les différentes périodes,” Mittei-
lungen des archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
1 (1972), 25–33.
Bóna, István, VII. századi avar települések és Arpád-kori magyar falu Dunaújvárosban
(Budapest, 1973).
Bóna, István, The Dawn of the Dark Ages. The Gepids and the Lombards in the Carpathian
Basin (Budapest, 1976).
Bóna, István, “A szegvár-sápoldali lovassír. Adatok a korai avar temetkezési szokások-
hoz,” AE 106 (1979), 3–32.
Bóna, István, “Byzantium and the Avars: the archaeology of the first 70 years of the
Avar era,” in From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology, eds.
D. Austin and L. Alcock (London, 1990), 113–18.
Bóna, István, “Das langobardenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Hegykő, Komitat Győr-Sopron,”
in Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology,
and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, ed. P. Anreiter, Archaeolingua 8
(Budapest, 1998), 109–20.
Bóna, István, “Befejező ásatás a bezenyei langobard temetőben,” Arrabona 39 (2001),
189–205.
Bóna, István, Les Huns. Le grand empire barbare d’Europe (IVe–V e siècles) (Paris, 2002).
Bóna, István and Jolán B. Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn,
Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 6 (Budapest, 2009).
Bóna, István and Margit Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I., Monumenta
Germanorum archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest, 2002).
Bowden, William, “Urban change and the Triconch Palace site in the 5th to 7th centu-
ries,” in Butrint 3. Excavations at the Triconch Palace, eds. W. Bowden and R. Hodges,
Butrint Archaeological Monographs 3 (Oxford/Oakville, 2011), 303–18.
Bowden, William, “Social anxiety and the reemergence of furnished burial in post-
Roman Albania,” in Death and Changing Rituals. Function and Meaning in Ancient
Funerary Practices, eds. J.R. Brandt, M. Prusac and H. Roland (Oxford/Philadelphia,
2014), 343–58.
Bowden, William, Karen Francis, Oliver Gilkes and Kosta Lako, “The 5th- to mid 7th-
century occupation of the triconch area,” in Butrint 3. Excavations at the Triconch
Palace, eds. W. Bowden and R. Hodges, Butrint Archaeological Monographs 3
(Oxford/Oakville, 2011), 56–117.
Bowden, William, Zoe Knapp, Adrienne Powell and James Westoby, “The faunal
remains,” in Butrint 5: The Life and Death at a Mediterranean Port, ed. W. Bowden,
Butrint Archaeological Monograph Series 5 (Oxford, 2020), 25–41.
Bowes, Kim, “The Durrës amphitheatre: archaeology and memory,” in New Directions
in Albanian Archaeology. Studies Presented to Muzafer Korkuti, eds. L. Bejko and
R. Hodges (Tirana, 2006), 242–56.
Bozhkova, A., Khristo Preshlenov, Metodi Daskalov, and P. Kiiashkina. “Spasitelni
arkheologicheski razkopki na ul. Kraiberezhna v AAR Starinen Nesebăr prez 2006,”
AOR (2006), 247–50.
Brachmann, Hansjürgen., “Slawen an der östlichen Peripherie des fränkischen Reiches.
Beobachtungen zum sozialen und ethnischen Ausgleich im Feudalisierungsprozess,”
in Zbornik posveten na Boshko Babich. Mélange Boško Babić 1924–1984, ed.
M. Apostolski (Prilep, 1986), 59–65.
Brandes, Wolfram, Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, Berliner byzan-
tinische Arbeiten 56 (Berlin, 1989).
Brather, Sebastian, Archäologie der westlichen Slawen. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und
Gesellschaft im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, Ergänzungsbände
zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 61 (Berlin/New York, 2001).
Brather, Sebastian, “Memoria und Repräsentation. Frühmittelalterliche Bestattungen
zwischen Erinnerung und Erwartung,” in Historia archaeologica. Festschrift
für Heiko Steuer zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. S. Brather, D. Geuenich, and C. Huth,
Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 70 (Berlin/
New York, 2009), 247–84.
Brather, Sebastian, “The Western Slavs of the seventh to the eleventh century—an
archaeological perspective.,” History Compass 9, no. 6 (2011), 454–73.
Braychevs’ka, A.T., “Kuznica na Pastyrskom gorodishche,” KSIAU 9 (1959), 99–103.
Braychevs’kyi, Mykhailo Iu., “Pastyrs’kyi skarb 1949 r.,” Arkheolohiia, no. 7 (1952), 161–73.
Braychevs’kyi, Mykhailo Iu., “Periodyzatsiia istorychnogo rozvytku skhidnoi Evropy v
I tys. n. e.,” Arkheolohiia, no. 3 (1994), 13–18.
Brodka, Dariusz, “Die Wanderung der Hunnen, Vandalen, West- und Ostgoten—
Prokopius von Kaisareia und seine Quellen,” Millennium 10 (2013), 13–37.
Brown, Alexander, “Vegetation change in Prussia: the palynological data,” in
Environment, Colonization and the Baltic Crusader States. Terra Sacra I, ed.
A. Pluskowski, Environmental Histories of the North Atlantic World 2 (Turnhout,
2019), 293–332.
Brubaker, Leslie, and John F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era, c. 680–850
(Cambridge/New York, 2011).
Brüggemann, Karsten, Detlef Henning, Konrad Maier and Ralph Tuchtenhagen (eds.),
Das Baltikum. Geschichte einer europäischen Region. 1. Von der Vor- und Frühge-
schichte bis zum Ende des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 2018).
Brukner, Olga, “The sixth century necropolis at Vajska,” in Sirmium. Recherches
archéologiques en Syrmie, eds. N. Duval, E.L. Ochsenschlager and V. Popović, vol. 4
(Belgrade, 1982), 29–41.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle, “Specialization, exchange, and complex
societies: an introduction,” in Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, eds.
E. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle (Cambridge/New York, 1987), 1–9.
Brunšmid, Josip, “Novci gepidskog kralja Kunimunda,” in Bulićev zbornik. Naučni prilozi
posvećeni Franu Buliću prigodom LXXV. godišnjice njegova života od učenika i pri-
jatelja IV. oktobra MCMXXI, eds. M. Abramić and V. Hoffiller (Zagreb/Split, 1924),
671–73.
Bryson, Reid A. “On integrating climatic change and culture change studies,” Human
Ecology 22, no. 1 (1994), 115–28.
Brzostowicz, Michał, Bruszczewski zespół osadniczy we wczesnym średniowieczu,
Bibliotheca Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 10 (Poznań, 2002).
Bubeník, Josef, “Staroslovanské sidliště v Kadani,” AR 23 (1972), 373–86.
Budak, Neven, “One more Renaissance? Dalmatia and the revival of the European
economy,” in Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the
Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. M. Ančić, J. Shepard, and T. Vedriš (London/New York,
2017), 174–92.
Bugarski, Ivan, “The geomorphological matrix as a starting point for determining the
position of Avar-time settlements in Pannonia: the example of the Bačka region,”
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38 (2008), 437–55.
Bugarski, Ivan, Nekropole iz doba antike i ranog srednjeg veka na lokalitetu Čik, Posebna
izdanja 46 (Belgrade, 2009).
Bugarski, Ivan, “Carved antler tools from Nosa and Manđelos reassessed: a glimpse
into the Avar pictorial evidence,” in Close to the Bone. Current Studies in Bone
Technologies, ed. S. Vitezović (Belgrade, 2016), 86–97.
Bugarski, Ivan and Vujadin Ivanišević, “Sixth-century foederati from the Upper
Moesian limes: weapons in a social context,” in Vivere militare est. From Populus
Choyke, Alice M., “Report on the Avar period antler and bone artifacts from Budakalász-
Dunapart,” AAASH 47 (1995), 221–40.
Christou, Konstantinos P., Byzanz und die Langobarden. Von der Ansiedlung in
Pannonien bis zur endgültigen Anerkennung (500–680) (Athens, 1991).
Chropovský, Bohuslav, “K otázke najstaršieho slovanského osídlenia na Slovensku,”
Študijné zvesti 14 (1964), 43–56.
Chybová, Helena, Pravěké a slovanské osídlení Kroměřížska (Kroměříž, 1998)
Ciglenečki, Slavko, Tinje nad Loko pri Žusmu. Poznoantična in zgodnjesrednjeveška
naselbina, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 4 (Ljubljana, 2000).
Ciglenečki, Slavko, “The changing relations between city and countryside in late
antique Illyricum,” HAM 20, no. 1 (2014), 232–50.
Ciesielski, Mirosław, Bartłomiej Gruszka, and Anna Łuczak, “Sozioökonomische und
geografische Bedingungen der Entwicklung der frühmittelalterlichen Besiedlung
(6.–11. Jahrhundert) im Tal der mittleren Oder,” in Die frühen Slawen—von der
Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte
des 8. Deutschen Archäologiekongresses in Berlin, 06.10.Oktober 2014. 1. Beiträge zum
Schwerpunktthema, F. Biermann, Th. Kersting, and A. Klammt, Beiträge zur Ur- und
Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 81.2 (Langenweissbach, 2016), 109–36.
Ciglis, Jānis, “Some notes on the chronology of Latgallian and Selonian artefacts in the
Middle Iron Age,” AL 2 (2001), 48–64.
Čilinská, Zlata, “Zur Frage des Samo-Reiches,” in Rapports du III-e Congrès interna-
tional d’archéologie slave. Bratislava, 7–14 septembre 1975, ed. B. Chropovský, vol. 2
(Bratislava, 1980), 79–86.
Čilinská, Zlata, “Das Kunsthandwerk im 7.–8. Jahrhundert in der Südwestslowakei,” in
Zbornik posveten na Boshko Babich. Mélange Boško Babić 1924–1984, ed. M. Apostolski
(Prilep, 1986), 279–83.
Čilinská, Zlata, “Postavenie žien v avarskom kaganáte,” in K problematike osídlenia
stredodunajskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku, ed. Z. Čilinská (Nitra, 1991), pp. 9–38.
Ciołek, Renata, “Skarb złotych monet z Mrzezina (Gm. Puck) a zespół z Brzezina
Gdańskiego,” WN 42 (1998), 59–67.
Ciołek, Renata, “Znaleziska monet rzymskich z terenów Pomorza przechowywanie w
zbiorach Muzeum Kulturalno-Historycznego w Stralsundzie,” WN 43 (1999), 169–86.
Ciołek, Renata, “Solidusfunde in den südlichen Ostseegebieten,” in XIII Congreso
Internacional de Numismática, Madrid, 2003. Actas, eds. C. Alfaro Asíns, C. Marcos
and P. Otero, vol. 2 (Madrid, 2005), 1095–104.
Cipot, Dašenka, “Zgodnjesrednjeveški jami iz Popave I pri Lipovcih,” in Srednji vek.
Arheološki raziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko nižino, ed. M. Guštin
(Ljubljana, 2008), 59–63.
Cipot, Dašenka, “Prva faza slovanske poselitve iz Popave I pri Lipovcih,” Zbornik
Soboškega muzeja 15 (2010), 245–59.
Cirelli, Enrico, “Phoinike fra tarda Antichità e Medioevo: considerazioni sulla base
della cultura materiale,” in Phoinike VI. Rapporto preliminare sulla campagne di
scavi e ricerche 2011–2014, eds. S. De Maria and S. Gjongecaj (Bologna, 2015), 105–14.
Cîrjan, Constantin, “Un mormînt creștin descoperit la Tomis,” Pontica 3 (1970), 383–89.
Cirkin, A.V., “Shokshinskii mogil’nik,” SA, no. 1 (1972), 155–70.
Ciupercă, Bogdan, “Teritoriul nord-dunărean în strategia economică și politică a
imperiului romano-bizantin în secolul al VI-lea p. Chr.,” AMIAP 3–4 (2007–2008),
125–40.
Ciupercă, Bogdan, “Câteva puncte de vedere privind activitățile meșteșugărești și
spațiile de ‘producție’ între Carpați și Dunăre în secolele VIII–X,” BMJT 3 (2011),
223–32.
Ciupercă, Bogdan and Andrei Măgureanu, “Unele observații asupra problemei tipare-
lor de lut din secolele V–VII descoperite în spațiul extra-carpatic,” BMJT 1 (2009),
149–57.
Ciupercă, Bogdan and Andrei Măgureanu, “Locuințe din a doua jumătate a mileniului
I p. Chr. descoperite la Târgșoru Vechi,” in Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr. Cercetări
actuale privind istoria și arheologia migrațiilor, ed. L.M. Voicu (Bucharest, 2010),
152–74.
Clark, John E., “Craft specialization as an archaeological category,” REA 16 (1995),
267–94.
Clark, John E. and William J. Parry, “Craft specialization and cultural complexity,” REA
12 (1990), 289–346.
Clewing, Konrad and Oliver Jens Schmitt (eds.), Geschichte Südosteuropas. Vom frühen
Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Regensburg, 2011).
Cnotliwy, Eugeniusz, “Grzebienie w kulturze wczesnosłowiańskiej na terenie
południowej i środkowej Polski,” in Kraje słowiańskie w wiekach średnich: profanum i
sacrum, eds. H. Kóčka-Krenz and W. Łosiński (Poznań, 1998), 366–79.
Collier, George Allan, Fields of the Tzotzil. The Ecological Bases of Tradition in Highland
Chiapas (Austin, 1975).
Comșa, Maria, “Cu privire la caracterul organizării social-economice și politice de pe
teritoriul țării noastre în epoca migrațiilor,” SCIV 18, no. 3 (1967), 431–42.
Comșa, Maria, “Contribution à la question de la pénétration des Slaves au sud du
Danube durant les VIe–VIIe siècles d’après quelques données archéologiques de
Dobroudja,” in I. Międżynarodowy kongres archeologii słowiańskej. Warszawa 14–18
IX 1965, ed. W. Hensel, vol. 3 (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow, 1970), 322–30.
Comșa, Maria, “Sur le caractère de l’organisation sociale-économique et politique sur
le territoire de la Roumanie durant la période de passage la féodalité,” in Nouvelles
études d’histoire, vol. 4 (Bucharest, 1970), 31–46.
Comșa, Maria, “Socio-economic organisation of the Dacoromanic and Slav popula-
tion on the Lower Danube during the 6th and 7th centuries,” in Relations Between
Czeczuga, Bazyli and Wiesława Kossacka, “Szczatki roślinne z osady jaćwieskiej (II–VI
w.n.e.) w miejscowości Osinki pow. Suwałki,” RoB 7 (1966), 153–62.
Czeczuga, Bazyli and Wiesława Kossacka, “Nasiona zbóż i chwastów z grodziska w
Pasymiu-Ostrowiu w powiecie szczecieńskim z VI–VIII wieku naszej ery,” Rocznik
Olsztyński 11 (1974), 235–42.
Czeczuga, Bazyli, Wiesława Kossacka, and Edward Kłyszejko, “Szczątki roślinne z
badań grodziska w Haćkach kolo Bielska Podlaskiego (VI, XI–XII w.),” RoB 13 (1976),
493–500.
Czeglédy, Károly, “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor on the nomads,” in Studia turcica, ed.
L. Ligeti, Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 17 (Budapest, 1971), 133–48.
Czopek, Sylwester, Lesław Morawiecki, and Joanna Podgórska-Czopek. “Znalezisko
monety bizantyjskiej ze stanowiska nr. 22 w Grodzisku Dolnym, pow. Leżajsk,”
SArch 53 (2001), 391–402.
Dąbrowska, Elżbieta, “Skarb ozdób brązowych z VI–VII w. na stanowisku 62A w Nowej
Hucie-Mogile,” APol 29 (1984), 351–69.
Dąbrowski, Edward, “Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym średniowieczem w woj.
Zielonogorskim,” in Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym średniowieczem w Polsce.
Materiały z konferencji Poznań 14–16 grudnia 1987 roku, ed. Z. Kurnatowska (Poznań,
1990), 165–72.
Dąbrowski, Edward, “Refleksje nad wczesnym średniowieczem w Zielonogórskiem,”
Rocznik Lubuski 24, no. 1 (1998), 83–96.
Dąbrowski, Krzysztof, “Burial of horses with richly ornamented bridles, from burial
site at Tumiany near Olsztyn, Poland,” in Actes du VIII-e Congrès international des
sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9–15 septembre 1971, ed. G. Novak,
vol. 3 (Belgrade, 1973), 354–59.
Dąbrowski, Krzysztof, “Archäologische Untersuchungen in Tumiany, Kr. Olsztyn,” ZfA
9 (1975), 265–79.
Dąbrowski, Krzysztof, “Nouvelles données concernant l’orfèvrerie sur le territoire de la
voïvodie d’Olsztyn (Pologne),” ArchPol 19 (1980), 235–41.
Dagron, Gilbert, “‘Ceux d’en face’. Les peuples étrangers dans les traités militaires byz-
antins,” T&M 10 (1987), 207–32.
Daiga, J., “Krāsaino metalu ķimiskais sastāvs Latvijā 6.–13. gs.”, Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija
4 (1962), 47–65.
Daim, Falko, “Holz-, Knochen- und Geweihverarbeitung,” in Reitervölker aus dem Osten.
Hunnen + Awaren. Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß Halbturn, 26.
April–31. Oktober 1996, eds. F. Daim, K. Kaus, and P. Tomka (Eisenstadt, 1996), 358–61.
Daim, Falko, “Vom Umgang mit toten Awaren. Bestattungsgebräuche im historischen
Kontext,” in Erinnerungskultur im Bestattungsritual. Archäologisch-historisches
Forum, eds. J. Jarnut, M. Wemhoff and A. Nusser, MittelalterStudien 3 (Munich,
2003), 41–60.
Daim, Falko, “Die Steppe und Byzanz. Kunsthandwerk und Bilderwelten im Awarenk-
haganat,” in 400–1000. Vom spätantiken Erbe zu den Anfängen der Romanik, eds.
Ch. Lübke and M. Hardt, Handbuch zur Geschichte der Kunst in Ostmitteleuropa 1
(Berlin/Munich, 2017a), 138–53.
Daim, Falko, “The gold of the Avars. Three case studies,” in Dalle steppe al Mediterraneo.
Popoli, culturi, integrazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi “Fondazioni e rit-
uali funerari delle aristocrazie germaniche nel contesto mediterraneo”, Cimitile-Santa
Maria Capua Vetere, 18–19 giugno 2015. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi
“Oriente e Occidente fra tarda antichità e medioevo popoli e culture dalle steppe al
Mediterraneo”, Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 16–17 giugno 2016, eds. C. Ebenista
and M. Rotili, Giornate sulla tarda antichità e il Medioevo 8 (Naples, 2017b), 407–22.
Daim, Falko, Mathias Mehofer, and Bendegúz Tóbiás, “Die langobardischen
Schmiedegräber aus Poysdorf und Brno. Fragen, Methoden, erste Ergebnisse,” in
Die Langobarden. Herrschaft und Identität, eds. W. Pohl and P. Erhard, Forschungen
zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 (Vienna, 2005), 201–24.
Dakanis, Bronius, “Mažai žinomi V–XII a. rytų Lietuvos pilkapiai,” Muziejai ir pamink-
lai 8 (1987), 57–68.
Damjanović, Ljiljana, Vesna Bikić, Kristina Šarić, Suzana Erić and Ivanka Holclajtner-
Antunović, “Characterization of the early Byzantine pottery from Caričin Grad
(South Serbia) in terms of composition and firing temperature,” JAS 46 (2014),
156–72.
Dancheva-Vasileva, Ani, Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek) (Sofia, 2009).
Dănilă, Nicolae, “Tipare de turnat cruci din secolele IV–VI, descoperite pe teritoriul
României,” Biserica Ortodoxă Română 101, nos. 7–8 (1983), 557–61.
Dănilă, Nicolae, “Noi contribuții la repertoriul materialelor arheologice paleocreștine
din Muntenia,” Glasul Bisericii 45, no. 2 (1986), 102–04.
Darmangeat, Christophe, “Don, échange et autres transferts: formes simples, hybrides
et composées,” L’homme 217 (2016), 21–43.
Daskalov, Metodi, “Kalăpi za metalni nakiti i kolanni ukrasi (VI–VII v.) ot Iuzhna
Bălgariia,” Arkheologiia 45, nos. 1–2 (2004), 91–5.
Daskalov, Metodi, Kolani i kolanni ukrasi ot VI–VII vek (ot dneshna Bălgariia i săsednite
zemi) (Sofia, 2012).
Daskalov, Metodi and Dimităr Il. Dimitrov, “Ein Paar anthropozoomorphe Bügelfibeln
(des sog. Dnjeprtyps) aus Südbulgarien,” AB 3, no. 3 (1999), 75–80.
Daskalov, Metodi and Dimităr Il. Dimitrov, “Za proizvodstvoto na nakiti prez VI–VII v.
v bălgarskite zemi,” Arkheologiia 42, nos. 3–4 (2001), 69–74.
Daskalov, Metodi and Katia Trendafilova, “Mogil’nik epokhi pereseleniia narodov u s.
Kosharevo (oblast’ Pernik), zapadnaia Bolgariia (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie),”
RA, no. 1 (2003), 145–52.
Díaz, Pablo C. and Iñaki Martín Viso, “Introduction,” in Between Taxation and Rent.
Fiscal Problems from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages, eds. P.C. Díaz and I.M. Viso,
Munera 32 (Bari, 2011), pp. 6–21.
Diculescu, Constantin, Die Gepiden. Forschungen zur Geschichte Daziens im frühen
Mittelalter und zur Vorgeschichte des rumänischen Volkes (Leipzig, 1923).
Diller, Aubrey, The Tradition of Minor Greek Geographers, Philological Monographs 14
(New York, 1952).
Dillian, Carolyn D., and Carolyn L. White, “Introduction: perspectives on trade
and exchange,” in Trade and Exchange. Archaeolgoical Studies from History and
Prehistory, eds. C.D. Dillian and C.L. White (New York, 2010), 3–14.
Dimitrijević, Danica, “Gepidska nekropola ‘Kormadin’ kod Jakova,” RVM 9 (1960), 5–50.
Dimitrijević, Danica, Le cimetière gépide à “Kormadin” près de Jakovo en Srem, Serbie,
Inventaria Archaeologica 7 Y57–66 (Belgrade, 1964).
Dinchev, Vencislav, “Gesellschaftliche Komponenten der Struktur frühbyzan-
tinischer befestigter Siedlungen auf dem Territorium des heutigen Bulgarien,” in
Karasura, I. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Thrakien. 15 Jahre
Ausgrabungen in Karasura. Internationales Symposium Cirpan/Bulgarien, 1996, ed.
M. Wendel, Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie unde Kulturgeschichte des
Schwarzmeerraumes 1 (Weissbach, 2001), 217–35.
Dinchev, Vencislav, “Seloto v dneshnata bălgarska teritoriia prez rannovizantiiskata
epokha,” in Sbornik v chest na prof. Margarita Tacheva, eds. K. Boshnakov and
D. Boteva-Boianova (Sofia, 2002), 156–63.
Dobos, Alpár, “Plunder or ritual? The phenomenon of grave reopening in the row-grave
cemeteries from Transylvania (6th–7th centuries),” Annales Universitatis Litterarum
et Artium Miskolciensis 18/2 (2014), 135–62.
Dobos, Alpár and Coriolan Opreanu, Migration Period and Early Medieval
Cemeteries at Fântânele (Bistrița-Năsăud County), Patrimonium Archaeologicum
Transylvanicum 5 (Cluj-Napoca, 2012).
Dobrzańska, Halina, “Wczesnosłowiańska osada w Igołomi,” Archaeoslavica 3 (1998),
71–114.
Dobrzańska, Halina, Tomasz Kalicki, Bartłomiej S. Szmoniewski, “Uwarunkowania
środowiskowe wytwórczości pozarolniczej w okresie rzysmkim i wczesnośre-
dniowiecznym w doline Wisły koło Krakowa,” in Środkowiskowe uwarunkowania
lokalizacji osadnictwa, eds. L. Domańska, P. Kittel, and J. Forysiak, Środkowisko—
Człowiek—Cywilizacja 2 (Poznań, 2009), 155–74.
Doda, Nikollë. “Varreza arbërore e Prosekut (rrethi i Mirditës),” Iliria 19 (1989), 137–77.
Doležal, Stanislav, “Who was Jordanes?” Byzantion 84 (2014), 145–64.
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana, Așezări din secolele III și VI e.n. în sud-vestul Munteniei.
Cercetările de la Dulceanca, Biblioteca de arheologie 24 (Bucharest, 1974).
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana, “Ciurel, habitat des VI–VII-e siècles d. n. è.,” Dacia 23 (1979),
179–230.
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana, “Contributions archéologiques sur la continuité daco-
romaine. Dulceanca, deuxième habitat du VIe siècle d. n. è.,” Dacia 30 (1986), 121–54.
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana, “Habitats du VI-e et VII-e siècles de notre ère à Dulceanca
IV,” Dacia 36 (1992), 125–77.
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana and Margareta Constantiniu, “Un établissement du VI-e
siècle à Bucarest,” Dacia 25 (1981), 289–329.
Dolukhanov, Pavel M. and Evgenii N. Nosov, “Paleolandshafty i zaselenie territo-
rii Severo-Zapada v VI–X vv.,” in Novoe v arkheologii Severo-Zapada SSSR, eds.
A.N. Kirpichnikov, V.M. Masson, and E.N. Nosov (Leningrad, 1985), 19–23.
Domanovskii, A.N., “O social’noi specifike torgovli prodovol’stviem v provincial’nom
vizantiiskom gorode epokhi ‘temnykh vekov’ (na primere Khersona v pis’makh papy
Martina I),” in Problemy istorii i arkheologii Ukrainy. Materialy X Mezhdunarodnoi
nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 125-letiiu professora K.E. Grinevicha, 4–5
noiabria 2016 goda (Kharkiv, 2016), 59–60.
Domański, Grzegorz, “Ceramika z okresu wędrówek ludów na Śląsku,” in Archaeologia
o początkach Słowian. Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 19–21 listopada 2001, eds.
P. Kaczanowski and M. Parczewski (Cracow, 2005), 253–66.
Donat, Peter, “Zur Frage des Bodeneigentums bei den Westslawen. Ein Diskussionsbei-
trag,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte des Feudalismus 4 (1980), 9–26.
Donat, Peter, “Die Entwicklung der Agrarproduktion und die Herausbildung des
feudalen Bodeneigentums bei den Westslawen,” in Produktivkräfte und Gesell-
schaftsformationen in vorkapitalistischer Zeit, eds. J. Herrmann and I. Sellnow,
Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der
Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 12 (Berlin, 1982), 583–89.
Doncheva-Petkova, Liudmila, Bălgarska bitova keramika prez rannoto srednevekovie
(vtorata polovina na VI-krai na X v.) (Sofia, 1977).
Dörner, Egon, “Un mormînt de epocă avară la Sînpetru German,” SCIV 11, no. 2 (1960),
423–33.
Dostál, Bořivoj, “Zemědělská výroba na území ČSSR v 6.–10. století,” Archaeologia his-
torica 1 (1976), 9–26.
Dovzhenok, V.I., “Cherty khoziaistva i obshchestvennoi organizacii u slavian
Podneprov’ia v period zaseleniia Balkan,” AAASH 17 (1965), 29–35.
Drace-Francis, Alex, “Zur Geschichte des Südosteuropakonzepts bis 1914,” in Europa
und die Grenzen im Kopf, eds. K. Kaser, D. Gramshamer-Hohl, and R. Pichler, Wieser
Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens 11 (Klagenfurt/Celovec, 2003), 275–86.
Drauschke, Jörg and Susanne Greiff, “Chemical aspects of Byzantine glass from
Caričin Grad/Iustiniana Prima (Serbia),” in Glass in Byzantium—Production, Usage,
Analyses. International Workshop Organised by the Byzantine Archaeology Mainz,
annexes), eds. N. Duval and V. Popović, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 75.3
(Rome/Belgrade, 2010), 1–32.
Dvornichenko, Andrei Iu., “O vostochnoslavianskom politogeneze v VI–X vekakh,”
in Rossica antiqua 2006. Issledovaniia i materialy, eds. A.Iu. Dvornichenko and
A.V. Maiorov (St. Petersburg, 2006), 184–95.
Dvoržak Schrunk, Ivančica, “Dioklecijanova palača od 4. do 7. stoljeća u svjetlu
keramičkih nalaza,”’ Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 22 (1989), 91–105.
Dvoržak Schrunk, Ivančica, “Late Roman and early Byzantine ceramic trade in Dalmatia:
from the fourth to the eighth century,” in Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of
Byzantine Studies. Selected Papers: Moscow 1991, eds. I. Ševčenko, G.G. Litavrin and
W.K. Hanak, vol. 2, Byzantine Studies, Supplementum 1 (Shepherdstown, 1996),
282–88.
Dyggve, Ejnar, History of Salonitan Christianity, Instituttet for sammenlignende kultur-
forskning. Serie A, Forelesninger 21 (Oslo, 1951).
Dymowski, Arkadiusz, Mariola Orzechowska, and Mirosław Rudnicki, “Eine frühbyz-
antinische Münze aus der multikulturellen Siedlung von Tałty, Fundstelle II in
Masuren (Nordostpolen),” AAC 47 (2012), 215–33.
Dzieduszycki, Wojciech, “Społeczno-ekonomiczne uwarunkowania powiązań Pomorza
z Kujawami we wczesnym średniowieczu,” SlAnt 33 (1991–1992), 41–63.
Dzino, Danijel, “The rise and fall of the Dalmatian ‘big-men’: social structures in late
antique, post-Roman and early medieval Dalmatia (ca. 500–850),” in The Empire
and Barbarian in South-Eastern Europe in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, eds.
S. Vitlianov and I. Topalilov (Shumen, 2014), pp. 127–52.
Dzino, Danijel, “Post-Roman Dalmatia: collapse and regeneration of a complex social
system,” in Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the
Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. M. Ančić, J. Shepard, and T. Vedriš (London/New York,
2017), 155–73.
Dzino, Danijel, “Starokršćanski bazilikalni kompleks i grobovi u tumulima u Ljupču:
Odgonetanje ‘mračnog’ doba Dalmacije,” SP 44–45 (2017–2018), 89–113.
Earle, Timothy K., “A model of subsistence change,” in Modeling Change in Prehistoric
Subsistence Economies, eds. T.K. Earle and A.L. Christenson (New York, 1980), 1–29.
Earle, Timothy K., “Prehistoric economies and the archaeology of exchange,” in
Contexts of Prehistoric Exchange, eds. J.E. Ericson and T.K. Earle (New York, 1982),
1–12.
Earle, Timothy K., “Positioning exchange in the evolution of human society,” in
Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America, eds. T.G. Baugh and J.E. Ericson
(New York, 1994), 419–38.
Earle, Timothy K., How Chiefs Come to Power. The Political Economy in Prehistory
(Stanford, 1997).
Earle, Timothy K., “Archaeology, property, and prehistory,” ARA 29 (2000), 39–60.
Earle, Timothy K., “Political economies of chiefdoms and agrarian states,” in Bronze
Age Economics. The Beginnings of Political Economies, ed. T.K. Earle (Boulder, 2002),
1–18.
Earle, Timothy K., “Exchange systems in prehistory,” in Trade and Exchange. Archaeo-
logical Studies from History and Prehistory, eds. C.D. Dillian and C.L. White (New
York, 2010), 205–17.
Earle, Timothy K., “Redistribution and the political economy: the evolution of an idea,”
American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011), 237–44.
Ebersbach, Renate, “My farmland, our livestock. Forms of subsistence farm-
ing and forms of sharing in peasant communities,” in The Principle of Sharing.
Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to
Farming. Proceedings of a Symposium Held on 29th–31st January 2009 at the Albert-
Ludwig-University of Freiburg, hosted by the Department of Near Eastern Archaeology,
ed. Marion Benz, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment 14 (Berlin, 2010), 159–82.
Efimenko, P.P., “K istorii zapadnogo Povolzh’ia v I tysicheletiia n.e. po arkheologiches-
kim istochnikam,” SA 2 (1937), 39–58.
Eggers, Martin, “Samo, ‘der erste König der Slawen’. Eine kritische Forschungsbericht,”
Bohemia 42 (2001), 62–83.
Egor’kov, Aleksandr N., “Svoistva i rol’ svincovo-oloviannykh splavov v ‘drevnostiakh
antov’,” in Slaviane vostochnoi Evropy nakanune obrazovaniia drevnerusskogo
gosudarstva. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 110-letiiu so
dnia rozhdeniia Ivana Ivanovicha Liapushkina (1902–1968), 3–5 dekabria 2012 g.,
Sankt-Peterburg, eds. O.A. Shcheglova and V.M. Goriunova (St. Petersburg, 2012),
198–201.
Egor’kov, Aleksandr N. and Vlasta E. Rodinkova, “Sostav metalla izdelii iz Kurilovskogo
klada rannesrednevekovogo vremeni (po rezul’tatam optiko-emissionnoi spektro-
grafii),” KSIIA 233 (2014), 168–77.
Egor’kov, Aleksandr N. and Ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Sostav svincovo-oloviannykh splavov
ranneslavianskikh kladov ‘drevnostei antov’,” Myslennoe drevo (2000), available
online at https://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/ru/Sci/Archeology/Archeometry/
Applied/GaponovkaPewters.html (visit of August 25, 2020).
Egor’kov, Aleksandr N. and Ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Metall ‘antskikh’ kladov po rezul’tatam
emissionno-spektral’nogo analiza,” in Drevnie remeslenniki Priural’ia. Materialy
Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferencii (Izhevsk, 21–23 noiabria 2000 g.), ed. V.I. Zav’ialov
(Izhevsk, 2001), 280–307.
Egor’kov, Aleksandr N. and Ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Metal iz Kozievki/Novoi Odessy,” in
Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia,
Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology, ed. S.D. Stull (Newcastle upon Tyne,
2014), 20–39.
Fazioli, Kirk Patrick, The Mirror of the Medieval. An Anthropology of the Western
Historical Imagination (New York/Oxford, 2017).
Fedorov, Georgii B., Naselenie Prutsko-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ia v I tysiacheletii
n. e., Materialy issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR 89 (Moscow, 1960).
Fedoseev, Nikolai F., Krzysztof Domżalski, Andrei Opaiț, and Aleksei V. Kulikov,
“Post-Justinian pottery deposit from Pantikapaion-Bosporus: rescue excavations at
12, Teatral’naja St. in Kerch, 2006,” Archeologia 61 (2010), 63–94.
Feinman, Gary M., and Linda M. Nicholas, “A multiscalar perspective on market
exchange in the Classic-period valley of Oaxaca,” in Archaeological Approaches
to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, eds. C.P. Garraty and B.L. Stark (Boulder,
2010), 85–98.
Feissel, Denis, Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du IIIe au VIe siècle,
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 8 (Athens, 1983).
Feissel, Denis and Anne Philippidis-Braat, “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscrip-
tions historiques de Byzance, III. Inscriptions du Péloponnèse (à l’exception de
Mistra),” T&M 9 (1985), 267–395.
Feller, Laurente, “Changements économiques et changements sociaux dans l’Europe
occidentale du Haut Moyen Age,” in De Mahoma a Carlomagno. Los primeros tiem-
pos (siglos VII–IX). Actas de la XXXIX Semana de Estudios Medievales de Estella. 17
al 20 de julio de 2012 (Pamplona, 2013), 435–55.
Ferluga, Jadran, “L’Istria tra Giustiniano e Carlo Magno,” AV 43 (1992), 175–90.
Ferluga, Jadran, “Mercati i mercanti fra Mar Nero e Adriatico: dal VII all’XI secolo,” in
Mercati i mercanti nell’Alto Medioevo: l’area euroasiatica, l’area mediterranea, 23–29
aprile 1992, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 40
(Spoleto, 1993), 443–98.
Fernández Delgado, Aitor, “In aere aedificare. Las iniciativas político-militares del
emperador Mauricio en los Balcanes durante la “decáda gloriosa”: ¿solución o
gestación de una nueva crisis?” in Crisis en Roma y soluciones desde el poder, eds.
G. Bravo and R. González-Salinero, Signifer 47 (Madrid/Salamanca, 2016), 451–77.
Fettich, Nándor, Az avarkori műipár Magyarországon. Fogazási ornamentika és
ötvöseszközleletek, Archaeologia Hungarica 1 (Budapest, 1926).
Fettich, Nándor, “A jutasi avarkori temető revíziója,” VMMK 3 (1964), 79–118.
Fiala, Anton, “K objavu miliarense Constansa II. z pokladu zo Zemianskeho Vrbovku,”
Numismatický sborník 17 (1986), 15–20.
Fiedler, Uwe, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau,
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 11 (Bonn, 1992).
Filiposki, Toni, “The Komani-Krue settlements, and some aspects of their existence in
the Ohrid-Struga valley (VII–VIII century),” Macedonian Historical Review 1 (2010),
67–80.
Flad, Rowan K., and Zachary X. Hruby, “‘Specialized’ production in archaeological con-
texts: rethinking specialization, the social value of products, and the practice of
production,” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 17,
no. 1 (2007), 1–19.
Flerov, Valerii S., Rannesrednevekovye iurtoobraznye zhilishcha Vostochnoi Evropy
(Moscow, 1996).
Flerov, Valerii S., “O rannesrednevekovykh kochev’iakh v Priazov’e i na Nizhnem Donu.
K metodike polevykh issledovanii,” in Istoriia i kul’tura srednevekovykh narodov
stepnoi Evrazii. Materialy II Mezhdunarodnogo konferenciia srednevekovoi arkheolo-
gii evraziiskikh stepei (Barnaul, sentiabr’ 2012 g.), ed. A.A. Tishkin (Barnaul, 2012),
pp. 25–28.
Fodor, István, “Dal nomadismo alla stanzialità,” in Gli Avari. Un popolo d’Europa, ed.
G.C. Menis (Udine, 1995), 71–78.
Fodor, István, “Avar kori lakóházak Hajdúnánáson,” in Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti
tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. T. Vida (Budapest, 2012), 709–20.
Fomin, M.V., Pogrebal’naia tradiciia i obriad v vizantiiskom Khersone (IV–X vv.) (Kharkiv,
2011).
Förster, Richard, “Kaiser Hadrian und die Taktik des Urbicius,” Hermes 12 (1877), 449–71.
Fóthi, Erzsébet, Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Róbert Müller and Ágota S. Perémi,
“Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Radiokarbonanalyse zur Datierung der Keszthely-
Kultur,” in Dunkle Jahrhunderte in Mitteleuropa? Tagungsbeiträge der Arbeitsgemein-
schaft Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. 1. Rituale und Moden (Xanten, 8. Juni 2006).
2. Möglichkeiten und Probleme archäologisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Zusammen-
arbeit (Schleswig, 9.–10. Oktober 2007), eds. O. Heinrich-Tamáska, N. Krohn and
S. Ristow, Schriftenreihe Studien zu Spätantike und Frühmittelalter 1 (Hamburg,
2009), 307–34.
Fourlas, Benjamin, “Κτίστας θεωρεις. Wer ist der zivile Würdenträger auf dem
Stiftermosaik in der Demetrios-Kirche in Thessaloniki?” Symmeikta 20 (2010),
195–244.
Foy, Danièle, Maurice Picon, Michèle Vichy, Valérie Thirion-Merle, “Caractérisation
des verres de la fin de l’Antiquité en Méditerranée occidentale: l’émergence de
nouveaux courants commerciaux,” in Echanges et commerce du verre dans le
monde antique. Actes du colloque de l’Association française pour l’archéologie du
verre, Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 7–9 juin 2001, eds. D. Foy, M. Picon, M. Vichy and
V.Thirion-Merle, Monographies Instrumentum 24 (Montagnac, 2003), 41–86.
Franke, Helmut, “Zur Herstellung der Kerbschnittfibel von Groß Köris, Kr. Königs
Wusterhausen,” Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Potsdam 21 (1987), 237–41.
Frantz, Alison, The Athenian Agora. XXIV: Late Antiquity: A.D. 267–700 (Princeton,
1988).
Franzén, Rickard, “The image of Loki from Proosa in Estonia: a Migration Period high
status buckle with an elevated circular fastening plate in the light of similar buckles
recovered in Scandinavia,” Fennoscandia archaeologica 26 (2009), 53–80.
Freeden, Uta von, “Ausgewählte Befunde aus dem langobardenzeitlichen Gräberfeld
von Szólád, Komitat Somogy, Ungarn,” in Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa.
Langobarden—Awaren—Slawen; Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25.
bis 28. Februar 2008, eds. J. Bemmann and M. Schmauder, Kolloquien zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn, 2008), 399–414.
Freeden, Uta von, “Szólád, Komitat Somogy,” in Die Langobarden. Das Ende der
Völkerwanderungszeit. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum
Bonn, 22.8.2008–11.1.2009, ed. M. Hegewisch (Bonn/Darmstadt, 2008), 318–23.
Freeden, Uta von and Tivadar Vida, “Ausgrabung des langobardenzeitlichen
Gräberfeldes von Szólád, Komitat Somogy, Ungarn. Vorbericht und Überblick über
langobardenzeitlichen Besiedlung am Plattensee,” Germania 85 (2005), 359–84.
Freeman, Jacob, “Alternative adaptive regimes for integrating foraging and farming
activities,” Journal of Achaeological Science 39 (2012), 3008–17.
Frînculeasa, Alin and Valentin Dumitrașcu, “Studiu arheozoologic al faunei din
așezarea din mileniul I p. Chr. de la Belciug (jud. Prahova),” BMJT 6 (2014), 127–42.
Frînculeasa, Alin, Nicolae Șerban, Octav Negrea, and Valentin Dumitrașcu, “Date pre-
liminare privind așezarea medievală timpurie de la Belciug, jud. Prahova,” BMJT 3
(2011), 193–222.
Frondzhulo, M.A., “O rannesrednevekovom remeslennom proizvodstve v iugo-
vostochnom Krymu,” in Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia srednevekovogo Kryma,
O.I. Dombrovskii (Kiev, 1968), 133–51.
Fülöp, Gyula, “Avarkori temető Kajászó-Ujmajorban,” Alba Regia 18 (1980), 317–40.
Fülöp, Gyula, “Awarenzeitliche Fürstenfunde von Igar,” AAASH 40 (1988), 151–90.
Fülöp, Gyula, “New research on finds of Avar chieftain-burial at Igar, Hungary,” in
From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology, ed. D. Austin and
L. Alcock (London, 1990), 138–46.
Furas’ev, A.G., “Poseleniia tret’ei chetverti I tys. n. e. na iuge Pskovshchiny,” AIPPZ
(1992), 25–27.
Furas’ev, A.G., “Gruntovyi mogil’nik Froly 2—novyi pogrebal’nyi pamiatnik serediny I
tysiacheletiiia n. e. v Podvin’e,” TAS 4 (2001), 94–102.
Furas’ev, A.G., “Klimaticheskie izmeneniia na severo-zapade russkoi ravniny v I tys. n. e.
i genezis kul’tury pskovskikh dlinnykh kurganov,” in Drevnosti Podvin’ia: istoricheskii
Garam, Éva, “Sepolture di principi,” in Gli Avari. Un popolo d’Europa, ed. G.C. Menis
(Udine, 1995), 125–31.
Garam, Éva, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum
Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts, Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5 (Budapest, 2001).
Garam, Éva, “Avar kori nemzetségfő sírja Maglódon,” CAH (2005), 407–36.
Garam, Éva, “Egy avar falu gazdálkodásáról, kézművességéről, életmódjáról a falu
temetője sírjaiban talált tárgyak tükrében,” in Avarok pusztái. Régészeti tanulmán-
yok Lőrinczy Gábor 60. születésnapjára, eds. A. Anders, Cs. Balogh and A. Türk, Opitz
Archaeologica 6 (Budapest, 2014), 279–90.
Garam, Éva, “A zamárdi avar kori temető lovas sírjai,” in Népék és kultúrák a Kárpát-
medencében. Tanulmányok Mesterházy Károly tiszteletére, eds. L. Kovács and
L. Révész (Budapest, 2016), 271–86.
Gatev, Iordan, “Spasitelni razkopki na kăsnoantichen nekropol krai kurort Rusalka,
Kavarnensko,” Arkheologicheski vesti 1 (1998), 27–31.
Gaul, Jerzy, “The circulation of monetary and non-monetary currency in the West-Baltic
zone in the 5th and 6th centuries AD,” ArchPol 23 (1984), 87–105.
Gavrilov, Aleksandr V., “Une tombe nomade de l’époque post-hunnique Novopokrovka
(Crimée orientale),” in Les sites archéologiques en Crimée et au Caucase durant
l’Antiquité tardive et le Haut Moyen Age, eds. M. Kazanski and V. Soupault, Colloquia
Pontica 5 (Leiden/Boston, 2000), 109–14.
Gavritukhin, Igor O., “Gorizont prazhskoi kul’tury poseleniia Zimno 4,” Archaeoslavica
3 (1998), 171–99.
Gavritukhin, Igor O., “La date du ‘trésor’ de Pereščepina et la chronologie des antiqui-
tés de l’époque de formation du Khaganat khazar,” in La Crimée entre Byzance et le
Khaganat Khazar, ed. C. Zuckerman (Paris, 2006), 13–30.
Gavritukhin, Igor O., “Ingumacii, sviazannye s kul’turoi osedlogo naseleniia, i otdel’nye
nakhodki postgunnskogo vremeni,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v seredine I tys. n. e., eds.
O. Gavritukhin and A.M. Oblomskii, Ranneslavianskii mir 9 (Moscow, 2007), 30–32.
Gavritukhin, Igor O., “Poniatiie prazhskoi kul’tury,” in Slozhenie russkoi gosudarstven-
nosti v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi istorii Starogo
sveta. Materialy mezhdunarodnogo konferencii, sostoiavsheisia 14–18 maia 2007
goda v Gosudarstvennom Ermitazhe, eds. B.S. Korotkevich, D.A. Machinskii, and
T.B. Senichenkova, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 49 (St. Petersburg, 2009),
7–25 and 629.
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and Andrei M. Oblomskii, “Gaponovskii klad (predvaritel’naia
publikaciia),” RA, no. 4 (1995), 36–49.
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and Andrei M. Oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’turno-
istoricheskii kontekst, Ranneslavianskii mir 3 (Moscow, 1996).
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and A.G. Ivanov, “Pogrebenie 552 Varninskogo mogil’nika i neko-
torye voprosy izucheniia rannesrednevekovykh kul’tur Povolzh’ia,” in Permskii mir
v rannem srednevekov’e, ed. A.G. Ivanov, Archaeologia Permica 1 (Izhevsk, 1999),
99–159.
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and Michel Kazanski, “Bosporus, the Tetraxite Goths and the
northern Caucasus region during the second half of the fifth and the sixth cen-
turies,” in Neglected Barbarians, ed. F. Curta, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 32
(Turnhout, 2010), 83–136.
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and Anna V. Mastykova, “K izucheniiu kul’turnykh sviazei iugo-
vostochnoi Evropy VII v. n. e.,” in Kul’tury stepei Evrazii vtoroi poloviny I tysiache-
letiia n.e. Tezisy dokladov Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi arkheologicheskoi konferencii
14–17 noiabria 1995 g., eds. D.A. Stashenkov, A.F. Kochkina, and V.N. Sorokin (Samara,
1995), 16–19.
Gavritukhin, Igor O. and Andrei M. Oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’turno-
istoricheskii kontekst, Ranneslavianskii mir 3 (Moscow, 1996).
Gębica, Piotr, Leszek Starkel, Andrij Jacyšyn, and Marek Krąpiec, “Medieval accumu-
lation in the Upper Dniester river valley: the role of human impact and climate
change in the Carpathian Foreland,” Quaternary International 293 (2013), 207–18.
Gening, Vladimir F., Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1958).
Gening, Vladimir F., “Demenkovskii mogil’nik lomovatovskoi kul’tury,” VAU 6 (1964),
94–162.
Gening, Vladimir F., “Pamiatniki u s. Kushnarenkovo na r. Beloi (VI–VII vv. n.e.),” in
Issledovaniia po arkheologii Iuzhnogo Urala, ed. R.G. Kuzeev (Ufa, 1976), 90–136.
Gening, Vladimir F., “Mogil’nik chepeckoi kul’tury v der. Ves’iakar (IX–XII vv.),” in
Severnye udmurty v nachale II tysiacheletiia n. e., ed. V.F. Gening (Izhevsk, 1979),
87–106.
Gening, Vladimir F., “Oputiatskoe gorodishche—metallurgicheskii centr kharinskogo
vremeni v Prikam’e (2-ia polovina V–1-ia polovina VI vv. n.e.),” in Pamiatniki epokhi
srednevekov’ia v Verkhnem Prikam’e. Sbornik statei, ed. V.F. Gening (Izhevsk, 1980),
92–135 and 197–217.
Georgantzis, Petros., “Semantikoteres Skythikes epidromes ste Thrake kata tous 5o kai
6o m. Ch. aiones,” BF 30 (2011), 111–38.
Georgiev, Pavel, “Rannobălgarskata kultura V–VII vek—kultura ‘na kolela’,” in
Izsledvaniia po bălgarska srednovekovna arkheologiia. Sbornik v chest na prof. Rasho
Rashev, ed. P. Georgiev (Sofia, 2007), 22–40.
Georgiev, Zoran, “Gradishte, s. Pchinia—docnoantichki i ranovizantiski kastel,” MAA10
(1985), 199–214.
Gerasimov, Todor, “Deux plats en argent de haute époque byzantine trouvés en
Bulgarie,” CA 16 (1966), 215–19.
Gerasimov, Todor, “Rannokhristianska grobnica pri gr. Sandanski (Sv. Vrach),” IAI 29
(1966), 222–25.
Gerasimov, Todor, “Grobnica s zhivopis ot Serdica (VI v. na n. e.),” Arkheologiia 18,
no. 2 (1976), 51–53.
Gercen, Aleksandr G., Mangup: gorod v krymskom podnebes’e (Simferopol’, 2001).
Gercen, Aleksandr G., “Doros-Feodoro (Mangup): ot rannevizantiiskoi kreposti k
feodal’nomu gorodu,” ADSV 34 (2003), 94–112.
Gercen, Aleksandr G., Valeri E. Naumenko, A.A. Dushenko, D.V. Korziuk, V.V. Lavrov,
T.N. Smekalova, T. Iu. Shvedchikova and A.V. Chudin, “Novye materialy k izuche-
niiu istoricheskoi topografii Mangupskogo gorodishcha i ego okrugi (po rezultatam
mezhdisiciplinarnykh isseldovanii 2015 g.),” Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo
universiteta im. V.I. Vernadskogo 1 (2015), 3–28.
Gere, László, “Előzetes jelentés a Gerjen-Váradpusztai avar temető feltárásáról,” MFME,
no. 2 (1984–1985), 221–39.
Germanidou, Sophia, “Watermills in Byzantine Greece (fifth-twelfth centuries). A pre-
liminary approach to the archaeology of Byzantine hydraulic milling technology,”
Byzantion 84 (2014), 185–201.
Gerousi, Evgenia, “Rural Greece in the Byzantine period in light of new archaeologi-
cal evidence,” in Heaven & Earth. Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds.
J. Albani and E. Chalkia (Athens, 2013), 31–43.
Giardina, Andrea, Paolo Cammarosano, and Paolo Delogu, “Economia e società
nell’alto medioevo europeo. Una discussione su Framing the Early Middle Ages di
Chris Wickham,” Storica 34 (2006), 121–72.
Gibson, D. Blair, “Death of a salesman: Childe’s itinerant craftsman in the light of pres-
ent knowledge of late prehistoric European craft production,” in Craft Specialization
and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe, ed. B. Wailes (Philadelphia,
1996), 107–19.
Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration
(Berkeley, 1984).
Gil, Joan Pinar, “Coming back home? Rare evidence for contacts between the Iberian
Peninsula and the Carpathian Basin in the late 5th-early 6th century,” EN 24 (2014),
117–30.
Giovannini, Annalisa, “Le ambre di Aquileia: connotazioni generali e correlazioni cul-
turali,” in Roma sul Danubio. Da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dell’ambra, eds.
M. Buora and W. Jobst, Cataloghi e monografie archeologiche dei Civici musei di
Udine 6 (Udine, 2002), 159–64.
Gjorgjievski, Dejan, “Life among the ruins: medieval settlements and late antique cities,
seen through recent excavations in the region of the Upper Vardar and Bregalnica
rivers,” in Archaeology of a World of Changes. Byzantine Architecture, Sculpture
and Landscapes. Selected Papers from the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine
Studies (Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016) in Memoriam Claudiae Barsanti, ed. I. Popović,
BAR International Series 2973 (Oxford, 2020), 137–52.
Gkini-Tsophopoulou, Eleni, “Stamata,” AD 45 (1990), 90–92.
Gkini-Tsophopoulou, Eleni, “The Mesogeia from early Christian times to the Ottoman
conquest,” in Mesogeia. History and Culture of Mesogeia in Attica, eds. S.A. Idea and
K. Tsouni (Athens, 2001), 148–221.
Gkini-Tsophopoulou, Eleni and Eugenia Chalkia, “Taphike palaiochristianike keramike
apo ten Attike: oi periptoseis tes Stamatas kai tes Anabysos,” in 7o Diethnes Synedrio
Mesaionikes Keramikes tes Mesogeiou. Thessalonike, 11–16 oktobriou 1999. Praktika,
ed. Ch. Bakirtzis (Athens, 2003), 755–58.
Gkini-Tsophopoulou, Eleni and Anastasia G. Giankaki, “Palaiochristianiko nekrota-
pheio ste these ‘Driblia’, Porto-Rafte: mia proseggise tes keramikes,” in Keramike
tes Hysteres Archaiotetas apo ton elladiko choro (3os–7os ai. m. Ch.). Epistemonike
synantese, Thessalonike, 12–16 noembriou 2006, eds. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis and
D. Kousoulakou, vol. 2 (Thessaloniki, 2010), 689–711.
Gkoutzioukostas, Andreas, “Published lead seals concerning quaestura exercitus,” in
Iubileen sbornik “Sto godini ot rozhdenieto na d-r Vasil Kharalanov (1907–2007)”, eds.
I. Iordanov, Zh. Zhekova, T. Todorov, and M. Georgieva (Shumen, 2008), 109–18.
Gkoutzioukostas, Andreas, “‘… tou barbaron klydona barbaron stolo metatrepontos …’
Mia protase ermeneias tes psephidotos epigraphes ton ‘ktiston’ apo ton nao tou
Agiou Demetriou,” Symmeikta 24 (2015), 11–28.
Gkoutzioukostas, Andreas and Xenophon M. Moniaros, He peripheriake dioiketike ana-
diorganose tes byzantines autokratorias apo ton Ioustiniano A’ (527–565): he periptose
tes quaestura Iustiniana exercitus, Hetaireia Vyzantinon Ereunon 22 (Thessaloniki,
2009).
Göckenjan, Hansgerd, “Die Landnahme der Awaren aus historischer Sicht,” in
Ausgewählte Probleme europäischer Landnahmen des Früh- und Hochmittelalters,
eds. M. Müller-Wille and R. Schneider, vol. 1, Vorträge und Forschungen 41
(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1993), 275–302.
Godbout, Jacques T., “Homo donator versus Homo oeconomicus,” in Gifts and Interests,
ed. A. Vandevelde, Morality and the Meaning of Life 9 (Leuven, 2000), 23–46.
Godłowski, Kazimierz, “Zagadnienie ciągłości kulturowej i kontynuacji osadniczej na
ziemiach polskich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim, okresie wpływów rzyms-
kich i wędrówek ludów,” APol 21, no. 2 (1976), 378–401.
Godłowski, Kazimierz, “Die Frage der slawischen Einwanderung in östliche
Mitteleuropa,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 28 (1979), 416–47.
Godłowski, Kazimierz, “Zur Frage der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Besiedlung in
Pommern,” Studien zur Sachsenforschung 2 (1980), 63–106.
Gorecki, Danuta, “The Thrace of Ares during the sixth and seventh centuries,” BF 14
(1989), 221–35.
Gorelik, Mikhail V., “Arms and armour in South-Eastern Europe in the second half
of the first millennium AD,” in A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, ed.
D. Nicolle (Woodbridge, 2002), 127–47.
Gorianov, B.T., “Slavianske poseleniia VI v. i ikh obshchestvennyi stroi,” Vestnik Drevnei
Istorii, no. 1 (1939), 308–18.
Goriunov, E.A., “Selishche Celikov Bugor na Srednei Desne,” KSIA 129 (1972), 42–46.
Goriunov, E.A., Rannie etapy istorii slavian Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia (Leningrad,
1981a).
Goriunov, E.A., “Slavianskoe poselenie serediny I tys. n.e. u s. Peschanoe Belgorodskoi
oblasti,” KSIA 171 (1981b), 61–65.
Goriunov, E.A. and Michel Kazanski, “Do arkheologichnoi karty stochyshcha r.
Poluzyr’ia,” ALLU, nos. 1–2 (1998), 76–78.
Goriunova, Valentina M., “Novyi klad antskogo vremeni iz srednego Podneprov’ia,”
ArkhV 1 (1992), 126–40.
Goriunova, Valentina M., “Mogil’nik VI–VII vv. u s. Kartamyshevo Oboianskogo raion
Kurskoi oblasti,” in Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione
na iskhode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii,
posviashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17
noiabria 2000 g.), eds. V.M. Goriunova and O.A. Shcheglova, Trudy Instituta istorii
material’noi kul’tury 11 (St. Petersburg, 2004), 18–42.
Goriunova, Valentina M. and Vlasta E. Rodinkova, “Ranneslavianskoe poselenie Velikie
Budki (Khutor),” Stratum+, no. 4 (1999), 167–219.
Gorodcov, Vasilii A., “Arkheologicheskiia izsledovaniia v okrestnostiakh g. Muroma v
1910 godu,” Drevnosti. Trudy Moskovskago Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva 24 (1914),
40–216.
Gorodcov, Vasilii A., “Podcheremskii klad,” SA, no. 2 (1937), 113–50.
Gotun, I.A. and Sergei A. Gorbanenko. ‘Zemlerobstvo zhyteliv slov’ians’kogo poselen-
nia v uroch. Kozakiv iar u Khodosivtsi’. In Sclavenia terra 1 (2016), pp. 153–71.
Graca, Laura da., “Reflexiones metodológicas sobre el studio comparative de Chris
Wickham,” Edad Media 9 (2008), 265–97.
Gračanin, Hrvoje, “Gepidi, Heruli, Langobardi i južna Panonija,” Scrinia slavonica 7
(2007), 7–64.
Gračanin, Hrvoje, “Kraj antike na hrvatskom prostorima,” in Nova zraka u europskom
svjetlu. Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550-oko 1150), ed. Z. Nikolić Jakus,
Biblioteka Povijest Hrvata, 1 (Zagreb, 2015), 37–70.
Gračanin, Hrvoje and Nebojša Kartalija, “Neka razmatranja o gospodarstvu Zapadnog
Ilirika od IV do VI stoljeća,” Acta illyrica 2 (2018), 335–94.
Graeber, David Toward and Anthropological Theory of Value. The False Coin of Our Own
Dreams (New York, 2001).
Grafenauer, Bogo, “Die Beziehungen der Slawen zu den Awaren und ihre wirtschaftlich-
sozialen Grundlagen bis zur Belagerung von Konstantinopel (626),” in Relazioni X
Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, Roma, 4–11 settembre 1955 (Florence,
1955), 174–78.
Graudonis, Jānis, “Izrakumi Lielupes krastā 1977. gadā,” ZAS (1977), 41–44.
Graudonis, Jānis, “Serpy i kosy II–IX vv. na territorii Latvii,” in Novoe v arkheologii
Pribaltiki i sosednikh territorii. Sbornik statei, ed. J. Selirand (Tallinn, 1985), 24–35.
Graudonis, Jānis, “The finery of the ancient Semigallians,” LA 21 (2001), 55–62.
Graudonis, Jānis, Lielupes krastos pirms gadu simtiem. Arheoloģiskie pētījumi Jaunsvir-
laukas pagastā (Riga, 2003).
Greatrex, Geoffrey, “Recent work on Procopius and the composition of Wars VIII,”
BMGS 27 (2003), 45–67.
Gregory, Timothy E., “Diporto: an early Byzantine maritime settlement in the Gulf of
Korinth,” Deltion tes christianikes archaiologikes hetaireias 12 (1984), 287–304.
Gregory, Timothy E., “An early Byzantine complex at Akra Sophia near Corinth,”
Hesperia 54 (1985), 411–28.
Gregory, Timothy E., “An Early Byzantine (Dark-Age) settlement at Isthmia: prelimi-
nary report,” in The Corinthia in the Roman Period Including the Papers Given at a
Symposium Held at the Ohio State University on 7–9 March, 1991, ed. T.E. Gregory,
Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 8 (Ann Arbor, 1993a), 149–60.
Gregory, Timothy E., The Hexamilion and the Fortress, Isthmia 5 (Princeton, 1993b).
Gregory, Timothy E., “Procopius on Greece,” AT 8 (2000), 105–14.
Gręzak, Anna, “Tierische Überreste aus der Siedlung in Tumiany (Säugetiere und
Vögel),” in Völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlung von Tumiany (Daumen) im Kreise
Allerstein, ed. T. Baranowski, Vetera et nova 7 (Warsaw, 2017), 217–46.
Griciuvienė, Eglė, Sėliai. Baltų archeologijos paroda. Katalogas (Vilnius/Riga, 2007).
Griciuvienė, Eglė, Gytis Grižas, and Zane Buža, “Žiemgaliai V–XIII a.,” in Žiemgaliai.
Baltų archeologijos paroda, ed. E. Griciuvienė (Vilnius/Riga, 2005), 23–152.
Grierson, Philip., “Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence,” Transactions
of the Royal Historical Society 5 (1959), 129–40.
Grinchenko, V.A., “Pam’iatka VIII st. kolo s. Voznesenky na Zaporizhzhi,” Arkheolohiia,
no. 2 (1950), 37–63.
Grishakov, Valerii V., Oleg V. Sedyshev and E.S. Liubimkina, “Nakhodki rannesredneve-
kovykh ritual’nykh lozhechek v Oksko-Sviiazhskom mezhdurech’e,” PV, no. 1 (2016),
256–65.
Grozdanova, Galina, “Relative chronology of the pottery of the early medieval Lower
Danube Popina-Garvan archaeological group,” AB 22, no. 3 (2018), 21–38.
Hahn, Wolfgang R.O., Moneta Imperii Byzantini. Von Heraclius bis Leo III./Alleinregierung
(610–720), Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 10 (Vienna, 1981).
Hahn, Wolfgang R.O., Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian
I, 491–565), Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte
der Universität Wien 6 (Vienna, 2000).
Haimovici, Sergiu, “Studiul materialului faunistic din așezările de la Cîrligi-Filipești
(secolele II–V e. n.) și Izvoare Bahna (sec. VI–IX e.n.),” Carpica 16 (1984), 95–99.
Haimovici, Sergiu, “Studiul materialului osteologic descoperit în două așezări sub-
carpatice datînd din secolele V–VII e.n.: Davideni și Ștefan cel Mare (jud. Bacău),”
Carpica 18–19 (1986–1987), 251–60.
Haimovici, Sergiu, “The study of the fauna remains from the lodgings in Borșeni
‘Bulgărie’ (Războieni, Neamț county), Vth–VIth centuries,” in Studia antiqua et
medievalia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXV peragentis Professoris Dan Gh.
Teodor oblata, ed. D. Aparaschivei, Honoraria 5 (Bucharest, 2009), pp. 185–96.
Haimovici, Sergiu and Mihai Blăjan, “Studiul faunei din locuințele prefeudale (sec. V–
VI e. n.) descoperite la Alba Iulia (1985, 1986 și 1988),” Apulum 26 (1989), 335–46.
Haimovici, Sergiu and Leone Cărpuș, “Studiul paleofaunei din așezarea prefeudală de
la Udești, jud. Suceava,” Suceava 9 (1982), 497–504.
Hajnal, Zsuzsanna, “Keső antik jellegű kerámia a Kölked-Feketekapui avarkori telepről,”
CAH (2005), 437–80.
Hajnal, Zsuzsanna, “Gyorskorongolt kerámia a Kölked-feketekapui avar kori lelőhelyrő.
Technológiai-tipológiai vizsgálatok,” in “Hadak útján”. Népességek és iparok a
népvándorlás korában. A Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XVI Konferenciája.
Nagykovácsi, 2005. szeptember 26–28., ed. Zs. Újlaki Pongrácz (Nagykovácsi, 2006),
121–137.
Hajnal, Zsuzsanna, “Szentendre, Komitat Pest,” in Die Langobarden. Das Ende der
Völkerwanderungszeit. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn,
22.8.2008–11.1.2009, ed. M. Hegewisch (Bonn/Darmstadt, 2008), 313–15.
Hajnal, Zsuzsanna, “Házak a Kölked-Feketekapui avar kori telepen,” AE 134 (2009),
91–116.
Hajnal, Zsuzsanna, “A Kölked-feketekapui ’A’ és ’B’ temetők együtes értékelése,” in
Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. T. Vida
(Budapest, 2012), 607–44.
Hajnalová, Eva, “Archäobotanische Funde aus Krivina,” in Iatrus-Krivina. Spätantike
Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, vol. 2 (Berlin,
1982), 207–35.
Hajnalová, Eva, “Die archäobotanische Funde,” in Iatrus-Krivina. Spätantike
Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, eds. G.v. Bülow
and D. Schiefedecker, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1991), 261–98.
Hattersley-Smith, Kara, “Byzantine Public Architecture, Between the Fourth and the
Early Seventh Centuries A.D., with Special Reference to the Towns of Macedonia,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oxford (Oxford, 1988).
Haussig, Hans Wilhelm, “Theophylakts Exkurs über die skythischen Völker,” Byzantion
23 (1953), 275–462.
Hayashi, Tadayuki, “Masaryk’s ‘zone of small nations’ in his discourse during World
War I,” Acta Slavica Iaponica 15 (2008), 3–20.
Hayden, Brian, “Pathways to power. Principles for creating socioeconomic inequali-
ties,” in Foundations of Social Inequality, eds. T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (New
York/London, 1995), 16–86.
Hayes, John W. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul (Princeton, 1992).
Hayes, John W. and Platon Petridis, “Rapports régionaux: Grèce,” in 7o Diethnes Synedrio
Mesaionikes Keramikes tes Mesogeiou. Thessalonike, 11–16 oktobriou 1999. Praktika,
ed. Ch. Bakirtzis (Athens, 2003), 529–36.
Heath, Sebastian, Joseph L. Rife, Joge J. III Bravo, and Gavin Blasdel “Preliminary report
on early Byzantine pottery from a building complex at Kenchreai (Greece),” ISAW
Papers 10 (2015), 1–23.
Heather, Peter, Empires and Barbarians. The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe
(Oxford, 2009).
Hegewisch, Morten, “Brno-Kotlářská, Bez. Brno-město,” in Die Langobarden. Das Ende
der Völkerwanderungszeit. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum
Bonn, 22.8.2008–11.1.2009, ed. M. Hegewisch (Bonn/Darmstadt, 2008), 256–57.
Hegmon, Michelle, “Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American
archaeology,” American Antiquity 68, no. 2 (2003), 213–43.
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, “Megjegyzések a kora avar kori ötvösmüvészethez a
fogazással díszített leletek kapcsán,” MFMESA 8 (2002), 245–82.
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, Studien zu den awarenzeitlichen Tauschierarbeiten, Monog-
raphien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 11 (Innsbruck, 2005a).
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, “További adatok a fogazással díszített leletek készítési
módjához: a konstrukció,” MFMESA 11 (2005b), 147–88.
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, Die Stein- und Glasinkrustationskunst des 6. und 7. Jahrhun-
derts im Karpatenbecken, Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 8 (Budapest, 2006).
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, “Avar-age metalworking technologies in the Carpathian
Basin (sixth to eighth century),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars,
Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. F. Curta, East Central and Eastern Europe in the
Middle Ages, 450–1450 2 (Leiden/Boston, 2008), 237–61.
Heinrich-Tamáska, Orsolya, “Frühe ‘Awarinnen’ und späte ‘Germanninen’? Bemerkun-
gen zur Interpretation reicher Frauengräber der Frühawarenzeit,” in Weibliche Eliten
in der Frühgeschichte. Internationale Tagung vom 13. bis zum 14. Juni 2008 im RGZM
Kolloquiums vom 16.–21. April 1991 in Passau, eds. H. Bender and H. Woff, Passauer
Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie 2 (Espelkamp, 1994), 463–503.
Hensel, Zdzisław, “Elementy rzędów końskich z cmentarzyska w Tumianach, woj.
olsztyńskie w świetle badań składu chemicznego,” APol 41 (1996), 131–38.
Herold, Hajnalka, “Materielle Kultur, technologische Traditionen, Identität. Untersu-
chungen zur Archäologie des Frühmittelalters in Niederösterreich,” Zeitschrift für
Archäologie des Mittelalters 37 (2009), pp. 111–34.
Herold, Hajnalka, “Insights into the chronology and economy of the Avar Khaganate
and the post-Avar period: pottery production and use in the Carpathian Basin from
the late 6th to the 10th century AD,” AAC 49 (2014), 207–29.
Herrmann, J.J., V. Barbin, Aristotelis Mentzos, and R. Reed, “Architectural decoration
and marble from Thasos: Macedonia, central Greece, Campania, and Provence,”
in ASMOSIA 6. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones
in Antiquity, Venice, June 15–18, 2000, ed. L. Lazzarini (Padova, 2002), 316–27.
Herrmann, Joachim. “Militärische Demokratie und die Übergangsperiode zur
Klassengesellschaft,” EAZ 23 (1982), 11–31.
Herrmann, Joachim, “Getreidekultur, Backteller und Brot-Indizien frühslawischer
Differenzierung,” in Zbornik posveten na Boshko Babich. Mélange Boško Babić1924–
1984, ed. M. Apostolski (Prilep, 1986), 267–72.
Herrmann, Joachim. “Militärische Demokratie und Allodismus in Mitteleuropa
zwischen Antike und Feudalgesellschaft,” EAZ 28 (1987), 257–67.
Herskovits, Melville J., The Economic Life of Primitive People (New York/London, 1940).
Heydeck, J., “Das Gräberfeld von Daumen und Rückblick auf einer deutsch-nationalen
Kunst,” Sitzungsberichte der Altertumsgesellschaft Prussia 49–50 (1895), 65–94.
Hidri, Sali, “Materiale arkeologijke nga bazilika e Arapajt,” Iliria 21, nos. 1–2 (1991),
203–18.
Hilberg, Volker, “Die westbaltischen Stämme und die überregionale Kulturaustausch
in der Ostseeregion zur Merowingerzeit,” Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern: Jahrbuch 51 (2003), 295–319.
Hilberg, Volker, Masurische Bügelfibeln. Studien zu den Fernbeziehungen der völker-
wanderungszeitlichen Brandgräberfelder von Daumen und Kellaren, Schriften des
Archäologischen Landesmuseums 9.2 (Neumünster, 2009).
Hinada, Shizuma, “On the meaning in our time of the drafts of Marx’s letter to Vera
Zasulich (1881): with textual criticism,” Slavic Studies 20 (1975), 69–80.
Hipp, Sylvia, “Veränderungen der Landschaft am westlichen Ende des Balatons von
der Römerzeit bis zur Karolingerzeit,” in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta im Spiegel der
Jahrtausende. Ausstellung, Balatoni Múzeum, 4. Oktober 2009.–31. Mai 2010, eds.
O. Heinrich-Tamáska and P. Straub (Leipzig/Zalaegerszeg, 2009), 26–30.
Hirth, Kenneth G., “The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace
exchange in the archaeological record,” Current Antrhopology 39 (1998), 451–67.
Hirth, Kenneth G., “Finding the mark in the marketplace: the organization, devel-
opment, and archaeological identification of market systems,” in Archaeological
Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, eds. C.P. Garraty and B.L. Stark
(Boulder, 2010), 227–47.
Hjohlman, Jenni, Arto Penttinen, and Berit Wells, Pyrgouthi. A Rural Site in the
Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity. Excavations by the Swedish
Institute at Athens, 1995 and 1997, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4o 52
(Stockholm, 2005).
Hodža, Milan, Federation in Central Europe. Reflections and Reminiscences (London/
New York, 1942).
Hoebel, E. Adamson, The Law of Primitive Man. A Study in Comparative Legal Dynamics
(Cambridge, Mass, 1954).
Homza, Martin, “A few words about the identity of the Slavs, yesterday, today, and
tomorrow,” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, no. 1 (2018), 3–41.
Honeychurch, William and Cheryl A. Makarewicz, “The archaeology of pastoral
nomadism,” ARA 45 (2016), 341–59.
Honigmann, Ernst. Die sieben Klimata und die polis episemoi (Heidelberg, 1929).
Horedt, Kurt, Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV–XIII, Biblioteca istorică
7 (Bucharest, 1958).
Horedt, Kurt, “Așezarea fortificată de la Șeica Mică (r. Mediaș),” SCIV 15, no. 2 (1964),
187–204.
Horedt, Kurt, Morești. Grabungen in einer vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in
Siebenbürgen (Bucharest, 1979).
Horváth, Ernő, “A környei népvándorláskori temető növénymaradványai,” Savaria. A
Vas megye múzeumok értesitője 13–14 (1979–1980), 11–28.
Horváth, Eszter, “Cloisonné jewellery from the Langobardic Pannonia: technological
evidence of workshop practice,” in The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the
Great Migration, eds. V. Ivanišević and M. Kazanski, Monographies du Centre de
recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantine 36 (Paris/Belgrade, 2012), 207–42.
Horváth, M. Attila, “Kagán vagy nem kagán? Érvek és ellenérvek—újabb adatok egy
‘lefokozott kagán’ védelmében,” in Hatalmi központok az avar kaganátusban, eds.
Cs. Balogh, J. Szentpéteri and E. Wicker (Kecskemét, 2019), 47–68.
Howard-Johnston, James D., “Urban continuity in the Balkans in the early Middle Ages,”
in Ancient Bulgaria. Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient
History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, ed. A.G. Poulter,
vol. 2, Monograph Series 1 (Nottingham, 1983), 242–54.
Hurbanič, Martin, “Byzancia a avarský kaganát v rokoch 623–624,” HC 55, no. 2 (2007),
229–48.
Hurbanič, Martin, “The nomads at the gates: some notes on the use of siege artillery by
the Avars (from the first attack on Sirmium to the siege of Constantinople),” in The
Cultural and Historical Heritage of Vojvodina in the Context of Classical and Medieval
Studies, ed. Dj. Hardi, Monografije (Univerzitet u Novom Sadu. Filozofski fakultet)
61 (Novi Sad, 2015), 75–90.
Hurbanič, Martin, “Vpády Avarov na Balkánske územia východorímskej riše v rokoch
582–626,” HC 63, no. 3 (2015), 387–404.
Hurbanič, Martin, Konstantinopol 626. Poslední bitva antiky (Prague, 2016).
Hurbanič, Martin, The Avar Siege of Constantinople. History and Legend (Cham, 2019).
Husár, Martin, Peter Ivanič, and Martin Hetényi, “Podobnosti a odlišnosti vývoja na
území súčasného Slovenska a Macedónska v 6.–12. storočí (historická a archeo-
logická analýza),” in Macedonské-slovenské literárne, kultúrne a jazykové vzťahy, eds.
M. Jakimovska-Tošić, Z. Taneski and M. Zajíčková (Nitra, 2015), 65–78.
Iakobson, Anatolii L., Srednevekovyi Krym. Ocherki istorii i istorii material’noi kul’tury
(Leningrad, 1964).
Iankov, Dimităr, “Stara Zagora s VI do XI veka” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa
slavianskoi arkheologii, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed. B.A. Rybakov vol. 3 (Moscow,
1987), 113–18.
Iashaeva, Tat’iana I., “On the immediate hinterland of Cherson in Late Antiquity and
early medieval times,” Ancient West & East 2, no. 1 (2003), 117–33.
Iashaeva, Tat’iana I., Elena Denisova, Nataliia Gin’kut, Vera N. Zalesskaia and
Denis V. Zhuravlev, Nasledie vizantiiskogo Khersona (Sevastopil’/Austin, 2011).
Iatrou, S., “Mia paraterese schetike me te chronologese tes 1 avaroslabikes poliorkias tes
Thessalonikes,” Byzantiaka 28 (2009), 115–30.
Ignat’eva, Oksana, “Termin ‘Permskii zverinyi stil’ v istoriograficheskom aspekte,”
Finno-Ugrica 10 (2007), 99–111.
Ignatov, L.A., “Obrazcy drevnego iskusstva iz s. Iagkedzh (verkhniaia Vychegda),” in
Dukhovnaia kul’tura. Problemy i tendencii razvitiia. Vserossiiskaia nauchnaia konfer-
enciia, 11–14 maia 1994 g. Tezisy dokladov, ed. L.A. Maksimova, vol. 3 (Syktyvkar, 1994),
10–12.
Iliadi, Amalia K. Ta “thaumata” tou Agiou Demetriou hos istorikes peges. Epidromes kai
slabikes epoikiseis enteuthen tou Dounabeos (Trikala, 2003).
Il’ins’ka, V.A., “O pamiatnikakh serediny I tysiacheletiia n.e. v Dneprovskoi levo-
berezhnoi lesostepi,” in Slaviane i Rus’. Sbornik statei. K shestdesiatiletiiu akad.
B.A. Rybakova, eds. E.I. Krupnov et al. (Moscow, 1968), 55–60.
Iluk, Jerzy, “Bałtycki epizod wczesnobizantyskich dziejów. Znaleziska solidów na
Pomorzu Nadwiślańskim z V–VI wieku,” in Gdańsk średniowieczny w świetle
Ivaniševič, Vujadin and Ivan Bugarski, “Transformation of burial space in the cities of
northern Illyricum during the Late Antiquity,” Antaeus 35–36 (2018), 91–118.
Ivanišević, Vujadin, and Ivan Bugarski., “Post-Antique Settlement Patterns in the
Central Balkans: Use of Justinianic Landscapes in the Early Middle Ages,” in
Mediterranean Landscapes in Post Antiquity. New Frontiers and New Perpectives, ed.
S. Gelichi and L. Olmo-Enciso (Oxford, 2019), 7–17.
Ivanišević, Vujadin and Michel Kazanski, “La nécropole de l’époque des grandes migra-
tions à Singidunum,” in Singidunum 3, ed. M. Popović (Belgrade, 2002), 101–57.
Ivanišević, Vujadin and Michel Kazanski, “Geruly Iustiniana v Severnom Illirikume i
ikh arheologicheskie sledy,” Stratum+, no. 5 (2010), 141–57.
Ivanišević, Vujadin and Pavle Popović, “Les monnaies protobyzantines en Pannonie
seconde,” in Sirmium à l’époque des grandes migrations, eds. I. Popović, M. Kazanski
and V. Ivanišević, Monographies du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de
Byzance 53 (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, 2017), 239–54.
Ivanišević, Vujadin and Sonja Stamenković, “‘Glass’ workshop from Caričin Grad
(Iustiniana Prima),” in Glass Along the Silk Road from 200 BC to AD 1000. International
Conference Within the Scope of the “Sino-German Project on Cultural Heritage
Preservation” of the RGZM and the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology,
December 11th–12th 2008, ed. B. Zorn, RGZM Tagungen 9 (Mainz, 2010), 39–52.
Ivanišević, Vujadin, Michel Kazanski, and Anna V. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de
Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations, Monographies du Centre de recher-
che d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 22 (Paris, 2006).
Ivanov, A.G., Etnokul’turnye i ekonomicheskie sviazi naseleniia basseina r. Chepcy v
epokhu srednevekov’ia (konec V-pervaia polovina XIII v.) (Izhevsk, 1998).
Ivanov, P., “Avarski nakhodki ot Severozapadna Bălgariia,” PPIK 3 (1997), 272–82.
Ivanov, Sergei A., “Prokopii o slavianskom ‘obraze zhizni’,” in Antichnaia balkanistika.
Karpato-balkanskii region v diakhronii. Predvaritel’nye materialy k mezhdunarod-
nomu simpoziumu (Moscow, 1984), 14–15.
Ivanov, Sergei A., “The Avar-Byzantine wars of the late sixth century as depicted by
Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos: a new source?” ZRVI 50 (2013), pp. 123–48.
Ivanov, Sergei A., L.A. Gindin and V.L. Cymburskii, “Prokopii Kesariiskii,” in Svod
drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, eds. L.A. Gindin, S.A. Ivanov and
G.G. Litavrin, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1991), 170–249.
Ivanova, O. V., “Chudesa Sv. Dimitriia Solunskogo,” in Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh
izvestii o slavianakh, eds. S.A. Ivanov, G.G. Litavrin and V.K. Ronin, vol. 2 (Moscow,
1995), 91–211.
Ivanovski, Milan, “Rajčinica. Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola,” Arheološki pregled
(1986), 124.
IIIe au VIIe siècle, eds. F. Vallet and M. Kazanski, Mémoires de l’Association fran-
çaise d’archéologie mérovingienne 9 (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1995), 351–60.
Kihno, Kersti and Heiki Valk, “Archaeological and palynological investigations at
Ala-Pika, south-east Estonia,” in Environmental and Cultural History of the Eastern
Baltic Region, ed. U. Miller, PACT 57(Rixensart, 1999), 221–37.
Kiiashkina, Petia, Todor Marvakov, and Stoianka Dimova, “Spasitelni arkheologicheski
prouchvaniia v gr. Nesebăr—obekt ‘Antichen nekropol na Mesemvriia’ UPI V, kv.
54A,” AOR (2008), 324–27.
Kim, Hyun Jin, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (Cambridge/New York, 2013).
Kim, Hyun Jin, The Huns (London, 2016).
Kim, Minko, Heung-Nam Shin, Jinheee Kim, Kyeong-jung Roh, Ara Ryu, Haesun Won,
Juho Kim, Semi Oh, Hyeongsin Noh, and Sumin Kim, “The ins and the outs: food-
ways, feasts, and social differentiation in the Baekje Kingdom, Korea,” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 43 (2016), 128–39.
Kiourtzian, Georges, “Le Psaume 131 et son usage funéraire dans la Grèce, les Balkans et
la Cappadoce la haute époque byzantine,” CA 45 (1997), 31–39.
Kirilov, Chavdar, Die Stadt des Frühmittelalters in Ost und West. Archäologische Befunde
Mitteleuropas im Vergleich zur östlichen Balkanhalbinsel, Studien zur Archäologie
Europas 3 (Bonn, 2006).
Kirilov, Chavdar, “Der rissig gewordene Limes. Höhensiedlungen im östlichen Balkan
als Zeugnis für die Schwache des oströmischen Reiches in der Spätantike,” in
The Lower Danube in Antiquity (VI c. B.C.–VI c. AD). International Archaeological
Conference, Bulgaria-Tutrakan, 6.–7.10.2005, ed. L. Vagalinski (Sofia, 2007), 329–52.
Kiss, Attila, Avar Cemeteries in County Baranya (Budapest, 1977).
Kiss, Attila, “Völkerwanderungszeitliches, germanische Langschwert von Dunapentele/
Dunaújváros,” Alba Regia 19 (1981), 145–65.
Kiss, Attila, “Egy Baldenheim-típusú sisak a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Régészeti
Gyűjteményében,” AE 110 (1983), 274–81.
Kiss, Attila, “Numizmatikai adatok az italiai keleti got királyság (489/93–552) kiterjede-
séhez,” NK 82–83 (1983–1984), 19–21.
Kiss, Attila, “Die Frage der geographischen Lage des früh- und mittelawarenzeitlichen
Herrschaftszentrum,” JPME 33 (1988), 77–89.
Kiss, Attila, “V–VI. századi Kárpát-medencei uralkodók-régész szemmel,” Agria 25–26
(1989), 201–20.
Kiss, Attila, “A Kunbábonyi 1., kora-avar vezéri sír leleteinek belsö összefüggései. A lele-
tanyag csoportosítása,” CAH (1994), 267–84.
Kiss, Attila, “Tanulmányok a kora avar kori kunbábonyi vezérsírról,” MFMESA 1 (1995),
131–49.
Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology, eds. D. Austin and L. Alcock
(London, 1990), 147–56.
Kobyliński, Zbigniew, “The Slavs, 500–700 A.D,” in The New Cambridge Medieval
History, ed. P. Fouracre, vol. 1 (Cambridge/New York, 2005), 524–44.
Kobyliński, Zbigniew and Zdzisław Hensel, “Imports or local products? Trace elements
analysis of copper-alloy artefacts from Hacki, Białystok Province, Poland,” ArchPol
31 (1993), 129–40.
Kobyliński, Zbigniew and Wojciech Szymański, “Pradziejowe i wczesnośredniowieczne
osadnictwo w zespole kemów w Haćkach,” in Haćki. Zespół przyrodniczo-
archeologiczny na Równinie Bielskiej, ed. J.B. Faliński (Białowieża, 2005), 43–74.
Kobyliński, Zbigniew and Wojciech Szymański, “Grodzisko w Haćkach na Podlasiu,”
in Grody średniowiecznego Mazowsza. Księga poświęcona pamięci Marka Dulinicza,
eds. M. Żurek and M. Krasna-Korycińska, Archaeologica Hereditas 4 (Warsaw/
Zielona Góra, 2015), 111–46.
Koch, Ursula, “Mediterrane und fränkische Glasperlen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts aus
Finnland,” in Studien zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie: Festschrift für
Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. G. Kossack and G. Ulbert, vol. 2, Münchner
Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Ergänzungsband 1 (Munich, 1974), 495–520.
Kochkurkina, Svetlana I., Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki korely V–XV vv. (Leningrad,
1981).
Kóčka-Krenz, Hanna, “The beginning of metal casting in Polish territories in the early
Middle Ages (the 6th–13th centuries),” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa
arkheologov-slavistov, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed. P.P. Tolochko, vol. 2 (Kiev,
1988), 83–89.
Köhler, Ralf, “Frühe slavische Siedlung in Pommern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der neuen Grabungen in Dziedzice/Deetz,” Offa 37 (1980), 177–83.
Koicheva, Kina, “Cerkva i nekropol pri ukrepenoto selishte na m. Gradishte pri
Gabrovo,” in The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference (Veliko
Turnovo 26–30 July 2000), eds. L. Ruseva-Slokoska, R.T. Ivanov and V. Dinchev (Sofia,
2002), 178–83.
Kolendo, Jerzy, “Napływ bursztynu z Północy na tereny imperium rzymskiego w I–VI
w. n. e.’,” Prace Muzeum Ziemi 41 (1990), 91–100.
Kolendo, Jerzy, “Ambra nel Nord dell’impero Romano,” in Supplying Rome and the
Empire. Proceedings of an International Seminar Held at Siena-Certosa di Pontignano
on May 2–4, 2004 on Rome, the Provinces, Production and Distribution, eds. E. Papi and
M. Bonifay, Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary Series 69 (Portsmouth,
2007), 97–107.
Kollautz, Arnulf, “Die Awaren. Die Schichtung in einer Nomadenherrschaft,” Saeculum
5, no. 2 (1954), 129–78.
Kontny, Bartosz, “A Scandinavian trace: a beak fibula from the Late Migration period
cemetery at Nowinka in northern Poland,” ArchB 14 (2010), 241–46.
Kontny, Bartosz, “Trade, salt and amber. The formation of late Migration Period elites in
the ‘Balti-Culti’ area of northern Poland (the Elbląg Group),” ArchB 17 (2011), 60–76.
Kontny, Bartosz and Mirosław Pietrzak, “Merovingian belt on the Vidivarian waist?
Unexpected import from the Elbląg Group cemetery at Nowinka, Tolkmicko
com.,” in Arkheologiia baltiiskogo regiona, eds. N.A. Makarov, A.V. Mastykova and
A.N. Khokhlov (Moscow/St. Petersburg, 2013), 122–33.
Kontny, Bartosz, Jerzy Okulicz-Kozaryn, and Mirosław Pietrzak, “Horse graves in the
Elbląg group. The case of the cemetery at the Nowinka, Tolmicko commune,” ArchB
11 (2009), 164–84.
Kormazopoulou, Lina and Dimitris Chatzilazarou, Spelaio Andritsas—moiraio kata-
phygio. Katalogos ektheses, 26 Septembriou–15 Noembriou 2005 (Athens, 2005).
Korolev, Klim S., “Poselenie vanvizdinskoi kul’tury Shoinaty VI,” in Pamiatniki
material’noi kul’tury na Evropeiskom Severo-Vostoke, ed. E.A. Savel’eva, Materialy po
arkheologii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka 10 (Syktyvkar, 1986), 93–98.
Korolev, Klim S., “Khoziaistvennye zaniatiia naseleniia srednei Vychegdy v
Vanvizdinskuiu epokhu (VI–X vv.),” in Aktual’nye problemy kraevedeniia Respubliki
Komi. Tezisy dokladov nauchnogo- prakticheskogo konferencii, posviashchen-
noi 75-letiiu Obshchestva izucheniia Komi kraia. Syktyvkar, 14–16 maia 1997 g., ed.
N.A. Macuk (Syktyvkar, 1997), 47–48.
Korolev, Klim S., Naselenie srednei Vychegdy v drevnosti i srednevekov’e (Ekaterinburg,
1997).
Korolev, Klim S. and Eleonora A. Savel’eva, Genezis srednevekovykh kul’tur basseina
Vychegdy (II pol. I tys. n.e.-nachalo II tys. n.e.) (Syktyvkar, 1988).
Korolev, Klim S., A.M. Murygin, and Eleonora A. Savel’eva, “Vanvizdinskaia kul’tura
(VI–X vv. n.e.),” in Arkheologiia Respubliki Komi, eds. E.A. Savel’eva, A.F. Smetanin,
P. Iu. Pavlov and A.M. Murygin, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1997), 400–77.
Koroliuk, Vladimir D., “Avary (obry) i duleby Russkoi letopisi,” in Arkheograficheskii
ezhegodnik za 1962 god. K 70-letiiu akademika M.N. Tikhomirova (Moscow, 1963),
24–31.
Körősi, Andrea, “A székkutas-kápolnadűlői avar temető archaeozoológiai vizsgálata,”
MFMESA 11 (2005), 229–76.
Korshenko, A.N., “Klad pozdnerimskikh i rannevizantiiskikh mednykh monet iz
Baidarskoi doliny,” in Imperiia i polis. Sbornik nauchnykh trudo, ed. N.A. Alekseenko
(Sevastopol’, 2013), 247–66.
Kory, Raimar W., “Avar settlements: a challenge to archaeological research,” in The
Turks. 1: Early Ages, eds. H.C. Güzel, C. Oğuz and O. Karatay (Ankara, 2002), 607–16.
Korzukhina, Galina F., “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’
v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov,” MAIET 5 (1996), 352–435, 586–705.
Kosso, Cynthia Karen, “Public policy and agricultural practice: an archaeological and
literary study of Late Roman Greece,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at
Chicago (Chicago, 1993).
Kostić, Zorica., “Marginalije uz nekoliko epigrafskikh spomenika iz Makedonije,” in
Spomenica Jovana Kovachevicha, eds. R. Bunardžić and Ž. Mikić (Belgrade, 2003),
195–219.
Kostrzewski, Józef, Zagadnienie ciągłości zaludnienia ziem polskich w pradzie-
jach (od połowy II tysiąclecia pne do wczesnego średniowiecza), Prace Komisje
Archeologicznej 4.3 (Poznań, 1961).
Kotłowska, Anna, “Słowianie w Historii powszechnej Teofilakta Simokatty—
bizantyńska perspektywa aksjologiczna,” Slavia Meridionalis 17 (2017), 1–15.
Kotłowska, Anna and Łukasz Różycki, “The image of the Slavs in the work of Theophylact
Simocatta,” in Slovani, naša dediščina, eds. J. Lux, B. Štular and K. Zanier, Vestnik 27
(Ljubljana, 2018), 16–27.
Kovačová, Lucia, “Analýza vybraných aspektov na longobardských pohrebiskách na
strednom Dunaji,” Musaica 28 (2014), 75–96.
Kovács, István, “A mezőbándi ásatások. Őskori telepnyomok és temető, La-Tène ízlésű
temetkezés, népvándorláskori temető,” DENMER 4 (1913), 265–329.
Kovalev, Roman K., “The infrastructure of the northern part of the ‘fur road’ between
the Middle Volga and the East during the Middle Ages,” AEMA 11 (2000), 25–64.
Kovalev, Roman K., “Commerce and caravan routes along the northern Silk Road
(sixth-ninth centuries). Part I: the western sector,” AEMA 14 (2005), 55–106.
Kovpanenko, G.T., E.P. Buniatin, and N.A. Gavriliuk, “Raskopki kurganov u s.
Kovalenka,” in Kurgany na iuzhnom Buge, eds. V.F. Gening, G.T. Kovpanenko, and
A.I. Terenozhkin (Kiev, 1978), 7–132.
Kovrig, Ilona, “Germán lelet Gyuláról,” FA 6 (1954), 86–91.
Kovrig, Ilona, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán, Archaeologia Hungarica 40
(Budapest, 1963).
Kovrig, Ilona and József Korek, “Le cimetière de l’époque avare de Csóka (Čoka),”
AAASH 12 (1960), 257–97.
Kovtun, Svetlana. P., Rekonstrukciia social’noi struktury naseleniia Verkhnego Prikam’ia
vtoroi poloviny I tys. n. e. (po materialam mogil’nikov) (Izhevsk, 2006).
Kovtun, Svetlana. P., “K voprosu o social’noi strukture rannesrednevekovogo nasele-
niia verkhnego Prikam’ia (po materialam nevolinskikh mogil’nikov IV–IX vekov),”
Arkheologiia, etnografiia i antropologiia Evrazii 1 (2010), 44–52.
Kowalski, Jacek, “Archeologiczne badania cmentarzyska w Chojnowie gmina
Tolmicko,” Rocznik Elbląski 10 (1985), 227–29.
Loboda, I.I. and M.Ia. Choref, “Vnov’ otkrytyi v Bel’bekskoi doline rannesrednevekovoi
mogil’nik,” KSIA 140 (1974), 100–02.
Lodowski, Jerzy, Sądowel we wczesnym średniowieczu (Warsaw, 1972).
Lodowski, Jerzy, Dolny Śląsk na początku średniowiecza (VI–X w.). Podstawy osadnicze i
gospodarcze (Wrocław, 1980).
Lodowski, Jerzy, “Osada wczesnośredniowieczna z VI–VII w. w Chwałkowie, woj.
Wałbrzych,” Silesia antiqua 23 (1981), 149–63.
Loma, Aleksandar, “Procopius about the supreme god of the Slavs (Bella VII 14.23): two
critical remarks,” ZRVI 41 (2004), 67–70.
Lopatin, Nikolai V., “Problemy i perspektivy izucheniia drevnostei tipa Tushemli-
Bancerovshchiny,” in Pamiatniki zheleznogo veka i srednevekov’ia na verkhnei Volge i
Verkhnem Podvin’e, ed. V.L. Ianin and V.V. Sedov (Kalinin, 1989), 14–24.
Lopatin, Nikolai V., “Keramicheskii kompleks verkhnego sloia gorodishcha
Bancerovshchina,” Archaeoslavica 2 (1993), 63–85.
Lopatin, Nikolai V., “O gorodishchakh V–VII vv. v Verkhnem Podneprov’e i na
Severo-Zapade Rossii,” KSIIA 250 (2018), 293–306.
Lőrinczy, Gábor, “A Szegvár-Oromdűllői kora avarkori temetö 1. sírja,” MFME, no. 2
(1984–1985), 127–53.
Lőrinczy, Gábor, “Kelet-európai steppei népesség a 6–7. századi Kárpát-medencében.
Régészeti adatok a Tiszántúl kora avar kori betelepüléséhez,” MFMESA 4 (1998),
343–72.
Lőrinczy, Gábor, “Kelet-európai steppei népesség a 6–7. századi Kárpát-medencében,”
in A Kárpát-medence és a steppe, ed. A. Márton, Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár 14
(Budapest, 2001), 41–47.
Lőrinczy, Gábor and Péter Somogyi, “Archäologische Aussagen zur Geschichte der
Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene östlich der Theiß im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. Grab 33
des frühawarenzeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Szegvár-Oromdűlő,” in Lebenswelten
zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte. Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag, eds. J. Drauschke et al., Monographien der Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums, 150.1 (Mainz, 2018), 231–50.
Lőrinczy, Gábor and Péter Straub, “Újabb adatok az avar kori szűrőkanalak értékelé-
séhez I,” MFMESA 9 (2003), 171–81.
Lőrinczy, Gábor and Péter Straub, “Újabb adatok az avar kori szűrőkanalak értékelé-
séhez II,” MFMESA 10 (2004), 305–37.
Lőrinczy, Gábor and Péter Straub, “Alpi típusú övgarnitúra a szegvár-oromdűlői 81. sír-
ból,” ZM 14 (2005), 137–67.
Lőrinczy, Gábor and Péter Straub, “Újabb adatok az avari kori szűrőkanalak értékelé-
séhez III,” MFMESA 11 (2005), 127–45.
(21–28 septembre 1986), eds. N. Duval, F. Baritel and Ph. Pergola, vol. 2, Studi di
antichità cristiana 41 (Rome, 1989), 1227–41.
Marin, Emilio, Nancy Gauthier, Françoise Prévot, Jean-Pierre Caillet, Noël Duval and
Denis Feissel, Inscriptions de Salone chrétienne, IVe–VIIe siècles. Collection de
l’Ecole Française de Rome 194.4 (Rome/Split, 2010).
Marki, Euterpi, “Anaskaphe Louloudion,” AEMT 9 (1995), 195–201.
Marki, Euterpi, “Deux tombeaux monumentaux protobyzantins récemment décou-
verts en Grèce du nord,” CA 45 (1997), 19–24.
Marki, Euterpi, “Louloudies,” AEMT 11 (1997), 289–96.
Marki, Euterpi, “Kamarotos taphos me toichographies apo ten Pylaia,” in Aphieroma
ste mneme tou Sotere Kissa, eds. Ch. Mavropoulou-Tsioumi and E. Kyriakoudes
(Thessaloniki, 2001), 273–81.
Marki, Euterpi, He nekropole tes Thessalonikes stous hysteroromaikous kai palaiochris-
tianikous chronous (mesa tou 3ou heos mesa tou 8ou ai. m. Ch.), Demosieumata tou
Archaiologikou Deltiou 95 (Athens, 2006).
Marki, Euterpi and Sophia Akrivopoulou, “Anaskaphe agrepaules sto Paliokastro
Oraiokastrou,” AEMT 17 (2003), 281–98.
Marki, Euterpi, Evangellia Angelkou and Maria Cheimonopoulou. ‘Ta lychnaria
tou episkopikou sygkrotematos tou Louloudion’. In D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis and
D. Kousoulakou (eds), Keramike tes hysteres archaioteta apo ton elladiko choro
(30s–70s ai. m. Ch.). Epistemonike synantese, Thessaloniki, 12–16 noembriou 2006,
vol. 1 (Thessaloniki Demosieumata Archaiologikou Institoutou Makedonikon kai
Thrakikon Spoudon, 2010), pp. 208–16.
Marković, Nemanja and Sonja Stamenković, “Antler workshop in Caričin Grad
(Iustiniana Prima): reconstruction of the technological process,” in Close to the
Bone. Current Studies in Bone Technologies, ed. S. Vitezović (Belgrade: Institute of
Archaeology, 2016), 218–25.
Marković, Nemanja, Ana Elena Reuter, and Jago Jonathan Birk, “Bioarkheoloshka
istrazhivanja svakodnevnog zhivota u Carichinom Gradu (Justiniana Prima),”
Leskovački zbornik 59 (2019), 21–44.
Marosi, Arnold and Nándor Fettich, Dunapentelei avar sírleletek, Archaeologia
Hungarica 18 (Budapest, 1936).
Marović, Ivan, “Ostava bizantskih zlatnika iz Narone,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju
Dalmatinsku 99 (2006), 235–52.
Marshak, Boris I., “Serebro za mekha,” in Vizantiiskaia ideia. Vizantiia v epokhu
Komninov i Paleologov. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, ed. V.N. Zalesskaia (St. Petersburg,
2006), 72–82.
Marti, V. Iu., “Rybozasolochnye vanny Tiritaki,” in Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Bospora
i Khersonesa, eds. S.A. Zhebelev and V.F. Gaidukevich, Materialy i issledovaniia po
arkheologii SSSR 4 (Moscow/Leningrad, 1941), 93–95.
Mathisen, Ralph and Danuta Shanzer (eds), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transforma-
tion of the Roman World. Cultural Interaction and Creation of Identity in Late Antiq-
uity (Farnham/Burlington, 2011).
Matijašić, Robert, “Kasiodorova pisma kao izvor za poznavanje kasnoantičke povjesti
Istre (Cass. Var. XII 22, 23, 24),” Zgodovinski časopis 42, no. 3 (1988), 363–71.
Matveeva, G.I., “Pamiatniki I tysiacheletiia novoi ery levoberezhiia r. Beloi,” Arkheologiia
i etnografiia Bashkirii 3 (1968), 113–21.
Matveeva, G.I., “O proiskhozhdenii imen’kovskoi kul’tury,” in Drevnie i srednevekovie
kul’tury Povolzh’ia. Mezhvuzovskii sbornik, ed. G.I. Matveeva (Kuibyshev, 1981), 52–73.
Matveeva, G.I., “Raskopki Staro-Mainskogo gorodishcha,” in Arkheologicheskii otkrytiia
1985 goda, ed. V.P. Shilov (Moscow, 1987), 191.
Matveeva, G.I., “Issledovanie Staro-Mainskogo gorodishcha v 1991 godu,” in
Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia Urala i Povolzh’ia. Sbornik statei, ed. V.V. Nikitin (Ioshkar-
Ola, 1994), 90–92.
Matveeva, G.I., Srednee Povolzh’e v IV–VII vv.: imen’kovskaia kul’tura (Samara, 2003).
Matveeva, G.I. and V. Iu Morozov, “Karmalinskoe gorodishche,” in Arkheologicheskie
issledovaniia v lesostepnom Povol’zhe. Mezhvuzovskii sbornik statei, ed. G.I. Matveeva
(Samara, 1991), 172–84.
Matveeva, G.I., A.V. Nabokov, and Anna F. Kochkina, “Issledovanie Staro-Mainskogo
gorodishcha,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia Urala i Povolzh’ia, ed. N.A. Nagovicin
(Izhevsk, 1991), 123–24.
Maul, Birgit, Frühmittelalterliche Gläser des 5.–7./8. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Sturzbecher,
glockenförmige Becher, Tummler und Glockentummler, Universitätsforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie 84 (Bonn, 2002).
Mauss, Marcel, “Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l’échange dans les societies archa-
ïques,” Année sociologique 1 (1923–2924), 30–186.
Mauss, Marcel, The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, transl.
W.D. Halls (London/New York, 2001).
Mavropoulou-Tsioumi, Chrysanthi, Hagia Sophia. The Great Church of Thessaloniki
(Athens, 2014).
May, Zoltán and Gergely Szenthe, “Archaeometrical studies on some bronze buckles
with portable (handheld) XRF spectroscopy,” AAASH 66 (2015), 379–86.
Mazhitov, Niiaz A., “Kurgannyi mogil’nik v derevne Novo-Turbasly,” in Bashkirskii
arkheologicheskii sbornik, eds. A.P. Smirnov and R.G. Kuzeev (Ufa, 1959), 114–42.
Mazhitov, Niiaz A., Bakhmutinskaia kul’tura. Etnicheskaia istoriia naseleniia severnoi
Bashkirii serediny I tysiacheletiia n. e. (Moscow, 1968).
McC. Adams, Robert, “Anthropological perspectives on ancient trade,” Current
Anthropology 15 (1974), 239–58.
Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute of Archaeology of the University of
Rzeszów under the Patronage of Union Académique International (Programme
No. 57 Moravia Magna), Kraków, 23–26 IV 2007, ed. M. Wołoszyn, Moravia Magna,
Seria Polona 3 (Cracow, 2009), 357–93.
Militký, Jiří, Finds of Greek, Roman, and Early Byzantine Coins in the Territory of the
Czech Republic. I. Bohemia, Collection Moneta 107 (Wetteren, 2010).
Milo, Peter, Frühmittelalterliche Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Eine vergleichende
Strukturanalyse durch Archäologie und Geophysik, Studien zur Archäologie
Europas 21 (Bonn, 2014).
Minasian, R.S., “Raboty v okrestnosti pos. Usviaty,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1971
goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1972), 18–19.
Minasian, R.S., “Poselenie i mogil’nik na beregu ozera Uzmen’,” Trudy Gosudarstvennogo
Ordena Lenina Ermitazha 20 (1979), 180–84.
Minasian, R.S., “Problema slavianskogo zaseleniia lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy v
svete arkheologicheskikh dannykh,” in Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego
srednevekov’ia. Mezhvuzovskii sbornik, ed. A.D. Stoliar (Leningrad, 1982), 24–29.
Minasian, R.S. “Dannye o sposobakh izgotovlennykh krymskikh pal’chatykh fibul,”
MAIET 6 (1997), 479–89.
Minasian, R.S. “Osobennosti ranneslavianskogo liteinogo i iuvelirnogo proizvodstva,”
in Drevnosti Podvin’ia: istoricheskii aspekt. Po materialam kruglogo stola, posvi-
ashchennogo pamiat’ A.M. Mikliaeva (6–8 oktiabria 1999), eds. G.V. Vilinbakhov,
B.S. Korotkevich, A.N. Mazurkevich, and Iu. Iu. Piotrovskii (St. Petersburg, 2003),
206–11.
Minchev, Aleksandăr, “Early Byzantine weights found in northeastern Bulgaria and some
notes on their production, distribution, and notes,” in Numizmatichni, sfragistichni
i epigrafski prinoi kăm istoriiata na Chernomorskoto kraibrezhie. Mezhdunarodna
konferenciia v pamet na st. n. s. Milko Mirchev, Varna 15–17 septemvri 2005 g., ed.
I. Lazarenko. Acta Musei Varnensis 7.2 (Varna, 2008), 7–40.
Mingalev, V.V., “Monetnyi kompleks pamiatnikov rannego srednevekov’ia Prikam’ia
i Vychegodskogo kraia,” in Putiami srednevekovykh torgovcev. Sbornik materialov
“kruglovo stola” v ramkakh Mezhdunarodnogo (XVI Ural’skogo) arkheologicheskogo
soveshchaniia, Perm’, 6–10 oktiabria 2003 g., ed. A.M. Belavin (Perm’, 2004), 39–46.
Mingalev, V.V., “Raskopki mogil’nika Pyshtain II v Gainskom raione Komi-Permiackogo
AO,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 2005 goda, ed. N.V. Lopatin (Moscow, 2007),
384–85.
Mingazov, Khamil R., “Bolgary Alzeko v Bavarii, Karantanii i Italii kak primer avtonom-
noi chasti etnokul’turnoi obshchnosti,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e
29 (2017), 164–66.
Mitthof, Fritz, Oliver Jens Schmitt, and Peter Schreiner, Herrschaft und Politik
in Südosteuropa von der römischen Antike bis 1300, Handbuch zur Geschichte
Südosteuropas 1 (Munich/Vienna, 2019).
Mizoguchi, Koji, “The evolution of prestige good systems: an application of net-
work analysis to the transformation of communication systems and their media,”
in Network Analysis in Archaeology. New Approaches to Regional Interaction, ed.
C. Knapett (Oxford, 2013), 151–78.
Mocanu, Marian, “Notes on the ‘African Red Slip Ware’ ceramics in Scythia Minor,”
Studia antiqua et archaeologica 18 (2012), 319–40.
Modrijan, Zvezdana, “Keramika,” in Poznoantična utrjena naselbina Tonovcov grad pri
Kobaridu. Najdbe, eds. Z. Modrijan and T. Milavec, Opera Instituti Archaeologici
Sloveniae 24 (Ljubljana, 2011), 121–219 and 514–56.
Mogarichev, Iurii M. and Andrei V. Sazanov, “K voprosu o khazarakh na Bospore v konce
VII-nachale VIII v.,” in Bosporskii fenomen: problema sootnosheniia pis’mennykh i
arkheologicheskikh istochnikov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii, ed.
V. Iu. Zuev (St. Petersburg, 2005), 354–60.
Mogarichev, Iurii M., Andrei V. Sazanov, and Sergei B. Sorochan. Krym v “khazarskoe”
vremia (VIII–seredina X vv.): voprosy istorii i arkheologii (Moscow, 2017).
Mokrousov, S.V., “O khronologii sel’skikh poselenii Krymskogo Priazov’ia v rann-
evizantiiskii period,” in Antikovedenie na rubezhe tysiacheletii. Mezhdisciplinarnye
issledovaniia i novye metodiki (informatika, podvodnaia arkheologiia i sozdanie
kompiuternoi bazy dannykh. Tezisy dokladov konferencii, 29–30 iuniia 2000 g., ed.
G.A. Koshelenko (Moscow, 2000), 73–74.
Mongait, A.L., “Arkheologicheskie zametki. I. Mogila vsadnika u s. Arcybasheva,” KSDPI
41 (1951), 124–30.
Monin, Andrei S. and Iurii A. Shishkov, Istoriia klimata (Leningrad, 1979).
Moora, Harri, “Ob oloviannykh ukrasheniiakh i ikh izgotovlenii v Pribaltike,” in Munera
archaeologica Iosepho Kostrzewski quinquagesimum annum optimarum artium stu-
diis deditum peragenti ab amicis collegis discipulis oblata, ed. J. Skoracki (Poznań,
1963), 355–67.
Moora, T. “Tarbja kivikalmed Paide lähedal ja Põhja-Eesti tarandkalmete keraamika,”
ENSV 3 (1967), 280–300.
Moravcsik, Gyula, “Byzantinische Mission im Kreise der Türkvölker an der Nordküste
des Schwarzen Meeres,” in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of
Byzantine Studies. Oxford, 5–10 September 1966, eds. J.M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and
S. Runciman (Oxford, 1967), 15–28.
Moreland, John, “Concepts of the early medieval economy,” in The Long Eighth Century,
eds. I.L. Hansen and C. Wickham, The Transformation of the Roman World 11
(Leiden/Boston, 2000), 1–34.
Müller, Róbert, “Die Awaren und die Landwirtschaft,” in Reitervölker aus dem Osten.
Hunnen + Awaren. Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß Halbturn,
26. April–31. Oktober 1996, eds. F. Daim, K. Kaus, and P. Tomka (Eisenstadt, 1996),
365–71.
Müller, Robert, “Ein germanisches Grab der Frühawarenzeit aus Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,”
AAASH 51 (1999–2000), 341–57.
Müller, Robert, “Das Familiengräberfeld Keszthely, Fenéki-Straße,” in Germanen
am Plattensee. Ausstellung des Balatoní Muzeums Keszthely im Museum für Früh-
geschichte des Landes Niederösterreich, Schloss Traismauer, vom 6. April bis 1.
November 2002, ed. R. Müller (Traismauer, 2002a), 33–35.
Müller, Robert, “Eine streifenplattierte Gürtelgarnitur aus dem awarischen Gräberfeld
von Gyenesdiás,” in Germanen am Plattensee. Ausstellung des Balatoní Muzeums
Keszthely im Museum für Frühgeschichte des Landes Niederösterreich, Schloss
Traismauer, vom 6. April bis 1. November 2002, ed. R. Müller (Traismauer, 2002b),
43–45.
Müller, Robert, “A mikebudai avar kengyelpár,” Arrabona 44, no. 2 (2006), 349–56.
Müller, Robert, “Neue germanische Funde aus der Festung Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,”
AAASH 59, no. 2 (2008), 231–45.
Müller, Robert, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-
Fenékpuszta, Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonene 1 (Budapest/Leipzig, 2010).
Murygin, A.M., “Poselenie Usogorsk III na srednei Mezeni,” Materialy po arkheologii
evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka 8 (1980), 71–91.
Murygin, A.M. and S.M. Pliusnin, “Poselenie Iadmas I v basseine srednei Mezeni,” in
Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Materialy po
arkheologii Evropeisokogo Severo-Vostoka, eds. A.D. Napalkov, E.A. Savel’eva, P.Iu.
Pavlov, and K.S. Korolev, Materialy po arkheologii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka 12
(Syktyvkar, 1993), 99–115.
Muscă, Luciana and T.I. Muscă, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Băleni-Români, jud.
Dîmbovița,” MCA 14 (1980), 423–29.
Musianowicz, Krystyna, “Cmentarzysko kurhanowe z VI–VIII w. w Klimentowiczach
koło Szepietowki (USSR),” WA 39, no. 3 (1975), 325–38.
Musteață, Sergiu, “Unele concretizări privind vasul de metal din tezaurul monetar de
la Horgești, jud. Bacău, România,” in Arheologia între știință, politică și economia de
piață, ed. S. Musteață (Chișinău, 2010), 99–127.
Nagy, Balázs, Felicitas Schmieder, and András Vadas, „Introduction,” in The Medieval
Networks in East Central Europe: Commerce, Contacts, Communication, eds. B. Nagy,
F. Schmieder, A. Vadas (Abingdon/New York, 2019), 1–7.
Nagy, Margit, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest, Monumenta
Avarorum Archaeologica 2 (Budapest, 1998).
Novák, Jan, Lenka Lisá, Petr Pokorný, and Martin Kuna, “Charcoal analyses as an envi-
ronmental tool for the study of early medieval sunken houses infills in Roztoky near
Prague, Czech Republic,” JAS 39, no. 4 (2012), 808–17.
Nowak, Maciej, Radosław Liwoch, Magdalena Moskal-del Hoyo, Anna Rauba-Bukowska,
and Jarosław Wilczyński, “Korzkiew 5—najstarze stanowisko średniowieczne na
wyżinie Olkuskiej,” MArch 41 (2016), 245–62.
Nowakowski, Wojciech, “Osada z okresu wpływów rzymskich i V–VII wieku w
Wyszemborku, stanowisku I, gm. Mrągowo, woj. Olsztyńskie,” Światowit 37 (1993),
77–113.
Nowakowski, Wojciech, “Telegraf bez drutu—powracający problem pochodzenia
Słowian,” in Cień Światowita czyli pięć głosów w sprawie etnogenezy Słowian, ed.
A. Kokowski (Lublin, 2002), 174–99.
Nowakowski, Wojciech, “Die frühesten Steigbügel aus Preußen. Funde vom Gräberfeld
Widitten II im Samland,” in The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman
Period and the Migration Period, eds. B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska, M. Juściński,
P. Łuczkiewicz and S. Sadowski. Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5 (Lublin, 2008),
189–212.
Nyárádi, Zsolt, “Gepidák a Nagy-Küküllő felső folyásának dombközi medencéiben,” in
Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában, ed. Zs. Körösfői, Molnár István
Múzeum Kiadványai 3 (Székelykeresztúr, 2010–2011), 321–76.
O’Shea, John M., Villagers of the Maros. A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society (New
York, 1996).
Oanță-Marghitu, Rodica, “Argamum între Imperiul roman târziu și ‘barbari’. Obiectele
mărunte ca ipostaze ale comunicării,” in A la recherche d’une colonie. Actes du
colloque international “40 ans de recherche archéologique à Orgamè / Argamum”,
Bucarest-Tulcea-Jurilovca, 3–5 octobre 2005, ed. M. Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Orgame/
Argamum, Supplementa 1 (Bucharest, 2006), 345–74.
Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Ernest, “Monnaies byzantines des VIIe–Xe siècles décou-
vertes Silistra, dans la collection de l’académicien Péricle Papahagi, conservées au
Cabinet des Médailles du Musée National d’Histoire de Roumanie,” Cercetări numis-
matice 7 (1996), 97–127.
Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Ernest, Monedă și societate în teritoriile de la sud și est de
Carpați (secolele VI–XIV ) (Cluj-Napoca, 2003).
Oblomskii, Andrei M., “Rannesrednevekovye pamiatniki Verkhnego Podon’ia.
Predvaritel’nye itogi issledovaniia,” Tambovskie drevnosti 3 (2012), 172–229.
Oblomskii, Andrei M., “Kolochinskaia kul’tura,” in Rannesrednevekovye drevnosti lesnoi
zony Vostochnoi Evropy (V–VII vv.), eds. A.M. Oblomskii and I.V. Islanova (Moscow,
2016), 10–113.
Olteanu, Ștefan, “Considerații privind obținerea fierului din minereu în așezarea din
sec. VI–VII de la Ciurel, în lumina cercetărilor de laborator,” CAB 3 (1981), 175–78.
Olteanu, Ștefan, Societatea carpato-danubiano-pontică în secolele IV–XI: structuri
demo-economice și sociale (Bucharest, 1997).
Olteanu, Ștefan, De la comunitatea obștească teritorială la constituirea statelor medi-
evale românești de la mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea (Bucharest, 2017).
Olteanu, Ștefan and Nina Neagu, “Rezultatele cercetărilor de la Șirna-Prahova,” MCA 15
(1983), 384–86.
Olteanu, Ștefan, Nina Grigore, and Victor Nicolae, Comunitatea sătească de la Șirna,
județul Prahova (secolele II–X d.h.), în lumina izvoarelor arheologice (Bucharest,
2007).
Olteanu, Ștefan, Nina Neagu and D. Șecleman, “Tehnologia obținerii fierului din
minereu și problema continuității istorice pe teritoriul României în mileniul I e. n.,”
SCIVA 32, no. 2 (1981), 217–32.
Olteanu, Ștefan, Victor Teodorescu, and Nina Neagu, “Rezultatele cercetărilor arheo-
logice de la Șirna,” MCA 14 (1980), 417–22.
Omel’kova, L.A., “Rannesrednevekovyi mogil’nik v Bel’bekskoi doline,” in Vizantiia
i sopredel’nyi mir. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, ed. M.A. Poliakovskaia (Sverdlovsk,
1990), 73–94.
Opaiț, Andrei, “Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der zwei Amphoratypen,” Peuce 9
(1984), 311–27.
Opaiț, Andrei, “Ceramica din așezarea și cetatea de la Independența (Murighiol) sec-
olele V î. e. n.-VII e. n.,” Peuce 10 (1991), 133–82.
Opaiț, Andrei, Aspecte ale vieții economice din provincia Scythia (secolele IV–VI p. Ch.).
Producția ceramicii locale și de import (Bucharest, 1996).
Opaiț, Andrei, Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th–6th
Centuries AD). Aspects of Economic Life in the Province of Scythia, BAR International
Series 1274 (Oxford, 2004).
Opaiț, Andrei and Teodor Bănică, “Das ländliche Territorium der Stadt Ibida (2.–7.
Jh.) und einige Betrachtungen zum Leben auf dem Land an der unteren Donau,” in
Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. R. Pillinger,
A. Pülz, and H. Vetters, Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, Antiquarische
Abteilung 18 (Vienna, 1992), 103–12.
Opreanu, Coriolan, Valentin Voișian, and Emilian Bota, “Mormântul unui războinic din
epoca migrațiilor descoperit la Cluj-Napoca—‘Polus’,” in Dacia felix. Studia Michaeli
Bărbulescu oblata, S. Nemeti (Cluj-Napoca, 2007), 510–19.
Opriș, Ioan Carol and Alexandru Rațiu, Capidava II. Building C 1—Contributions to the
History of Annona Militaris in the 6th Century (Cluj-Napoca, 2017).
Opriș, Ioan Carol and Alexandru Rațiu, “The northern supply chain in quaestura exer-
citus. 6th to early 7th century amphorae at Capidava—archaeology of the annona
for limes Scythicus,” Romanian Archaeological Institute in Athens Bulletin (2019),
139–55.
Oras, Ester, “East Baltic Middle Iron Age wealth deposits in burial areas: an example of
regional cultural practice,” ArchB 19 (2013), 61–80.
Oras, Ester, Practices of Wealth Depositing in the 1st–9th Century AD Eastern Baltic
(Leiden, 2015).
Orlov, Ruslan S., “Kul’tura kochevnikov IV–VIII vv.,” in Etnokul’turnaia karta territorii
Ukrainskoi SSR v I tys. n.e., eds. V.D. Baran, R.V. Terpylovs’kyi, and E.V. Maksimov
(Kiev, 1985), 98–105.
Orlov, Ruslan S. and Iurii Ia. Rassamakin, “Novye pamiatniki VI–VII iz Priazov’ia,”
in Materialy I tys. n. e. po arkheologii i istorii Ukrainy i Vengrii, eds. I. Erdélyi,
O.M. Prikhodniuk, A.V. Simonenko, and E. Szimonova (Kiev, 1996), 102–16.
Ostanina, Taisiia I., “Issledovaniia Udmurtskogo respublikanskogo muzeia,” in
Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1978 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1979), 194–95.
Ostanina, Taisiia I., “Nabornye poiasa iz Kuzebaevskogo klada VII veka,” PV 19 (2017),
257–71.
Ostanina, Taisiia I., O.M. Kanunnikova, V.P. Stepanov and A.B. Nikitin, Kuzebaevskii
klad iuvelira VII v. kak istoricheskii istochnik (Izhevsk, 2011).
Ovsiannikov, V.V., “Razvitie vooruzheniia v lesostepnom Priural’e vo vtoroi pol. I tysi-
acheletiia n. e.,” in Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e.
(voprosy khronologii). Materialy II Mezhdunarodnoi arkheologicheskoi konferen-
cii, 17–20 noiabria 1997 g., eds. D.A. Stashenkov, A.F. Kochkina and L.V. Kuznecova
(Samara, 1998), 295–302.
Padin, V.A., “Ranneslavianskie poseleniia i mogil’nik v raione Trubchevska,” SA, no. 3
(1960), 317–19.
Padin, V.A., “Drevnosti VI–VII vv. n.e. v okrestnostiakh Trubchevska,” in
Rannesrednevekovye vostochnoslavianskie drevnosti, ed. P.N. Tret’iakov (Leningrad,
1974), 132–35.
Paisidou, Melina, S. Vasiliadou, and Krinio Konstantinidou, “METRO Thessalonikes
2010. To ergo tes 9es EBA,” AEMT 24 (2010), 223–34.
Paliouras, Athanasios D., Byzantine Aitoloakarnania. Symbole ste byzantine kai metabyz-
antine mnemeiake techne (Agrinion, 2004).
Pánczél-Bajnok, Katalin, Péter Pánczél, György Szakmány, and Tivadar Vida, “5–6.
századi, Pannonia területéről származó kerámiák archeometriai elemzáse,”
Archeometriai Műhely 11, no. 1 (2014), 1–12.
Pandura, Mariusz, “Ardarici gladius. Historia królewstwa Gepidów (454–567),” SlAnt 45
(2004), 55–88.
Patoura, Sophia, “He epanastase tou Bitalianou tes Thrakes kai oi politikoi eligmoi tou
Anastasiou,” Symmeikta 15 (2002), 39–52.
Pavlov, Borislav, “Dva komplekta srednoaziatski măzhki nakiti i paraden kavaleriiski
nabor ot kolektivnata nakhodka ot Malaia Pereshchepina (opit za formulirane na
problema),” in Prof. d.i.n. Stancho Vaklinov i srednovekovnata bălgarska kultura, eds.
K. Popkonstantinov, B. Borisov and R. Kostova (Veliko Tărnovo, 2005), 91–98.
Pavlović, Daša, “The settlement and organization of early Slavic hamlets in Prekmurje,
Slovenia,” in Dani Sjepana Gunjače 2. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa “Dani
Stjepana Gunjače 2”, Hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština,
Međunarodne teme, Split, 18.–21. listopada 2011, ed. T. Šeparović (Split, 2012), 317–34.
Pavlović, Daša, “Zgodnjesrednjeveška poselitev severovzhodne Slovenije: primer
najdišča Nova tabla pri Murski Soboti,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Univerza na Primorskem
(Koper, 2013).
Pavlović, Daša, “Začetki zgodnjeslovanske poselitve Prekmurja,” AV 68 (2017), 349–86.
Pazaras, Theocharis N., “Anaskaphe palaiochristianikes basilikes sto Mbgiadoudi
Epanomes 2000–2001,” AEMT 15 (2001), 289–98.
Pazdur, Mieczysław F., Romuald Awsiuk, Tomasz Goslar, and Anna Pazdur,
“Chronologia radiowęglowa stanowiska w Haćkach,” Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki
Śląskiej. Matematyka-Fizkya. Geochronometria 9 (1993), 27–46.
Pečeliūnaitė-Bazienė, Elvyra, “2/2 sustiprinto ruoželinio pynimo audiniai I–XII a.
Lietuvos pajūrio laidojimo paminkluose,” AL. 5 (2004), 66–77.
Pedersen, A., “Ancient monuments for new graves. An aspect of Viking Age burial
customs in southern Scandinavia,” in Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives.
Origins, Changes, and Interactions. An International Conference in Lund, Sweden,
June 3–7, 2004, eds. A. Andrén, K. Jennbert and C. Raudvere (Lund, 2006), 346–53.
Pędziszewska, Anna, Małgorzata Latałowa, Joanna Święta-Musznicka, Marcelina
Zimny, Mirosława Kupryjanowicz, Agnieszka M. Noryśkiewicz, and Karolina Bloom,
“Pollen evidence of change in environment and settlement during the 1st millen-
nium AD,” in The Migration Period Between the Oder and the Vistula, ed. A. Bursche,
J. Hines and A. Zapolska, vol. 1, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages,
450–1450 59 (Leiden/Boston, 2020), 137–98.
Peets, Jüri, “Eesti rauast muinasajal,” in Arheoloogiline kogumik, eds. L. Jaanits and
V. Lang (Tallinn, 1991), 92–100.
Peiser, Felix E., “Die Trinkörn-Ränder des Prussia-Museums,” in Festschrift Adalbert
Bezzenberger zum 14. April 1921 dargebracht von seinen Freunden und Schülern
(Göttingen, 1921), 114–20.
Peisker, Jan, “Die älteren Beziehungen der Slawen zu Turkotataren und Germanen
und ihre sozialgeschichtliche Bedeutung,” Vierteljahresschrift zur Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte 3 (1905), 187–360.
Pleinerová, Ivana, Die altslawischen Dörfer von Březno bei Louny (Prague/Louny, 2000).
Pleinerová, Ivana, “Studny z doby stěhování národů v Hostivici-Paloukách, okr.
Praha-západ,” PA 6 (2005), 105–26.
Pleinerová, Ivana and Evžen Neustupný. “K otazce stravy ve staroslovanském období
(Experiment v Březne),” AR 39 (1987), 90–101 and 117–19.
Pletneva, Svetlana A., “Nomadski poselishta prez VII–IX v. v Priazovieto i baseina na
reka Don,” Arkheologiia 6, no. 4 (1964), 1–8.
Pletneva, Svetlana A., Ot kochevyi k gorodam: saltovo-maiackaia kul’tura (Moscow:
Nauka, 1967).
Pletneva, Svetlana A., Kochevniki srednevekov’ia. Poiski istoricheskikh zakonomernostei
(Moscow, 1982).
Pletn’ov, Valentin, Varna prez srednovekovieto (Varna, 2008).
Pletn’ov, Valentin, “Za slavianskoto prisăstvie v raiona na Odesos i ‘taka narech-
enata Varna’,” in Bălgariia, bălgarite i Evropa. Mit, istoriia, săvremie. IV (Dokladi
ot Mezhdunarodna konferenciia v pamet na prof. d.i.n. Iordan Andreev “Bălgariia,
zemia na blazheni …”, V. Tărnovo, 29–31 oktomvri 2009 g., eds. S. Dermendzhieva and
D. Dimitrov (Veliko Tărnovo, 2011), 105–27.
Pletn’ov, Valentin, Odesos, Varna i raionăt v antichnite i srednovekovnite izvori (V–XII
vek, Varna i raionăt v istoricheskite izvori (V–XIX vek) 1 (Varna, 2014).
Pobol’, Leonid D., “Starazhytnyia paselishchy na siaredniai Biarezine,” in Belaruskiia
starazhytnasci. Materyialy kanferencyi pa arkhealogii BSSR i sumezhnykh terytoryi,
ed. L.D. Pobol’ (Minsk, 1972), 117–49.
Pobol’, Leonid D., “Arkheologicheskie izyskaniia v Taimanove,” in Arkheologicheskie
otkrytiia 1973 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1974), 378.
Pochitonov, Eugen, “Nález antických mincí v Hlinsku v Čechách,” Numismatický
sborník 1 (1953), 109.
Podgórska-Czopek, Joanna, Grodzisko Dolne, stanowisko 22 - wielokulturowe stanow-
isko nad dolnym Wisłokiem. Część II. Okres rzymski i wczesnosłowiański, Collectio
Archaeologica Ressoviensis 12 (Rzeszów, 2009).
Podosinov, Aleksandr V., Problemy istoricheskoi geografii Vostochnoi Evropy (antichnost’
i rannee srednevekov’e) (Leiwston/Queenston/Lampeter, 2000).
Pohl, Walter, “Historische Überlegungen zum awarisch-byzantinischen Austausch,”
WMME 15 (1990), 91–96.
Pohl, Walter, “Zur Dynamik barbarischer Gesellschaften: das Beispiel der Awaren,” Klio
73 (1991), 595–600.
Pohl, Walter, “Die Langobarden in Pannonien und Justinians Gotenkrieg,” in Ethnische
und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert.
Symposium Nitra 6. bis 10. November 1994, eds. D. Bialeková and J. Zábojník
(Bratislava, 1996), 27–36.
Pohl, Walter, “The Empire and the Lombards: treaties and negotiations in the sixth
century,” in Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity,
ed. W. Pohl, The Transformation of the Roman World 1 (Leiden, 1997), 75–133.
Pohl, Walter, “A non-Roman empire in Central Europe: the Avars,” in Regna and Gentes.
The Relationship Between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in
the Transformation of the Roman World, eds. H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, and W. Pohl, The
Transformation of the Roman World 13 (Leiden/Boston, 2003), 571–95.
Pohl, Walter, “Übergänge von der Antike zum Mittelalter—eine unendliche Debatte?“
in Römische Legionslager in den Rhein- und Donauprovinzen. Nuclei spätantik-
frühmittelalterlichen Lebens?, ed. M. Konrad, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 138 (Munich,
2011), 47–61.
Pohl, Walter, The Avars. A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822 (Ithaca, 2018).
Polanyi, Karl, “The economy as instituted process,” in Trade and Market in the Early
Empires, eds. K. Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg and H.W. Pearson (Glencoe, 1957), 243–70.
Polek, Krzysztof, “Państwo Samona w nowych badaniach archeologicznych i his-
torycznych,” in Cognitioni gestorum. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza dedykowane
Profesorowi Jerzemu Strzelczykowi, ed. D.A. Sikorski and A.M. Wyrwa (Warsaw,
2006), 41–51.
Poleska, Paulina and Janusz Bober, “Wczesnosłowiańska półziemianka ze stanowiska
5B (Wyciąże) w Krakowie-Nowej Hucie,” MANH 19 (1996), 101–28.
Poleska, Paulina, Janusz Bober, and Marek Krąpiec, “Das erste dendrochronologisch
datierte frühslawische Grubenhaus aus Polen,” Archaeoslavica 3 (1998), 33–70.
Polesskikh, M.R., “Boevoe oruzhie i snariazhenie iz mogil’nikov Armievskogo tipa,” SA,
no. 1 (1968), 198–207.
Polesskikh, M.R., “Armievskii mogil’nik,” in Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki mordvy I tysi-
acheletiia n. e., ed. G.A. Fedorov-Davydov, Trudy Nauchno-issledovatel’skogo insti-
tuta iazyka, literatury, istorii i ekonomiki pri Sovete Ministrov Mordovskoi ASR 63
(Saransk, 1979), 5–56.
Polgár, Szabolcs, “Kereszténység Kelet-Európában: a Krímben és a ruszok között,” in
Térítés—megtérés. A világvallások terjedése Kelet-Europá népei között, eds. L. Balogh
and S. Kovács (Budapest, 2009), 129–40.
Poliakov, Iurii A., “Raskopki kurganov na nizhnei Sylve,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia
1982 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1984), 171–72.
Popescu, Dorin, “Cercetări arheologice în Transilvania,” MCA 2 (1956), 43–152.
Popescu, Dorin, “Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Morești,” Dacia 18 (1974), 189–238.
Popescu, Emilian, Inscripțiile grecești și latine din secolele IV–XIII descoperite în
România (Bucharest, 1976).
Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008, eds.
J. Bemmann and M. Schmauder, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn,
2008), 363–76.
Quast, Dieter, “Die Langobarden in Mähren und im nördlichen Niederösterreich—
ein Diskussionsbeitrag,” in Archaeology of Identity—Archäologie der Identität, eds.
W. Pohl and M. Mehofer, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17 (Vienna,
2009), 93–110.
Quast, Dieter, “Das Ostseegebiet und die nördliche Grenzzone des byzantinischen
Reiches im späten 6. und 7. Jahrhundert,” in Relationes rerum. Régészeti tanulmán-
yok Nagy Margit tiszteletére, eds. Cs. Balogh, B. Major and A. Türk (Budapest, 2018),
521–36.
Quirós Castillo, Juan Antonio, “Inequality and social complexity in peasant societies.
Some approaches to early medieval northwestern Iberia,” in Social Complexity in
Early Medieval Rural Communities. The North-Western Iberia Archaeological Record,
ed. J.A. Quirós Castillo (Oxford, 2016), 1–16.
Rácz, Zsófia, “Avar kori ötvös- és kovácsszerszámok,” in A vasmővesség évezredei a
Kárpát-medencében, eds. Z. Nagy and J. Szulovszky (Szombathely, 2009), 67–96.
Rácz, Zsófia, “Sind Goldschmiede in den “Goldschmiedegräbern” der Awarenzeit
bestattet?” in Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsen-
tation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23.
internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwick-
lung im mittleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.–19. 11. 2011, eds. M. Hardt and O. Heinrich-
Tamáska, Forschungen zur Spätantike und Mittelalter 2 (Weinstadt, 2013), 361–80.
Rácz, Zsófia, Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit, Monographien des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums 116 (Mainz, 2014).
Rácz, Zsófia, “Ein frühmittelalterlicher Pressmodelfund aus dem mittleren Dnjepr-
Gebiet,” in Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien.
Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag. Eds. Á. Bollók, G. Csiky and T. Vida
(Budapest, 2016), 175–82.
Rácz, Zsófia and Zoltán May, “Öntőminta pajzsos testű csat készítéséhez,” in Fémek a
földből. I, eds. G. Bíró, A. Katona-Kiss and Z. Rózsa (Orosháza, 2018), 50–51.
Rácz, Zsófia and Gergely Szenthe, “Avar temető Hajdúnanás határában,” CAH (2009),
309–35.
Radimsky, W., “Römische Gräber bei Han Potoci nächst Mostar,” WMBH 1 (1893), 303–07.
Radiush, O.A., “Lamelliarnyi shlem epokhi pereseleniia narodov iz Kurskoi oblasti,” in
Drevnosti Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia ot kamennogo veka do pozdnego srednevekov’ia
(k 80-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia A.I. Puzikovoi). Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (Kursk,
2012), 202–08.
Reynolds, Paul, “The Roman pottery from the Triconch Palace,” in Byzantine Butrint:
Excavations and Surveys, 1994–99, eds. R. Hodges, W. Bowden, and K. Lako (Oxford,
2004), 224–69.
Reynolds, Paul, “Trade networks of the East, 3rd to 7th centuries: the view from
Beirut (Lebanon) and Butrint (Albania) (fine wares, amphorae and kitchen
wares),” in LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in
the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between Western
and Eastern Mediterranean, eds. S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci, and
G. Guiducci, BAR International Series 2185 (Oxford, 2010), 89–114.
Rhé, Gyula and Nándor Fettich, Jutas und Öskü. Zwei Gräberfelder aus der Völkerwande-
rungszeit in Ungarn (Prague, 1931).
Rivera, Alberto Trivero, Alain Gennari, Angelo Ortu, Maurizio Cecchinato, and Vitaliy
Zarko, “Le emisioni enee chersonesi tra Impero Romano e Bizantino,” Quaderno di
studi dell’Associazione Culturale Italia Numismatica 10 (2015), 5–200.
Robak, Zbigniew, “K otázke počiatkov včasnostredovekého osídlenia Bojnej,” in Bojná
2. Nové výsledky výskumov včasnostredovekých hradísk, ed. K. Pieta and Z. Robak
(Nitra, 2015), 51–62.
Robertson Brown, Amelia, “Islands in a sea of change? Continuity and abandonment in
Dark Age Corinth and Thessaloniki,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology
14 (2010), 230–40.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Lokal’nye raznovidnosti zhenskogo metallicheskogo ubora
VII v. v Podneprov’e,” in Chteniia, posviashchennye 100-letiiu deiatel’nosti Vasiliia
Alekseevicha Gorodcova v Gosudarstvennom Istoricheskom muzee. Tezisy konferencii,
ed. N.I. Shishlina (Moscow, 2003), 113–17.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Sistema zhenskogo rannesrednevekovogo ubora srednego
Podneprov’ia (retrospektivnyi analiz),” in Vostochnaia Evropa v seredine I tysi-
acheletiia n. e., eds. I.O. Gavritukhin and A.M. Oblomskii, Ranneslavianskii mir 9
(Moscow, 2007), 358–88.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Kurilovksii klad rannesrednevekovogo vremeni,” RA, no. 4 (2010),
78–87.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Zhenskii kostium dneprovskikh plemen v epokhu Velikogo pere-
seleniia narodov: sovremennoe sostoianie issledovanii,” in Novye issledovaniia po
arkheologii stran SNG i Baltii: materialy Shkoly molodykh arkheologov (Kirillov, 3–12
sentiabria 2011 g.), ed. V.E. Rodinkova (Moscow, 2011), 239–65.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Klady ‘drevnostei antov’ i arkheologicheskaia situaciia mezhdu
Seimom i Pslom v konce epokhi velikogo pereseleniia narodov,” in Slaviane vostoch-
noi Evropy nakanune obrazovaniia drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Materialy mezhdun-
arodnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 110-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Ivana Ivanovicha
Liapushkina (1902–1968), 3–5 dekabria 2012 g., Sankt-Peterburg, eds. O.A. Shcheglova
and V.M. Goriunova (St. Petersburg, 2012), 193–97.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Novaia nakhodka vizantiiskogo srebrianogo sosuda s kleimom iz
Vostochnoi Evropy,” RA, no. 4 (2012), 151–58.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Klady v rannesrednevekovoi istorii i kul’ture Podneprov’ia,” in
Trudy IV (XX) vserossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo săezda v Kazani, eds. A.G. Sitdikov,
N.A. Makarov and A.P. Derevianko (Kazan’, 2014), 391–95.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E, “Early Slavic hoards of the Dnieper region (on the nature and
the historical significance of the phenomenon),” in Studia barbarica. Profesorowi
Andrzejowi Kokowskiemu w 65. rocznik urodzin, ed. B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska,
vol. 1 (Lublin, 2018), 670–79.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E. and Aleksandr N. Egor’kov, “Klad ‘drevnostei antov’ iz Sudzhi-
Zamost’ia: kharakteristika metalla,” ArkhV 23 (2017), 274–84.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E. and I.A. Saprykina, “Plastinchatye golovnye ukrasheniia rim-
skogo i rannesrednevekovogo vremeni v Vostochnoi Evrope: tipologicheskii i
tekhnologicheskii analiz,” in Trudy III (XIX) Vserosiiskogo arkheologicheskogo
săezda. Velikii Novgorod-Staraia Russa, eds. N.A. Makarov and E.N. Nosov, vol. 2
(St. Petersburg/Moscow, 2011), 91–93.
Rodinkova, Vlasta E., Irina A. Saprykina, and S.A. Sycheva, “Klad iz Sudzhi-Zamost’ia i
problema sociokul’turnoi interpretacii dneprovskikh rannesrednevekovykh kladov
I gruppy,” RA, no. 2 (2018), 130–47.
Roman, Petre and Suzana Ferche, “Cercetările de la Ipotești (jud. Olt),” SCIVA 29, no. 1
(1978), 73–93.
Romanchuk, Alla I., “Novye materialy o vremeni stroitel’stva rybozasolochnykh cistern
v Khersonese,” ADSV 9 (1973), 45–53.
Romanchuk, Alla I., “Plan rybozasolochnykh cistern Khersonesa,” ADSV 14 (1977), 18–26.
Romanchuk, Alla I., “Chersonesos in früh- und mittelbyzantinischer Zeit,” Talanta
32–33 (2000–2001), 131–47.
Romanchuk, Alla I., “Das byzantinische Cherson (Chersonensos), das Meer und die
Barbaren—einige historische Aspekte,” in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie.
Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, eds. L.M. Hofffmann and
A. Monchizadeh, Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 7 (Wiesbaden,
2005), 75–91.
Romanchuk, Alla I., Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie des byzantinischen Cherson
(Leiden/Boston, 2005).
Romanchuk, Alla I., “K voprosu o ‘stroitel’nom bume’ v Khersonese vo vtoroi polovine
VI-pervoi polovine VII v.,” in Prof. d. i. n. Totiu Totev i stolicata Veliki Preslav, eds.
R. Rashev, S. Vitlianov, S. Sivriev, V. Panaiotov, and G. Stoianova (Sofia, 2006), 124–33.
Rusev, Nikola, “Burial rituals in the period of Late Antiquity on the territory of the
province of Second Moesia,” in The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st–6th c. AD), eds.
L. Vagalinski, N. Sharankov and S. Torbatov (Sofia, 2012), 381–404.
Ruslanova, Rida R., “Puti i kharakter vzaimodeistviia naseleniia lesostepnogo
Priural’ia v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (po materialam bus Ufimsko-Bel’skogo
mezhdurech’ia),” in Etnosy i kul’tury Uralo-Povolzh’ia: istoriia i sovremennost’.
Materialy VIII Vserosiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferencii molodykh uchenykh
posviashchennoi 85-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia R.G. Kuzeeva, ed. A.T. Akhatov (Ufa,
2014), 92–95.
Ruslanova, Rida R., “Businnye ukrasheniia nekropolei III–VIII vekov Iuzhnogo
Priural’ia,” in Steklo Vostochnoi Evropy s drevnosti do nachala XX veka, ed.
P.G. Gaidukov (St. Petersburg, 2015), 127–30.
Rustoiu, Gabriel T. and Marius Ciută, “Mormântul de călăreț avar recent descoperit la
Unirea-Vereșmort (jud. Alba),” Apulum 45 (2008), 71–98.
Rutkivs’ka, L.M., “O stratigrafii i khronologii drevnego poseleniia okolo s. Stecovki na r.
Tiasmine,” in Rannesrednevekovye vostochnoslavianskie drevnosti, ed. P.N. Tret’iakov
(Leningrad, 1974), 22–39.
Ruttkay, Matej, “Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Gräberfeld in Tesárske Mlyňany, Bez.
Zlaté Moravce,” in Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Identitätsumbildung
in der Völkerwanderungszeit, ed. J. Tejral, Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v
Brně 26 (Brno, 2007), 321–38.
Rybakov, Boris A., “Novyi Sudzhanskii klad antskogo vremeni,” KSDPI 27 (1949), 75–84.
Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, Aleksandra, “The graves from Czerwony Dwór, Site XXI in
Late Migration Period. Sudovia in the light of radiocarbon data,” in The Early Slavic
Settlement in Central Europe in the Light of New Dating Evidence, eds. M. Dulinicz
and S. Moździoch, Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies 3 (Wrocław, 2013), 73–78.
Sádlo, Jiří and Martin Gojda, “Roztoky: pokus o geobotanickou rekonstrukcii vývoje
kulturní krajiny (raný středověk-současnost),” AR 46 (1994), 191–204.
Sági, Károly, “Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Vörs,” AAASH 16 (1964), 359–408.
Sahlins, Marshall, Stone Age Economics (New York, 1972).
Salamon, Ágnés and György Duma, “Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen der frühmittelalterlichen Tongefäße aus Környe, Komitat Komorn,
Ungarn,” AOAW 119 (1983), 180–203.
Salamon, Ágnés and György Duma, “Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen der frühmittelalterlichen Tongefäße aus Szekszárd, Palánkpuszta,
Komitat Tolna, Ungarn,” AOAW 151, no. 7 (1984), 55–75.
Salamon, Ágnés and Károly Cs. Sebestyén, “The Szeged-Kundomb cemetery,” in Das
awarische Korpus. Avar Corpus Füzetek, ed. L. Madaras (Debrecen/Budapest, 1995),
8–108.
Sarantis, Alexander, “The Justinianic Herules: from allied barbarians to Roman pro-
vincials,” in Neglected Barbarians, ed. F. Curta, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 32
(Turnhout, 2010), 361–402.
Sarantis, Alexander, “Eastern Roman management of barbarian states in the Lower-
Middle Danube frontier zones, AD 332–610,” in GrenzÜbergänge. Spätrömisch,
frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch-archäologischen
Forschung an der mittleren Donau. Akten des 27. internationalen Symposiums der
Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum,
Ruma, 4.–7.11.2015, eds. I. Bugarski, O. Heinrich-Tamáska, V. Ivanišević and D. Syrbe,
Forschungen zu Spätantike und Mittelalter 4 (Remshalden, 2016), 41–66.
Sarantis, Alexander, Justinian’s Balkan Wars. Campaigning, Diplomacy and Development
in Illyricum, Thrace, and the Northern World A.D. 527–65, ARCA Classical Medieval
Texts, Papers and Monographs 53 (Prenton, 2016).
Sarantis, Alexander, “Roman or barbarian? Ethnic identities and political loyalties
in the Balkans according to Procopius,” in Procopius of Caesarea. Literary and
Historical Interpretations, eds. Chr. Lillington-Martin and E. Turquois (London/New
York, 2018), 217–37.
Sarantis, Alexander, “Military provisioning in the sixth-century Balkans,” JLA 12, no. 2
(2019), 329–79.
Sarris, Peter. Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2006).
Šavel, Irena, “Staroslovansko grobišče Popava II pri Lipovcih,” in Srednji vek. Arheološki
raziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko nižino, ed. M. Guštin (Ljubljana,
2008), 65–70.
Savel’eva, Eleonora A., “Nachalo razlozheniia rodovoi obshchiny (IV–IX vv.),” in Istoriia
Komi ASSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, ed. I.B. Berkhin (Syktyvkar, 1978),
16–21.
Savel’eva, Eleonora A., “Khronologiia pogrebal’nykh kompleksov Veslianskogo I
mogil’nika,” KSIA 158 (1979), 91–96.
Savel’eva, Eleonora A., “Nachalo razlozheniia rodovoi obshchiny (IV–IX vv.),” in Istoriia
Komi ASSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, ed. I.B. Berkhin (Syktyvkar, 1981),
14–18.
Savel’eva, Eleonora A., “Evropeiskii Severo-Vostok nakanune khristianizacii,” in
Khristianizaciia Komi kraia i ee rol’ v razvitii gosudarstvennosti i kul’tury, ed.
E.A. Savel’eva, vol. 1 (Syktyvkar, 1996), 16–27.
Sawer, Marian, Marxism and the Question of the Asiatic Mode of Production (The Hague,
1977).
Sazanov, Andrei V., “Importnaia krasnolakovaia keramika pervoi poloviny VII v. n. e. iz
Khersonesa,” KSIIA 208 (1992), 40–46.
sumezhnykh terytoryi (Materyialy kanferencyi 22 krasavyka 1993 g.), ed. A.A. Sedin
(Magileu, 1994), 114–27.
Sedin, Anatolii A., “Gorodishche Nikodimovo (Nikadzimava),” SlAnt 36 (1995), 159–64.
Sedin, Anatolii A., “Nikodimovskoe gorodishche rannego srednevekov’ia v vostochnoi
Belorussii,” in Etnogenez i etnokul’turnye kontakty slavian, ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow,
1997), 279–89.
Sedin, Anatolii A., “Nikodimovo—gorodishche tret’ei chetverti I-go tysiacheletiia n.e.
v vostochnoi Belarusi,” in Krai. Dyialog na sumezhzhy kul’tur (Magileu, 2000), 31–43.
Sedov, Valentin V., Dlinnye kurgany krivichei, Arkheologiia SSSR E1–8 (Moscow, 1974).
Sedov, Valentin V., Slaviane v ranem srednovekov’e (Moscow, 1995).
Selirand, Jüri and Kaupo Deemant, “Völkerwanderungszeitliche Gegenstände mit ost-
skandinavischen Ornament von Proosa/Nordestland,” Fornvännen 80, no. 4 (1985),
243–52.
Semenov, A.I., “Vizantiiskie monety Kelegeiskogo kompleksa,” ASGE 31 (1991), 121–30.
Semenov, V.A., “Petropavlovskii mogil’nik VI–VIII vv. v iuzhnoi Udmurtii,” VAU 7
(1967), 164–71.
Semenov, V.A., “Varninskii mogil’nik,” in Novyi pamiatnik polomskoi kul’tury, ed.
V.F. Gening (Izhevsk, 1980), 5–135.
Semykin, Iurii A., “O metallurgicheskikh gornakh imen’kovskoi kul’tury,” in Kul’tury
Vostochnoi Evropy I tysiacheletiia. Mezhvuzovskii sbornik statei, eds. G.I. Matveeva
and P.S. Kabytov (Kuibyshev, 1993), 131–36.
Semykin, Iurii A., “Materialy k istorii metallurgii zheleza epokhi srednevekov’ia sred-
nego Povolzh’ia,” in Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e.
(voprosy khronologii). Materialy II Mezhdunarodnoi arkheologicheskoi konferen-
cii, 17–20 noiabria 1997 g., eds. D.A. Stashenkov, A.F. Kochkina and L.V. Kuznecova
(Samara, 1998), 167–84.
Shablavina, Ekaterina A., “Vizual’no opredeliaemye osobennosti lit’ia metallicheskikh
ukrashenii po voskovoi modeli (na materiale pal’chatykh fibul Dneprovskogo
Levoberezh’ia VII v. n. e.),” in Drevnie remeslenniki Priural’ia. Materialy Vserossiiskoi
nauchnoi konferencii, Izhevsk, 21–23 noiabria 2000 g., ed. V.I. Zav’ialov (Izhevsk,
2001), 308–21.
Shablavina, Ekaterina A., “Tekhnika izgotovleniia serebrianykh poiasnykh naborov
Gaponovskogo klada,” in Iuvelirnoe iskusstvo i material’naia kul’tura, ed. N. Zakharova
(St. Petersburg, 2002), 186–89.
Shablavina, Ekaterina A., “Pal’chataia fibula iz kollekcii E.A. Goriunova,” in Kul’turnye
transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na iskhode rimskogo vremeni
i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60-letiiu
so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), eds.
V.M. Goriunova and O.A. Shcheglova, Trudy Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury 11
(St. Petersburg, 2004), 244–53.
Shablavina, Ekaterina A., “Shablony dlia lit’ia orlinogolovykh priazhek iz iuzhnokrym-
skikh mogil’nikov,” ASGE 37 (2005), 109–15.
Shablavina, Ekaterina A., “Produkciia odnoi Bosporskoi iuvelirnoi masterskoi vtoroi
poloviny VI v.,” RA, no. 3 (2007), 92–102.
Shadyra, Vadim I., “Materyial’naia kul’tura arkhealagichnaga kompleksu na vozery
Seliava u Dniaprouska-Dzvinskim mizhrechchy: I–VIII stst. n. e.,” in Slaviane na
territorii Belarusi v gosudarstvennyi period. K 90-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia doktora
istoricheskikh nauk, professora Leonida Davydovicha Pobolia, ed. A.A. Kovalenia,
vol. 2 (Minsk, 2016), 197–255 and 403.
Shamsutdinov, M.R., E.V. Ruslanov, A.A. Romanov, and R. Sh. Tagirova. “Gorodishche
Ufa-II”. Materialy arkheologicheskikh raskopok 2014 goda (Ufa, 2015).
Shandrovskaia, Valentina S., “Tamozhennaia sluzhba v Sugdee VII–X vv.,” in Vizantiia
i srednevekovyi Krym, eds. S.P. Karpov and Iu. M. Mogarichev (Simferopol, 1995),
119–23.
Shandrovskaia, Valentina S., “Tamozhnaia sluzhba v Mesemvrii (po dannym sfragis-
tike),” Bulgaria pontica medii aevi 4–5, no. 2 (2006), 31–42.
Shaw, Brent D., “After Rome. Transformations of the early Mediterranean world,” New
Left Review 51 (2008), 89–114.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “O dvukh gruppakh ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e,”
Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia (1990), 162–204.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “Veshchi dunaiskogo proiskhozhdeniia v pozdnikh kladakh
‘drevnostei antov’,” in Istoriko-arkheologicheskii seminar “Chernigov i ego okruga v
IX–XIII vv.” (15–18 mai 1988). Tezisy dokladov (Chernihiv, 1990), 164–68.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “Zhenskie ubor iz kladov ‘drevnostei antov’: gotskoe vliianie ili
gotskoe nasledie?” Stratum+, no. 5 (1999), 287–312.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “O nekotorykh vozmozhnostiakh rekonstrukcii zhenskoi odezhdy
po materialam naborov ukrashenii iz kladov ‘drevnostei antov’: istochniki, analogi,
rezul’taty,” in Kul’tury stepei Evrazii vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kosti-
uma). Tezisy dokladov III Mezhdunarodnoi arkheologicheskoi konferencii 14–18 marta
2000 g., ed. D.A. Stashenkov (Samara, 2000), 136–41.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “K voprosu o meste i vremeni formirovaniia tradicii izgotovleniia
svincovo-oloviannykh ukrahsenii v formochkakh ‘tipa Kamno-Ryuge’,” in Migracii i
osedlost’ ot Dunaia do Ladogi v I tysiacheletii khristianskoi ery. Piatye chteniia pamiati
Anny Machinskoi. Staraia Ladoga, 21–22 dekabria 2000. Materialy k chteniiam, eds.
D.A. Machinskii and A.A. Selin (St. Petersburg, 2001), 46–55.
Shcheglova, Ol’ga A., “Klad iuvelira v Trubchevske i ‘master Gaponovskogo klada’,” in
Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Central’noi Rossii, ed. A.N. Bessudnov (Lipeck, 2006),
272–73.
Smilenko, Alla T., “Die Keramik der Töpferwerkstätten von Balka kancerka im
Dneprgebiet,” in Die Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur und ihrer Varianten, ed. Cs.
Bálint, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 3 (Budapest, 1990), 313–25.
Smirnov, K.F., “Kurgany bilia m. Velykogo Tokmaka,” APU 8 (1960), 164–89.
Smirnova, G.I., “Ranneslavianskoe poselenie u s. Nezvisko na Dnestre,” PA 51, no. 1
(1960), 222–39.
Šmit, Žiga, Tina Milavec, H. Fajfar, Thilo Rehren, J.W. Lankton, and Bernard Gratuze,
“Analysis of glass from the post-Roman settlement Tonovcov grad (Slovenia) by
PIXE-PIGE and LA-ICPMS,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
B 311 (2013), 53–59.
Smith, Carol A., “Exchange systems and the spatial distribution of elites: the organiza-
tion of stratification in agrarian societies,” in Regional Analysis, ed. C.A. Carol, vol. 2
(New York, 1976), 309–81.
Smith, Monica L., “The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange,” Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6, no. 2 (1999), 109–35.
Smokotina, A.V., “Keramicheskii kompleks vtoroi poloviny VI v. iz raskopok g. Bospora,”
MAIET 14 (2008), 103–44.
Smokotina, A.V., “Keramika gruppy ‘afrikanskaia krasnolakovaia’ iz raskopok v Kerchi,”
MAIET 17 (2011), 328–62.
Smokotina, A.V., “Amfory LR 1 na Bospore,” MAIET 19 (2014), 68–87.
Šnē, Andris, “The economy and social power in the late prehistoric chiefdoms of east-
ern Latvia,” ArchB 6 (2006), 68–78.
Snively, Carolyn S., “Intramural burial in the cities of the late antique diocese of
Macedonia,” in Radovi XIII. Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokrščansku arheologiju.
Split-Poreč (25.9.–1.10. 1994), eds. N. Cambi and E. Marin, vol. 2, Studi di antichità
Cristiana 54 (Vatican/Split, 1998), 491–98.
Snively, Carolyn S., “Churches and cemeteries: religion and death in early Byzantine
Macedonia,” in Starokhristijanskata arkheologija vo Makedonija. Prilozi od nauchen
sobir, eds. B. Aleksova, K. Tomovski and C. Grozdanov (Skopje, 2003), 59–74.
Snively, Carolyn S., “Late antique Nicopolis: an essay on city walls and their implica-
tions for urbanism,” in Nikopolis B’. Praktika tou Deuterou Diethnous Symposiou gia te
Nikopole (11–15 septembriou 2002), ed. K.L. Zachos (Preveza, 2007), 739–49.
Sodini, Jean-Pierre, “Productions et échanges dans le monde protobyzantin (IV–
VIIe s.): le cas de la céramique,” in Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten
der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, eds. K. Belke, F. Hild,
J. Koder, and P. Soustal, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii
Byzantini 7 (Vienna, 2000), 181–208.
Sodini, Jean-Pierre, “The transformation of cities in Late Antiquity within the prov-
inces of Macedonia and Epirus,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube
and Beyond, ed. A.G. Poulter, Proceedings of the British Academy, 141 (Oxford,
2007), 311–36.
Sokolova, Irina V., “Vizantiiskie pechati VI-pervoi poloviny IX v. iz Khersonesa,” VV 52
(1991), 201–13.
Sokolova, Irina V., “Monety Pereshchepinskogo klada,” in Sokrovishcha Khana Kubrata,
ed. O. Fedoseenko (St. Petersburg, 1997), 17–41.
Somogyi, Péter, Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit, Monographien zur
Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 5 (Innsbruck 1997).
Somogyi, Péter, “Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit. Eine Bestandaufnahme,
1998–2007,” AAC 42–43 (2007–2008), 231–98.
Somogyi, Péter, “New remarks on the flow of Byzantine coins in Avaria and Walachia
during the second half of the seventh century,” in The Other Europe in the Middle
Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. F. Curta, East Central and Eastern
Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2 (Leiden/Boston, 2008), 83–149.
Somogyi, Péter, Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit in ihrem europäischen
Umfeld, Dissertationes Pannonicae, series 4. 2 (Budapest, 2014).
Šonje, Ante, “Ostaci groblja kod sela Klistići jugozapadno od Tinjana,” HA 11–12 (1980–
1981), 67–88.
Sorochan, Sergei B., “O torgovo-ekonomicheskoi politike Vizantii v Tavrike VII–IX vv.,”
in Problemy arkheologii drevnego i srednevekovogo Kryma. Sbornik nauchnykh tru-
dov, eds. Iu. M. Mogarichev and I.N. Khrapunov (Simferopol’, 1995), 114–22.
Sorochan, Sergei B., “Eshche raz o pis’makh papy Martina I i o polozhenii vizantiiskogo
Khersona i ego klimata,” in Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i
srednevekov’ia. Etnicheskie proces, ed. V.N. Zin’ko (Kerch’, 2004), 342–48.
Sorochan, Sergei B., “O dukakh vizantiiskoi Tavriki i ikh molivdovulakh,” SS 3 (2008),
200–16.
Sorochan, Sergei B., Vizantiiskii Kherson (vtoraia polovina VI–pervaia polovina X vv.).
Ocherki istorii i kul’tury, vol. 1 (Moscow, 2013).
Sorochan, Sergei B., “Vizantiiskie voennye sily v Krymu v VI–VII vv.,” Stratum+, no. 6
(2014), 113–32.
Sorochan, Sergei B., V.M. Zubar’ and L.V. Marchenko, Zhizn’ i gibel’ Khersonesa
(Sevastopol’, 2006).
Sós, Agnes Cs., “Frühmittelalterliche Brandbestattung mit Feinwaage in Pókaszepetk,”
SlovArch 26, no. 2 (1978), 423–30.
Sotiriou, Giorgios A., “Anaskaphai Neas Anchialou,” PAAH 93 (1935), 52–72.
Sotiriou, Giorgios A., “Anaskaphai en Nea Anchialo,” PAAH 111 (1956), 110–18.
Souchopová, Věra, “Experimentální tavby v rekonstruovaných slovanských pecích,”
in Zkoumání výrobních objektů a technologií archeologickými metodami. Sborník ze
semináře, který se konal dne 12. prosince 1979 v Technickém muzeu v Brně (Brno, 1980),
128–33.
Soupault, Vanessa, “A propos de l’origine et de la diffusion des poignards et épées à
encoches (IVe–VIIe s.),” MAIET 5 (1996), 60–76 and 486–92.
Spahiu, Hëna, “Gërmimet e vitit 1961 në varrezën e herëshme mesjetare të Kalasë së
Dalmaces,” Studime Historike 1, no. 3 (1964), 71–96.
Spahiu, Hëna, “Gjetje të vjetra nga varreza mesjetare e Kalasë së Dalmaces,” Iliria 1
(1971), 227–61.
Spahiu, Hëna, “La ville haute-médiévale albanaise de Shurdhah (Sarda),” Iliria 5 (1976),
151–67.
Spahiu, Hëna, “Varreza arbërore e Kalasë së Dalmacës (Gërmime të vitit 1961),” Iliria
9–10 (1979–1980), 23–46.
Spahiu, Hëna, “Bagues aux inscriptions byzantines à Koman,” CCARB 40 (1993), 435–46.
Spahiu, Hëna and Damian Komata, “Shurdhahu-Sarda qytet i fortifikuar mesjetar
Shqiptar (Rezultatet e gërmimeve të viteve 1967–1970),” Iliria 3 (1974), 257–328.
Špehar, Perica, “(Dis)continuity of the life in late antique Danubian fortresses in the
early Middle Ages: from Belgrade to the confluence of Timok river,” in Arheologia
mileniului I p. Chr. IV. Nomazi și autohtoni în mileniul I p. Chr., ed. B. Ciupercă (Brăila,
2015), 329–50.
Spicyn, A.A., Drevnosti basseinov rek Oki i Kamy (St. Petersburg, 1901).
Spielmann, Katherine A., “Feasting, craft specialization and the ritual mode of produc-
tion in small-scale societies,” American Anthropologist 104, no. 1 (2002), 195–207.
Spikins, Penny, “‘The bashful and the boastful’. Prestigious leaders and social change in
Mesolithic societies,” Journal of World Prehistory 21 (2008), 173–93.
Sprincz, Emma, “Amber artifacts of Hungary from the Middle Bronze Age to the
Hungarian conquest (from 1600 B.C. to 896 A.D.),” in Amber in Archaeology.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Talsi
2001, eds. C.W. Beck, I.B. Loze, and J.M. Todd (Riga, 2003), 203–12.
Squatriti, Paolo. “The floods of 589 and climate change at the beginning of the Middle
Ages: an Italian microhistory,” Speculum 85 (2010), 799–826.
Stadler, Peter, “Verbreitung und Werkstätten der awarischen Hauptriemenbeschläge
mit Greifendarstellung,” in Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Bayern, eds. H. Friesinger and F. Daim, vol. 2, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission
für Frühmittelalterforschung 13 (Vienna, 1990), 305–50.
Stadler, Peter, “Awarische Werkstätten,” in Reitervölker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren.
Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß Halbturn, 26. April–31. Oktober 1996,
eds. F. Daim, K. Kaus, and P. Tomka (Eisenstadt, 1996), 349–50.
Stadler, Peter, “Avar chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar
qaganate,” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and
Cumans, ed. F. Curta, East Central and Eastern Europe, 450–1450 2 (Leiden/Boston,
2008), 47–82.
Stadler, Peter, Herwig Friesinger, Walter Kutschera, Alfred Priller, Peter Steier and Eva
Maria Wild, “Ein Beitrag zur Absolutchronologie der Langobarden aufgrund von
14C—Datierungen und ein Versuch zur Datierung der Beraubung langobardischer
Gräber,” Archaeologia Austriaca 27 (2003), 265–78.
Stahl, Henri H., Contribuții la studiul satelor devălmașe românești, 3 vols., Biblioteca
istorică 6, 7, 11 (Bucharest, 1958–1965).
Stahl, Henri H., Studii de sociologie istorică (Bucharest, 1972).
Stahl, Henri H., Traditional Romanian Village Communities. The Transition from the
Communal to the Capitalist Mode of Production in the Danube Region (Cambridge/
Paris, 1980).
Stahl, Henri H., Probleme confuze în istoria socială a României (Bucharest, 1992).
Stamati, Iurie, “Two chapters of the Sovietization of the Romanian archaeology (from
the late 1940s to the mid-1950s),” AB 19, no. 1 (2015), 81–95.
Stamati, Iurie, The Slavic Dossier. Medieval Archaeology in the Soviet Republic of Moldova:
Between State Propaganda and Scholarly Endeavor, East Central and Eastern Europe
in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 53 (Leiden/Boston, 2019).
Stanc, Simina. Relațiile omului cu lumea animală. Arheozoologia secolelor IV–X pentru
zonele extracarpatice de est și de sud ale României (Iași, 2006).
Stanc, Simina and Luminița Bejenaru, “Resurse animale exploatate în așezări de secole
2–7 d. Hr. din zona cuprinsă între Dunăre și Marea Neagră: date aheozoologice,”
Istros 19 (2013), 389–412.
Stančikaitė, Miglė, Dalia Kisielienė, and Andra Strimaitienė, “Vegetation response to
the climatic and human impact changes during the Late Glacial and Holocene: case
study of the marginal area of Baltija Upland, NE Lithuania,” Baltica 17 (2004), 17–33.
Stanciu, Ioan, “Așezarea slavă timpurie de la Lazuri-‘Lubi tag’, jud. Satu Mare (cercetările
arheologice din anii 1977, 1993–1995). Contribuții la cunoașterea secolelor 6–7 în
zona Tisei superioare,” Studii și comunicări (Satu Mare) 15–16 (1998–1999), 115–268.
Stanciu, Ioan, “Die ältesten Slawen in der Gegend der oberen Theiß . Eine kurze
Untersuchung der Problematik im Lichte der Daten aus dem Nordwesten
Rumäniens,” in Zbornik na počest Dariny Bialekovej, ed. G. Fusek, Archaeologia
Slovaca Monographiae. Communicationes 7 (Nitra, 2004), 347–56.
Stanciu, Ioan, Locuirea teritoriului nord-vestic al României între antichitatea târzie și
perioada de început a epocii medievale timpurii (mijlocul sec. V–sec. VII timpuriu),
Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 4 (Cluj-Napoca, 2011).
Stanciu, Ioan, “Despre rolul așa-numitelor ‘pâinișoare de lut’ în mediul așezărilor slave
timpurii (sec. VI–VII),” Marmatia 10, no. 1 (2012), 165–91.
Stanciu, Ioan, “Câteva aspecte ale locuirii medievale timpurii în partea de nord-vest a
României,” in Locuirea medievală timpurie din Transilvania și vecinătăți. Lucrările
conferinței naționale “Locuirea medievală timpurie din Transilvania și vecinătăți”,
Lipova ( jud. Arad), 27–29 octombrie 2016, eds. F. Mărginean, I. Stanciu, and
D. Băcueț Crișan, Orbis mediaevalis 1 (Arad, 2017), 45–82.
Stanciu, Ioan and Tiberiu Bader, “O nouă așezare medievală timpurie din zona
nord-vestică a României (Turulung—VII, jud. Satu Mare),” in In memoriam Radu
Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizației românești în context european, eds. D. Marcu Istrate,
A. Istrate, and C. Gaiu, Biblioteca Muzeului Bistrița. Seria Historica 7 (Cluj-Napoca,
2003), 129–49.
Stanciu, Ioan and Neța Iercoșan, “Primele morminte din cimitirul gepid de la Carei-
‘Kozárd’ (jud. Satu Mare),” in In memoriam Nicoale Chidioșan, eds. A. Chiriac,
C. Ghemis, L. Cornea and G. Moisa (Oradea, 2003), 139–60.
Stanev, Aleksandăr, Elementi na germanskiia fibulen kostium na iug ot Dunav. Po
arkheologicheski danni ot balkanskite provincii na Iztochnata Rimska Imperiia V–VI
vek (Sofia, 2012).
Stanev, Stanislav and Zarko Zhdrakov, “The Old Metropolitan Church in Nessebar/
Mesembria after new epigraphical 7th century evidence,” AB 13, no. 1 (2009), 87–102.
Stanilov, Stanislav. ‘Belezhki kăm identifikaciiata na săkrovishteto ot Vrap’. PBA 7
(2013), pp. 7–14.
Stankevich, Ia. V., “Kurgany u derevni Polibino na reke Lovati,” KSIA 87 (1962), 31–35.
Stankus, Jonas, “Geležies dirbinių gamybos Lietuvoje V–VIII amžiais technologia,”
LTSR 3 (1970), 57–75.
Stankus, Jonas, “Raskopki mogil’nika v d. Kaireneliai,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia
1978 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1979), 461–62.
Stankus, Jonas, “Kairėnėlių plokštinis kapinynas,” LA 3 (1984), 63–79.
Stankus, Jonas, “Plinkaigailo (Kėdainių raj.) m. e. V–VI amžių kapinyno geležies
dirbinių metalografinė analizę,” LTSR 1 (1986), 51–62.
Stankus, Jonas, “Pailgočio kapinynas,” in Iš baltų kultūros istorijos. Skiriama Adolfo
Tautavičiaus 75-mečiui, eds. V. Kazakevičius, A. Girininkas, M. Michelbertas and
V. Urbanavičius (Vilnius, 2000), 149–72.
Stare, Vida, Kranj. Nekropola iz časa pereseljevanja liudstev (Ljubljana, 1980).
Stark, Barbara L., and Christopher P. Garraty, “Detecting marketplace exchange in
archaeology: a methodological review,” in Archaeological Approaches to Market
Exchange in Ancient Societies, eds. C.P. Garraty and B.L. Stark (Boulder, 2010), 33–58.
Stark, Sören, “Central and Inner Asian parallels to a find from Kunszentmiklós-Bábony
(Kunbábony): some thoughts on the Early Avar headdress,” Ancient Civilizations
from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009), 287–305.
Starostin, Petr N., Pamiatniki imen’kovskoi kul’tury, Arkheologiia SSSR D1–32 (Moscow,
1967).
Starostin, Petr N., “Raboty na Troicko-Uraiskom I gorodishche v 1973 g.,” in Drevnosti
Volgo-Kam’ia, ed. G.A. Fedorov-Davydov (Kazan’, 1977), 31–41.
Starostin, Petr N. and A.A. Chizhevskii, “Maklasheevskii V mogil’nik,” in Drevnie pami-
atniki priust’evogo Zakam’ia. Materialy Novostroechnoi ekspeditsii Ministerstva
kul’tury Respubliki Tatartan, ed. R.M. Valeev (Kazan’, 1993), 20–42.
Stashenkov, Dmitrii A., “Ob etnokul’turnykh sviaziakh naseleniia imen’kovskoi
kul’tury,” Slavianovedenie, no. 2 (2006), 20–30.
Stashenkov, Dmitrii A., “Ob absoliutnoi date pamiatnikov Imen’kovskoi kul’tury na
Samarskoi luke,” PV, no. 3 (2016), 225–46.
Staššíková-Štukovská, Danica, “K formám výmeny a hodotny tovaru v 6. a 7. storočí na
Slovensku,” SN 10 (1989), 53–56.
Staššíková-Štukovská, Danica and Jozef Krištín, “Analyse von Tiegeln aus frühs-
lawischen Siedlungsobjekten in Považany,” Archaeoslavica 2 (1993), 53–61.
Steckner, Cornelius, “Les amphores LR 1 et LR 2 en relation avec le pressoir du com-
plexe ecclésiastique des Thermes de Samos,” in Recherches sur la céramique byz-
antine, eds. V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique,
Supplément 18 (Athens/Paris, 1989), 57–71.
Stefanov, Stefan, “Novgrad. Starinni selishta,” IAI 34 (1974), 250–311.
Stein, Frauke, “Das Helm von Steinbrunn—ein ostgotisches Ehrengeschenk?” in Die
Langobarden. Herrschaft und Identität, eds. W. Pohl and P. Erhard, Forschungen zur
Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 (Vienna, 2005), 225–46.
Steinacher, Roland, “The Herules: fragments of a history,” in Neglected Barbarians, ed.
F. Curta, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 32 (Turnhout, 2010), 319–60.
Steinacher, Roland, Rom und die Barbaren. Völker im Alpen- und Donauraum 300–600
(Stuttgart, 2017).
Stepanov, Cvetelin, “O lokalizacii ‘Velikoi Bolgarii’ Kubrata,” Bulgarian Historical Review
23, no. 2 (1995), 5–11.
Stepanov, P.D., “Iz istorii zemledeliia v Nizhnem Povolzh’e,” Trudy Saratovskogo oblast-
nogo muzeia kraevedeniia. Arkheologicheskii sbornik 1 (1956), 86–114.
Stepanova, Elena V., “New seals from Sudak,” SBS 6 (1999), 47–58.
Stern, Marianne E., “Early Byzantine glass from Athens (5th–8th centuries),” in
Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, eds. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan and
A. Ricci, Byzas 15 (Istanbul, 2012), 49–60.
Stîngă, Ion, “Cercetări arheologice în insula Ostrovu Mare-Porțile de Fier II-comuna
Gogoșu-Mehedinți,” Drobeta 4 (1978), 117–24.
Stoianova, Khristina, “Glinenite sădove ot VII–IX vek ot fonda na Istoricheskiia
muzei—Shumen,” PPIK 4 (1998), 330–36.
Stone, Glenn Davis, and Christian E. Downum, “Non-Boserupian ecology and agri-
cultural risk: ethnic politics and land control in the arid Southwest,” American
Anthropologist 101, no. 1 (1999), 113–28.
Straub, Péter, “6–7. századi temetőrészlet Keszthely-Fenékpusztan (Erdélyi István ása-
tása 1976),” in Hadak útján. A népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak konferenciája, eds.
L. Bende, G. Lőrinczy and Cs. Szalontai (Szeged, 2000), 205–29.
Strzelczyk, Jerzy, Longobardowie. Ostatni z wielkiej wędrówki ludów V–VIII wiek
(Warsaw, 2014).
Stubavs, Ādolfs, Ķentes pilskalns un apmetne (Riga, 1976).
Studitskii, Iaroslav V. and M.N. Butyrskii, “Monety Khersona s imenami Iustina I i
Iustiniana II,” VV 59 (2000), 226–29.
Sukhobokov, O.V., Slaviane Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia (Romenskaia kul’tura i ee pred-
shestvenniki) (Kiev, 1975).
Sümegi, Pál, Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Tünde Törőcsik, Gusztav Jakab, Péter Pomázi,
Péter Majkut, Gergely Dávid Páll, Gergő Persaits, and Elvira Bodor, “Reconstruction
of the environmental history of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta
im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia, ed.
O. Heinrich-Tamáska (Budapest/Leipzig/Keszthely/Rahden, 2011), 541–72.
Supka, Géza, “A tépei népvándorláskori leletről,” AE 33 (1913), 395–408 and 470–71.
Suprunenko, Aleksandr B., “Arkheologichni sposterezhennia za dnopogliblenniam u
zaplavi r. Sula naproti Luben,” Poltavs’kyi kraeznavchyi muzey. Zbirnyk naukovykh
statei 7 (2012), 131–84.
Susi, Georgeta El, “Analiza unui eșantion faunistic din situl de la Militari-Câmpul lui
Boja (secolele III, V–VI d. Chr.),” Banatica 26 (2016), 413–24.
Svoboda, Bedřich, “Poklad byzantského kovotepce v Zemianském Vrbovku,” PA 44
(1953), 33–108.
Svoboda, Bedřich, Čechy v době stěhování národů, Monumenta Archaeologica 13
(Prague, 1965).
Swan, Vivien G., “Dichin (Bulgaria): interpreting the ceramic evidence in its wider con-
text,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond, ed. A.G. Poulter,
Proceedings of the British Academy 141 (Oxford, 2007), 251–80.
Symonovich, E.A., “Gorodishche Kolochin I na Gomel’shchine,” in Slaviane nakanune
obrazovaniia Kievskoi Rusi, ed. B.A. Rybakov, Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheolo-
gii SSSR 108 (Moscow, 1963), 97–137.
Symonovich, E.A., “Dva rann’oseredn’ovichnikh poselennia na Chernigivshchini,” in
Slov’iano-rus’ki starozhitnosti, ed. V.I. Bidzillia (Kiev, 1969), 87–92.
Symonovich, E.A., “Novye otkrytiia v selishchakh Avdeevo i Vorob’evka 2 vozle g.
Kurska,” in Rannesrednevekovye vostochnoslavianskie drevnosti, ed. P.N. Tret’iakov
(Leningrad, 1974), 153–58.
protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7 septembre 1991, ed. J. Pavuj, vol. 4 (Bratislava, 1993),
232–37.
Teodor, Dan Gh., “Ateliere pentru prelucrat obiecte de cult creștin pe teritoriul
Moldovei în sec. VI–VIII,” in Credință și cultură în Moldova. I. Trecut religios și deve-
nire creștină, ed. D. Ciobotea (Iași, 1995), 50–56.
Teodor, Dan Gh., Meșteșugurile la nordul Dunării de Jos în secolele IV–XI, Bibliotheca
Archaeologica Iassiensis 8 (Iași, 1996).
Teodor, Dan Gh., “Contribuții la cunoașterea obștii sătești din mileniul marilor
migrații,” Carpica 28 (1999), 103–08.
Teodor, Dan Gh., “Tipare din secolele V–XI d. Hr. în regiunile carpato-nistriene,” AM 28
(2005), 159–74.
Teodor, Dan Gh., “Ateliers byzantins des VIe–VIIIe siècles au nord du Bas-Danube,”
Etudes byzantines et post-byzantines 5 (2006), 198–201.
Teodor, Dan Gh., Un centru meșteșugăresc din Evul Mediu timpuriu. Cercetările arheo-
logice de la Lozna-Botoșani, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Moldaviae 15 (Brăila, 2011).
Teodor, Dan Gh., Așezarea medievală timpurie de la Suceava-Șipot, Istorici ieșeni 4 (Iași,
2013).
Teodor, Eugen S., “Ceramica așezărilor din secolul al VI-lea de la Dulceanca,” in
Istro-Pontica. Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a aniversare 1950–2000. Omagiu lui Simion
Gavrilă la 45 de ani de activitate, 1955–2000, eds. M. Iacob, E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu
and F. Topoleanu (Tulcea, 2000), 295–302.
Teodor, Eugen S., “Epoca romană târzie și cronologia atacurilor transdanubiene.
Analiza componentelor etnice și geografice (partea întâi, de la 469 la 565),” Muzeul
Național 14 (2002), pp. 3–35.
Teodor, Eugen S., “Epoca romană târzie și cronologia atacurilor transdanubiene.
Analiza componentelor etnice și geografice (partea a doua, de la 565 la 626),”
Muzeul Național 15 (2003), 3–36.
Teodor, Eugen S., “The shadow of a frontier: the Walachian Plain during the Justinianic
age,” in Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle
Ages, ed. F. Curta (Turnhout, 2005), 205–45.
Teodor, Eugen S., “Handmade pottery from the Late Roman Fortress at Capidava,” in
Între stepă și imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu Harhoiu, eds. A. Măgureanu and
E. Gáll (Bucharest, 2010), 211–24.
Teodor, Silvia, “Săpăturile de la Cucorăni (jud. Botoșani),” AM 8 (1975), 121–201.
Teodorescu, Victor, “O nouă cultură arheologică recent precizată în țara noastră, cul-
tura Ipotești-Cîndești (sec. V–VII).” in Sesiunea de comunicări științifice a muzeelor
de istorie, dec. 1964, vol. 2 (Bucharest, 1971), 104–30.
Teodorescu, Victor, “Centre meșteșugărești din sec. V/VI–VII în București,” BMIM 9
(1972), 73–99.
Teodorescu, Victor, “Les anciens Roumains,” Roumanie. Pages d’histoire 5, no. 2 (1980),
56–91.
Teodorescu, Victor, Studii și cercetări arheologice în Muntenia (Bucharest, 2009).
Teodorescu, Victor and Marinela Peneș, “Matricea de incidență a siturilor arheologice
de la Budureasca (Budureasca 1-Budureasca 31), jud. Prahova, oglindă a continuității
multimilenare de viață, a unității culturale și a densității paleodemografice în zonă,”
AMIAP 1 (1984), 11–50.
Teodorescu, Victor, Vasile I. Dupoi, Marilena Jibotean-Peneș, and Gheorghe Panait,
“Budureasca, străveche și statornică vatră de civilizație la originile poporului
român. Cercetările arheologice din anul 1983 privind complexele străromânești de
tip Ipotești-Cândești (sec. V–VII e.n.),”Mousaios 5 (1999), 91–117.
Teodorescu, Victor, Vasile I. Dupoi, Marinela Peneș, Dan Lichiardopol, and Gheorghe
Panait, “Stațiunea arheologică Budureasca, jud. Prahova (complexele daco-române
și străromânești),” MCA 17, no. 2 (1993), 365–87.
Teploukhov, F.A., “Drevnosti Permskoi Chudi iz serebra i zolota i ee torgovye puti,” in
Permskii krai. Sbornik svedienii o Permskoi gubernii, izdavaemyi Permskim guberns-
kim statisticheskim komitetom, ed. A.A. Dimitriev (Perm, 1895), 247–90.
Terpylovs’kyi, Rostislav V. and Oleksandr V. Shekun, Oleksandrivka 1—bagatosharove
rann’oslov’ians’ke poselennia bilia Chernigova (Chernihiv, 1996).
Terry, Ann Bennett and Fiona Gilmore Eaves, Retrieving the Record. A Century of
Archaeology at Poreč (1847–1947), Studies in Early Christian and Medieval Art History
and Archaeology. Dissertationes et monographiae 1 (Zagreb/Motovun, 2001).
Testart, Alain, “Echange marchand, échange non-marchand,” Revue française de soci-
ologie 42, no. 4 (2001), 719–48.
Testart, Alain, Critique du don. Etude sur la circulation non-marchande (Paris, 2007).
Tettamanti, Sárolta, “Avarkori öntöminta Vácról,” AE 104 (1977), 79–85.
Thompson, Margaret, The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Princeton, 1954).
Threpsiadis, I., “Anaskaphai kai tychaia euremata Attikes, Boiotias kai Euboias,”
Archaiologike ephemeris: ekdidomene tes archaiologikes hetaireias 110 (1971), 8–38.
Tikhanova, Mariia A., “O ranneslavianskom poselenii v Luke-Vrubleckoi,” KSIA 125
(1971), 7–12.
Timoshchuk, Boris O., “Social’naia sushchnost’ gorodishcha Zimno,” in Ranneslavianskie
mir. Materialy i issledovaniia, eds. S.A. Pletneva and I.P. Rusanova, Ranneslavianskii
mir 1 (Moscow, 1990), 151–57.
Timoshchuk, Boris O., Vostochnoslavianskaia obshchina VI–X vv. n. e. (Moscow, 1990).
Timoshchuk, Boris O., Vostochnye slaviane. Ot obshchiny k gorodam (Moscow, 1995).
Torbatov, Sergei, “Quaestura exercitus: Moesia Secunda and Scythia under Justinian,”
AB 1, no. 3 (1997), 78–87.
Torcellan, Michela. Le tre necropoli altomedioevali di Pinguente, Ricerche di archeolo-
gia altomedievale e medievale 11 (Florence, 1986).
Tornow, Siegfried, Was ist Osteuropa? Handbuch der osteuropäischen Text-
und Sozialgeschichte von der Spätantike bis zum Nationalstaat, Slavistische
Studienbücher, 16. (Wiesbaden, 2005).
Török, Béla, Árpád Kovács, and Zsolt Gallina, “Iron metalllurgy of the Pannonian
Avars of the 7th–9th century based on excavations and material examinations,” in
Archaeometallurgy in Europe III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference,
Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, June 29–July 1, 2011, eds. A. Hauptmann and
D. Modarressi-Tehrani (Bochum, 2015), 229–38.
Török, Béla, Árpád Kovács, and Frigyes Szücs, “Előszállás-Öregyhegy és Úrhida-Arany
János utca lelőhelyeken feltárt avar kori fokosok elektronmikroszkópos archeome-
triai anyagvizsgálata és régészeti értékelése,” Alba Regia 44 (2016), 17–36.
Török, Béla, Árpád Kovács, Márton Benke, and Máté Sepsi, “Szolnok-Szanda gepida
temetőjéből szármázó három övcsat roncsolásmentes archeometallurgiai vizs-
gálata,” Tisicum 26 (2018), 157–72.
Török, Gyula, A kiszombori germán temető helye népvándorláskori emlékeink között
(Szeged, 1936).
Toropu, Octavian, Romanitatea tîrzie și străromânii în Dacia traiană subcarpatică
(Craiova, 1976).
Toropu, Octavian, “Noi descoperiri arheologice la Sucidava-Celei,” Arhivele Olteniei 1
(1981), 67–75.
Toska, Lida and Giorgios Chatzakis, “Byzantino nekrotapheio ste Balta (Kassandreia),”
AEMT 15 (2001), 161–66.
Toškan, Borut and Janez Dirjec, “Sesalska makrofavna,” in Poznoantična utrjena nas-
elbina Tonovcov grad pri Kobaridu. Najdbe, eds. Z. Modrijan and T. Milavec, Opera
Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 24 (Ljubljana, 2011), 303–88.
Tóth, Ágnes B., “Gepida településnyomok a Körös-Tisza-Maros közén,” MFME, no. 2
(1984–1985), 97–104.
Tóth, Ágnes B., “A gepidák települési képe a Tisza-Maros-Körös közén,” Acta Universitatis
Szegediensis de Attila Jozsef nominatae. Acta Historica 84 (1987), 3–9.
Tóth, Ágnes B., “A szarvasi gepida fibula és köre. A szarvasi gepida leletek a Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeum gyűjteményében,” MFMESA 5 (1999), 261–77.
Tóth, Ágnes B., “The Gepids,” in Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium,
ed. Zs. Visy (Budapest, 2003), 294–98.
Tóth, Ágnes B., Gepidische Siedlungen im Theissgebiet, Monumenta Germanorum
Archaeologica Hungariae 4 (Budapest, 2006).
Tóth, Ágnes B., “The role of rivers in the settlement history of the Great Hungarian Plain
in the 5th and 6th centuries; overview and prospects,” in Offene Landschaften, eds.
O. Heinrich-Tamáska, M. Hardt, L. Révész and W. Schenk, Siedlungsforschunge 31
(Bonn, 2014), 191–208.
Tóth, Ágnes B. and Enikő Sipos, “Pliszírozott női ruha a szentendrei langobard
temetőben? I. A textilmaradványok vizsgálata,” in “Vadrózsából tündérsípot
csináltam”. Tanulmányok Istvánovits Eszter 60. születésnapjára, ed. A. Szemán
(Nyíregyháza, 2018), 477–90.
Tóth, András, “Rúnafeliratos tárgyak Magyarországról. Példák a rúnajelek szakrális-
mágikus használatára,” in Hadak útján XX. Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XX.
Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Budapest-Szigethalom, 2010. október 28–30., ed.
Zs. Petkes (Budapest, 2012), 97–108.
Tóth, Elvira H., A Kunbábonyi avar fejedelem (Budapest, 1971).
Tóth, Elvira H., “Preliminary account of the Avar princely find at Kunbábony,” Cumania
1 (1972), 143–60.
Tóth, Elvira H., “Nézzük meg együtt a kunbábonyi avar fejedelmi sírleleteket,” Művészet
75, no. 6 (1975), 27–29.
Tóth, Elvira H., “Korai avar vezető réteg családi temetője a kunbábonyi kagán szál-
lásterületén,” Múzeumi kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében 19 (1984), 10–20.
Tóth, Elvira H., “A kunbábonyi lelet amphorája és kapcsolatai,” Múzeumi kutatások
Bács-Kiskun megyében 21 (1986), 51–56.
Tóth, Elvira H., “Die Familiengrabstätte einer frühawarischen führenden Schicht
im Stammesgebiet des Khagans von Kunbábony,” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo
Kongressa arkheologov-slavistov, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed. V.D. Baran vol. 4
(Kiev, 1988), 212–16.
Tóth, Elvira H., “Kunbábony—das Grab eines awarischen Khagans,” in Reitervölker
aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren. Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß
Halbturn, 26. April–31. Oktober 199, eds. F. Daim, K. Kaus, and P. Tomka (Eisenstadt,
1996), 391–404.
Tóth, Elvira H., “Grab 70 des awarischen Gräberfeldes von Hetényegyháza-Mária út.,”
AAASH 51 (1999–2000), 393–410.
Tóth, Elvira H. and Attila Horváth, Kunbábony. Das Grab eines Awarenkhagans.
(Kécskemét, 1992).
Tóth, József, “Tiszavárkony-hugyinparti avar temető anyagának restaurálása és
ötvöstechnikai elemzése,” MM 6 (1979), 191–212.
Touchais, Gilles, “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grece en
1981,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982), 529–631.
Trajkovski, Kiril, “Ranokhristijanska grobnica vo Morodvis,” Likhnid. Godishen zbornik
na Narodniot muzej vo Okhrid 7 (1989), 89–91.
Travlos, J. and Alison Frantz, “The church of St. Dionysios the Areopagite and the palace
of the archbishop of Athens in the 16th century,” Hesperia 34, no. 3 (1965), 157–202.
Tret’iakov, Petr N., “Gorodishcha-sviatilishcha levoberezhnoi Smolenshchiny,” SA,
no. 4 (1958), 170–86.
Tret’iakov, Petr N. and Evgenii A. Shmidt, Drevnie gorodishcha Smolenshchiny (Moscow/
Leningrad, 1963).
Trever, K.V. and V.G. Lukonin, Sasanidskoe serebro. Sobranie Gosudarstvennogo
Ermitazha. Khudozhestvennaia kul’tura Irana III–VII vekov (Moscow, 1987).
Trifunović, Stanko, “Naselja Limiganata i Slovena u Banatu i Bačkoj,” GSAD 15–16 (1999–
2000), 43–79.
Trifunović, Stanko and Ivana Pašić, “‘Stari vinogradi’ u Churugu—visheslojno arkheo-
loshko nalazishte,” GSAD 19 (2003), 263–90.
Tuganaev, V.V. “Sostav kul’turny i sornykh rastenii v akrheologicheskikh material-
akh gorodishcha Osh Pando bliz s. Sainino Mordovskoi ASSR (VI–IX vv. n.e.),”
Botanicheskii zhurnal 78, no. 4 (1973), 581–82.
Tuganaev, V.V. and T.P. Efimova, “Agroetnobotanicheskie materialy iz Verkh-Sainskogo
gorodishcha Permskoi oblasti (VI–IX vv. n.e.),” in Novye istochniki po drevnei istorii
Priural’ia, ed. R.D. Goldina (Ustinov, 1985), 27–30.
Tuganaev, A.V. and V.V. Tuganaev, Sostav, struktura i evoliuciia agroekosistem evropeiskoi
Rossii (lesnaia i lesostepnaia zony) v srednevekov’e (VI–XVI vv. n.e.) (Izhevsk, 2007).
Turčan, Vladimír, “Hroby zlatníkov v 6.–7. storočí v Karpatskej kotline,” AR 36 (1984),
481–89.
Turova, N.P. and S.A. Chernysh, “Rannesrednevekovyi mogil’nik Aloniia na iuzhnom
beregu Kryma,” MAIET 30 (2015), 133–84.
Tvauri, Andres, “Migrants or natives? The research history of long barrows in Russia
and Estonia in the 5th–10th centuries,” In Topics on the Ethnic, Linguistic and
Cultural Making of the Russian North, ed. J. Nuorluoto, Slavica Helsingiensia 32
(Helsinki, 2007), 1–38.
Tvauri, Andres, The Migration Period, Pre-Viking Age, and Viking Age in Estonia,
Estonian Archaeology 4 (Tartu, 2012).
Tvauri, Andres, “The impact of the climate catastrophe of 536–537 AD in Estonia and
neighbouring areas,” EAA 18, no. 1 (2014), 30–56.
Tyszkiewicz, Lech A., “Problem zależności Słowian od Awarów w VI–VII wieku,”
Balcanica Posnaniensia 4 (1989), 95–108.
Uenze, Syna. Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec. Ergebnisse der deutsch-
bulgarisch-österreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934–1937, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte, 43 (Munich, 1992).
Ugrin, Emese, Le trésor de Zalésie, Publications d’histoire de l’art de d’archéologie de
l’Université Catholique de Louvain 51 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987).
Vaitkunskienė, Laima, “The formation of a warrior elite during the Middle Iron Age in
Lithuania,” ArchB 1 (1995), 94–106.
Vaklinova, Margarita, “Pogrebeniia ot perioda na velikoto preselenie pri Pleven,” PPIK
1 (1989), 129–42.
Vaklinova, Margarita, “The Christian Rhodopes,” Rhodopica 1 (1999), 51–72.
Vakulenko, L.V. and Oleg M. Prykhodniuk, Slavianskie poseleniia I tys. n. e. u s. Sokol na
Srednem Dnestre (Kiev, 1984).
Valette, Philippe, Laurent Carozza, Cristian Micu, Jean-Michel Carozza, Aurel Stănică,
and Albane Burens, “Approche géohistorique de la liaison du Lac de Babadag avec
le Lac de Razim à travers l’analyse des cartes anciennes,” Peuce 11 (2013), 343–56.
Vámosi, Lajosné, “Díszítéstechnikai eljárások a Zamárdi avar temető VII. századi lele-
tanyagában,” SMK 15 (2002), 87–96.
Vaškevičiutė, Ilona, “Jauneikių (Joniškio raj.) V–XI a. kapinynas. 1. Laidosena. Darbo
įrankiai,” LTSR, no. 2 (1985), 48–57.
Vaškevičiutė, Ilona, “Jauneikių (Joniškio raj.) V–XI a. kapinynas. Ginklai,” LTSR 2 (1986–
1987), 43–51.
Vaškevičiutė, Ilona, “Semgallian warrior weaponry and its reflection in burial rites in
the fifth to the 12th century AD,” ArchB 8 (2007), 214–22.
Vaskul, I.O., “Issledovaniia v basseine r. Sysoly,” in Arkheologicheskii otkrytiia 1985 goda,
ed. V.P. Shilov (Moscow, 1987), 6–7.
Văzharova, Zhivka, Slaviano-bălgarskoto selishte krai selo Popina, Silistrensko (Sofia,
1956).
Văzharova, Zhivka, Slavianski i slavianobălgarski selishta v bălgarskite zemi ot kraia na
VI–XI vek (Sofia, 1965).
Văzharova, Zhivka, Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvan, Silistrenski okrăg (VI–XI v.)
(Sofia, 1986).
Veikou, Myrto, “Byzantine histories, settlement stories: kastra, ‘isles of refuge’, and
‘unspecified settlements’ as in-between or third spaces. Preliminary remarks on
aspects of Byzantine settlement in Greece,” in Oi byzantines poleis (8os–15os aio-
nas). Prooptikes tes ereunas kai nees ermeneutikes proseggiseis, ed. A. Kiousoupoulou
(Rethymno, 2012), 159–206.
Veikou, Myrto, “Settlements in the Greek countryside from the 4th to the 9th centuries:
forms and patterns,” AT 21 (2013), 125–33.
Veimarn, E.V., “Arkheologichni roboti v raioni Inkermana,” APU 13 (1963), 15–89.
Veimarn, E.V. and Aleksandr I. Aibabin, Skalistinskii mogil’nik (Kiev, 1993).
Veksler, A.G., “Raskopki gorodishch v Moskve i Podmoskov’e,” in Arkheologicheskie
otkrytiia 1970 goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1971), 90–91.
Veljanovska, Fanica, “Skeletot od episkopskata bazilika vo Stobi,” MAA 11 (1987), 233–39.
Viaz’mitina, I.M., V.A. Ilins’ka, E.F. Pokrovs’ka, A.I. Terenozhkin and G.T. Kovpanenko,
“Kurgany bilia s. Novo-Pylypivky i Radgospu ‘Akkerman’,” APU 8 (1960), 22–135.
Viazov, Leonid A., “Sistema rasseleniia plemen imen’kovskoi kul’tury v podgornoi
chasti Samarskoi luki,” in Samarskii krai v istorii Rossii. Materialy iubilenoi nauchnoi
konferencii, 6–7 fevralia 2001 g., ed. P.S. Kabytov (Samara, 2001), 55–69.
Viazov, Leonid A. and D.A. Petrova, “Komarovskii mogil’nik (predvaritel’naia pub-
likaciia),” in Kul’tury stepei Evrazii vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n. e. Materialy k V
Mezhdunarodnoi archeologicheskoi konferencii, ed. D.A. Stashenkov (Samara, 2013),
15–20.
Viazov, Leonid A. and Iurii A. Semykin. Gorodishche i selishche Novaia Beden’ga:
epokha Velikogo pereseleniia narodov v Ul’ianovskom Predvolzh’e, Arkheologiia
Simbirskogo-Ul’ianovskogo Povolzh’ia 1 (Ul’ianovsk, 2016).
Viazov, Leonid A. and Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, “Kul’turno-khronologicheskie gruppy
naseleniia Samarskogo i Ul’ianovskogo Povolzh’ia v epokhu Velikogo pereseleniia
narodov,” in Istoriko-kul’turnoe nasledie—resurs formirovaniia social’no-istoricheskoi
pamiati grazhdanskogo obshchestva (XIV Baderovskie chteniia). 14–15 oktiabria,
g. Izhevsk, eds. E.V. Goldina, N.A. Leshchinskaia, E.M. Chernykh and I.G. Shapran
(Izhevsk, 2013), 49–56.
Vida, Tivadar, Die awarenzeitliche Keramik I. (6.–7. Jh.), Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 8
(Berlin/Budapest, 1999).
Vida, Tivadar, “Veil pin or dress pin. Data to the question of Avar period pin-wearing,” in
Pannonia and Beyond. Studies in Honour of László Barkóczi, ed. A. Vaday, Antaeus 24
(Budapest, 1999), pp. 563–74 and 811–15.
Vida, Tivadar, “Merowingische Spathagurte der Awarenzeit,” CAH (2000), 161–75.
Vida, Tivadar, “Reconstruction of a Germanic noble woman’s costume (Kölked-
Feketekapu B, grave 85),” in Zbornik na počest Dariny Bialekovej, ed. G. Fusek,
Archaeologia Slovaca Monographiae. Communicationes 7 (Nitra, 2004), 435–42.
Vida, Tivadar, “Einzeln getragene germanische Scheibenfibeln im Karpatenbecken,”
in Reliquiae gentium. Festschrift für Horst Wolfgang Böhme zum 65. Geburtstag, ed.
C. Dobiat, Veröffentlichung des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars Marburg 14 (Rahden,
2005), 429–42.
Vida, Tivadar, “Aufgaben und Perspektiven der Langobardenforschung in Ungarn
nach István Bóna,” in Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden—Awaren—
Slawen. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008, eds.
J. Bemmann and M. Schmauder, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn,
2008), 343–62.
Vida, Tivadar, “Conflict and coexistence: the local population of the Carpathian Basin
under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages.
Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. F. Curta, East Central and Eastern Europe
in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2 (Leiden/Boston, 2008), 13–46.
Vida, Tivadar, “Die Langobarden in Pannonien,” in Die Langobarden. Das Ende der
Völkerwanderungszeit. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum
Bonn, 22.8.2008–11.1.2009, ed. M. Hegewisch (Bonn/Darmstadt, 2008), 73–89.
Vida, Tivadar, “Bestattungen von Eliten in der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta
im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert: Horreum und Basilika,” in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta im Spiegel
der Jahrtausende, eds. O. Heinrich-Tamáska and P. Straub (Leipzig/Zalaegerszeg,
2009), 72–76.
Vida, Tivadar, “Raumkonzepte der Awaren und Byzantiner und deren Auswirkungen
im unteren und mittleren Donaubecken um 6.–7. Jahrhundert,” in Parallele
Raumkonzepte, eds. S. Hansen and M. Meyer, Topoi 16 (Berlin/Boston, 2013a),
307–24.
Vida, Tivadar, “Spätantike Buntmetallgefäße im langobardenzeitlichen Pannonien,” in
Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen
Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23. internation-
alen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mit-
tleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.–19. 11. 2011, eds. M. Hardt and O. Heinrich-Tamáska,
Forschungen zur Spätantike und Mittelalter 2 (Weinstadt, 2013b), 339–60.
Vida, Tivadar, Late Antique Metal Vessels in the Carpathian Basin. Luxury and Power in
the Early Middle Ages, Hereditas Archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest, 2016a).
Vida, Tivadar, “‘They asked to be settled in Pannonia …’ A study on integration
and acculturation—the case of the Avars,” in Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe.
Archäologische und historische Studien. Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70.
Geburtstag, eds. Á. Bollók, G. Csiky and T. Vida (Budapest, 2016b), 251–70.
Vida, Tivadar, “Pannonia and the Alpine-Adriatic Region in Late Antiquity,” in
Migrazioni, clan, culture: archeologia, genetica e isotopi stabili. III incontro per
l’archeologia barbarica, Milano, 18 maggio 2018, ed. C. Giostra (Mantova, 2019),
125–38.
Vida, Tivadar, Adrien Pásztor, and Erzsébet Fóthi, “Das Gräberfeld neben dem Horreum
in der Innenbefestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta
im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia, ed.
O. Heinrich-Tamáska (Budapest/Leipzig/ Keszthely/Rahden, 2011), 397–456.
Vigil-Escalera Guirado, Alfonso, Los primeros paisajes altomedievales en el interior de
Hispania. Registros campesinos del siglo quinto d. C. (Bilbao, 2015).
Vigil-Escalera Guirado, Alfonso, and Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, “Un ensayo
de interpretación del registro arqueológico,” in El poblamiento rural de época
visigoda en Hispania. Arqueológa del campesinado en el interior peninsular, ed.
J.A. Quirós Castillo, Documentos de arqueología medieval (Bilbao, 2014), 357–99.
Werner, Joachim, Die Langobarden in Pannonien. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der lan-
gobardischen Bodenfunde vor 568, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 55A (Munich, 1962).
Werner, Joachim, “Zur Verbreitung frühgeschichtlicher Metallarbeiten (Werkstatt-
Wanderhandwerk-Handel- Familienverbindung),” Antikvariskt arkiv 38 (1970),
65–81.
Werner, Joachim, Der Grabfund von Malaja Pereščepina und Kuvrat, Kagan der Bulgaren,
Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
historische Klasse 91 (Munich, 1984).
Werner, Joachim, “Zu den Bügelfibeln aus den völkerwanderungszeitlichen
Brandgräberfeldern Masuriens,” Germania 62, no. 1 (1984), 74–77.
Werner, Joachim, “Kagan Kuvrat, fondatore della Magna Bulgaria. La sua tomba a
Malaja Pereščepina presso Poltava,” Archeologia medievale 12 (1985), 709–12.
Werner, Joachim, “Golemanovo Kale und Sadovsko Kale: Kritische Zusammenfassung
der Grabungsergebnisse,” in Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien).
Ergebnisse der deutsch-bulgarisch-österreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934–1937, ed.
S. Uenze, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 43 (Munich, 1992),
391–417.
Werner, Joachim, “Neues zu Kuvrat und Malaja Pereščepina,” Germania 10, no. 2 (1992),
430–36.
Whitaker, Adrian R., Jelmer W. Eerkens, Amy M. Spurling, Edward L. Smith, and
Michelle A. Gras, “Linguistic boundaries as barriers to exchange,” JAS 35 (2008),
1104–13.
Whitby, Michael, The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on
Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford, 1988).
Whitby, Michael, “The Balkans and Greece 420–602,” in The Cambridge Ancient
History. XIV: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600, eds. A. Cameron,
B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby (Cambridge/New York, 2000), 701–30.
White, Lynn, Transformation of the Roman World. Gibbon’s Problem after Two Centuries
(Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1966).
Whittow, Mark, “Ruling the late Roman and early Byzantine city: a continuous history,”
Past & Present 129 (1990), 3–29.
Wickham, Chris, “The uniqueness of the East,” Journal of Peasant Studies 12 (1985),
166–96.
Wickham, Chris, “Overview: production, distribution, and demand,” in The Sixth
Century. Production, Distribution, and Demand, eds. R. Hodges and W. Bowden, The
Transformation of the Roman World 3 (Leiden/Boston, 1998), 279–92.
Wickham, Chris, Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–
800 (Oxford/New York, 2006).
Wickham, Chris, The Inheritance of Rome. A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 (New
York, 2009).
Wickham, Chris, “Conclusion,” in The Languages of Gift in the Early Middle Ages, eds.
W. Davies and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 2010), 238–61.
Wielowiejski, Jerzy, “Bernsteinstrasse und Bernsteinweg während der römischen
Kaiserzeit im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken
Handelsgeschichte 3/2 (1984), 69–87.
Wielowiejski, Jerzy, “Depositi dell’ambra sul territorio tra la parte media del Danubio e
il mar Baltico dal I secolo a.C. al V secolo d. C.,” ArchPol 25–26 (1987), 75–84.
Wiewiorowski, Jacek, “Quaestor Iustinianus exercitus i jego kompetencje je wobec
wojska,” in Współczesna romanistyka prawnicza w Polsce, eds. A. Dębiński and
M. Wójcik (Lublin, 2004), 301–22.
Wiewiorowski, Jacek, “Quaestor Iustinianus Exercitus—a late military commander?”
Eos 93, no. 2 (2006), 317–40.
Williams, Charles K. II, Jean Macintosh and Joan E. Fisher, “Excavation at Corinth,
1973,” Hesperia 43, no. 1 (1974), 1–76.
Wimmer, L.F.A., “A bezenyei rúnás fibulák,” AE 14 (1894), 21–23.
Winter, Heinz, “Die Buntmetallbearbeitung bei den Awaren,” in Reitervölker aus dem
Osten. Hunnen + Awaren. Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß Halbturn,
26. April–31. Oktober 1996, eds. F. Daim, K. Kaus, and P. Tomka (Eisenstadt, 1996),
355–58.
Winter, Heinz, “Die byzantinischen und karolingischen Fundmünzen aus dem öster-
reichischen Bereich der Avaria—eine Neubearbeitung,” in Byzantine Coins in
Central Europe Between the 5th and 10th Century. Proceedings from the Conference
Organized by the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute of Archaeology
of the University of Rzeszów under the Patronage of Union Académique International
(Programme No. 57 Moravia Magna), Kraków, 23–26 IV 2007, ed. M. Wołoszyn,
Moravia Magna, Seria Polona 3 (Cracow, 2009), 325–56.
Wolf, Eric R., “Closed corporate peasant communities in Mesoamerica and Central
Java,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13 (1957), 1–18.
Wolf, Eric R., Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, 1966).
Wolf, Mária, “Das slawische Gräberfeld von Zemplénagárd,” in Ethnische und kulturelle
Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Symposium Nitra
6. bis 10. November 1994, eds. D. Bialeková and J. Zábojník (Bratislava, 1996), 51–62.
Wolff, Hartmut, “Vermutungen Zum Ende Antiker Lebensformen Im Südöstlichen
Alpenraum,” in Slovenia in sosednje med dežele antiko in karolinško dobo. Začetki
slovenske etnogeneze, ed. P. Kos (Ljubljana, 2000), 27–40.
Wolff, Larry, Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the
Enlightenment (Stanford, 1994).
Wolińska, Teresa, “Konflikt wokół obsady biskupstwa Salony (593–599). Sukces czy
porażka papieża Grzegorza I Wielkiego?” in Byzantina Europaea. Księga jubile-
uszowa ofiarowana Profesorowi Waldemarowi Ceranowi, eds. M. Kokoszko and
M.J. Leszka, Byzantina Lodziensia 11 (Łódź, 2007), 561–72.
Wołoszyn, Marcin, “Moneta bizantyńska na terenie kaganatu awarskiego (uwagi na
marginesie książki Pétera Somogyi 1997),” APol 44 (1999), 147–77.
Wołoszyn, Marcin, “Monety bizantyńskie z VI–VII w. w Polsce na tle
środkowoeuropejskim,” in Archeologia o początkach Słowian. Materiały z konfer-
encji, Kraków, 19–21 listopada 2001, eds. P. Kaczanowski and M. Parczewski (Cracow,
2005), 637–80.
Wołoszyn, Marcin, “Byzantine coins from the 6th and 7th century from Poland and
their East-Central European context. Ways and phases, contexts and functions,”
in Roman Coins Outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions.
Proceedings of the ESF/SCH Exploratory Workshop, Radziwiłł Palace, Nieborów
(Poland), 3–6 September 2005, eds. A. Bursche, R. Ciołek, and R. Wolters, Collection
Moneta 82 (Wetteren, 2008), 195–224.
Wołoszyn, Marcin, “Byzantinische Münzen aus dem 6.–7. Jh. in Polen,” in Byzantine
Coins in Central Europe Between the 5th and 10th Century. Proceedings from the
Conference Organized by the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute of
Archaeology of the University of Rzeszów under the Patronage of Union Académique
International (Programme No. 57 Moravia Magna), Kraków, 23–26 IV 2007, ed.
M. Wołoszyn, Moravia Magna, Seria Polona 3 (Cracow, 2009), 473–530.
Wołoszyn, Marcin, Theophylaktos Simokates und die Slawen am Ende des westlichen
Ozeans—die erste Erwähnung der Ostseeslawen? (Cracow, 2014).
Wołoszyn, Marcin, “Slawen von der Ostsee beim byzantinischen Kaiser Maurikios um
595? Zur Glaubwürdigkeit der Überlieferung bei Theophylaktos Simokates, Historiae
VI.2,” in Die frühen Slawen—von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Beiträge der
Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte des 8. Deutschen Archäologiekongresses in
Berlin, 06.10.Oktober 2014. 1. Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. F. Biermann, Th.
Kersting and A. Klammt, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 81.2
(Langenweissbach, 2016), 61–73.
Wood, Ian, “Report: The European Science’s Foundation’s Programme on the
Transformation of the Roman World and Emergence of Early Medieval Europe,”
Early Medieval Europe 6, no. 2 (1997), 217–227.
Yannopoulos, Panagiotis A., “Les Slaves chez Ménandre,” Epeteris Hetaireias Byzantinon
Spoudon 48 (1990–1993), 27–35.
Żabiński, Grzegorz and Janusz Stępiński, Technology of Sword Blades from the La Tène
Period to the Early Modern Age. The Case of What is Now Poland (Oxford, 2014).
Zábojník, Jozef, “Zum Vorkommen der Reitergräber auf Gräberfeldern aus der Zeit
des awarischen Kaganats,” in Ethnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren
Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Symposium Nitra 6. bis 10. November 1994, eds.
D. Bialeková and J. Zábojník (Bratislava, 1996), 179–94.
Zábojník, Jozef, Vladimír Mitáš, and Ján Štubňa, “Krištáľový mnohosten z Čataja. K
problematike nálezov z horského krištáľu v archeologických súvislostiach zo
Slovenska a na susediacich územiach,” SlovArch 65, no. 2 (2017), 343–76.
Zachariadis, Stavros, “Pottery from the workshop building, in the early Byzantine city of
Philippi, Greece,” in LRCW 4 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae
in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. The Mediterranean: a Market
Without Frontiers, eds. N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou, and V. Kilikoglou,
vol. 2, BAR International Series 2616 (Oxford, 2014), 705–13.
Zaharia, Eugenia, “Rolul istoric al obștilor sătești. Contribuție la cunoașterea istoriei
românilor în mileniul I. Închinarea țărănimii române,” Acta Moldaviae Meridionalis
2 (1980), 133–56.
Zaharia, Eugenia, “La station no. 2 de Bratei, dép. de Sibiu (VIe–VIIIe siècle),” Dacia
38–39 (1994–1995), 297–356.
Zahra, Tara, The Great Departure. Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making
of the Free World (New York, 2016).
Zaiac, Iurii A., “Raskopki v okrestnostiakh Zaslavlia,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1979
goda, ed. B.A. Rybakov (Moscow, 1980), 362.
Żak, Jan, “Brakteaty z Wapna (pow. Wągrówiec) na tle porównawczym,” PArch 9 (1953),
80–116.
Żak, Jan, “O kontinuacji i dyskontinuacii społecznej i kulturowej na ziemiach
nadodrzańskich i nadwiślańskich w V–V/VI w. n. e.,” FPP 1 (1984), 85–108.
Zalesskaia, Vera N., Zlata A. L’vova, and Boris I. Marshak, “Pereshchepinskoe sokrov-
ishche,” in Sokrovishcha Khana Kubrata, ed. O. Fedoseenko (St. Petersburg, 1997),
21–23.
Zapolska, Anna, “The solidus of Heraclius from Wargen in Sambia—reconsidered,”
Notae numismaticae 12 (2018), 167–86.
Zaseckaia, Irina P., Kul’tura kochevnikov iuzhnorusskikh stepei v gunnskuiu epokhu
(konec IV–V vv.) (St. Petersburg, 1994).
Zaseckaia, Irina P., “Datirovka i proiskhozhdenie pal’chatykh fibul bosporskogo nek-
ropolia rannesrednevekovogo perioda,” MAIET 6 (1997), 394–478.
Zaseckaia, Irina P., “Bosporskii nekropol’ kak etalonnyi pamiatnik drevnostei IV–
nachala VII veka,” in Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaz’e v epokhu
srednevekov’ia, IV–XIII veka, eds. T.I. Makarova and S.A. Pletneva (Moscow, 2003),
31–40.
Ziemann, Daniel, Von Wandervolk zur Großmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frühen
Mittelalter (7.–9. Jh.), Kölner historische Abhandlungen 43 (Cologne/Weimar/
Vienna, 2007).
Ziemann, Daniel, “Zwischen Geschichte und Mythos—Großbulgarien unter Khan
Kubrat,” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 1 (2010), 17–49.
Zin’ko, A.V., “Bosporskii gorod Tiritaka v rannevizantiiskuiu epokhu (po materialam
raskopok 2002–2005 gg.),” in Vizantiia v kontekste mirovoi kul’tury. K 100-letiiu so
dnia rozhdeniia Alisy Vladimirovny Bank, 1906–1984. Materialy konferencii, eds.
V.N. Zalesskaia et al., Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 42 (St. Petersburg, 2008),
329–37 and 591–92.
Zin’ko, A.V. and V.N. Zin’ko, “Voprosy topografii goroda Bospora v rannevizantiiskoe
vremia,” in Vizantiia v kontekste mirovoi kul’tury. Materialy konferencii, posviash-
chennoi pamiati Alisy Vladimirovny Bank, 1906–1984, eds. V.N. Zalesskaia et al., Trudy
Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 89 (St. Petersburg, 2017), 164–76.
Zirra, Vlad and Gheorghe Cazimir, “Unele rezultate ale săpăturilor arheologice de pe
Cîmpul lui Boja din cartierul Militari,” CAB 1 (1963), 56–71.
Živić, Maja, “Early Byzantine metallurgical object at the site Gamzigrad-Romuliana in
Eastern Serbia,” Journal of Mining and Metallurgy 45, no. 2 (2009), 197–206.
Živković, Tibor, Forging Unity. The South Slavs Between East and West: 550–1150
(Belgrade, 2008).
Żołędziowski, Karol, “Techniki produkcji biżuterii ze stopów miedzi na cmentarzysku
grupy olsztyńskiej w Kosewie st. 2 (Kossewen III),” in Kosewo. Archiwalne cmentar-
zysko z okresu wędrówek ludów Kossewen III. Badania w roku 2014, ed. A. Jaremek
(Warsaw, 2015), 49–58.
Zotović, Ljubica, “Die gepidische Nekropole bei Viminacium,” Starinar 43–44 (1992),
183–90.
Zubar’, V.I., “Novye materialy k datirovke rannekhristianskoi rospisi nekropolia
Khersonesa,” in Surozh, Sugdeia, Soldaiia v istorii i kul’ture Rusi-Ukrainy. Materialy
nauchnoi konferencii (16–22 sentiabria 2002 g.), eds. N.M. Kukoval’skaia et al. (Kiev/
Sudak, 2002), 105–08.
Zubar, V.M., “Sklepy z khrystyans’kym rozpysom nekropolia Khersonesa: problemi
datuvannia,” Arkheolohiia, no. 2 (2009), 18–23.
Zubar’, V.M. and Renate Pillinger, “New tombs with early Christian murals from the
necropolis of Tauric Chersonesus (preliminary note),” Talanta 32–33 (2000–2001),
123–30.
Žulkus, Vladas, and Mindaugas Bertašius, “Handelsplätze zwischen Danziger und
Rigaer Bucht zur Zeit Wulfstans,” in Wulfstan’s Voyage. The Baltic Sea Region in the
Early Viking Age as Seen from Shipboard, eds. A. Englert and A. Trakadas (Roskilde,
2009), 198–204.