V - VI

2012

, , 2012
, . 2003.
. : . . 1. . 93-96
ISBN 978-954-337-143-3

V - VI


............................................................................................................................................. 9
. ............................................................................................................... 13
. 1. . ............................ 13
. 2. .......................... 14
. .................................................................................................................. 19
.1.1. ........................................................................................................ 19
.1.2.
V-V ................................................................................ 22
.1.3.
. ....................................... 23
.1.4.
V V . ................................................................ 33
. ................................................................................................................. 38
.1. ..................................................................................................................................... 39
.1.1. , ........... 39
.1.1.1. , ...................................................... 39
.1.1.1.1. , .............................................. 43
.1.1.1.2. , ............... 52
.1.1.2. , ............ 55
.1.1.2.1. . ....................................................................................... 55
.1.1.2.2. ....................................................................................... 71
.1.1.2.3. . ............................................................................. 76
.1.2. ............................................................................................................... 79
.1.2.1.
......................................................................... 80
.1.2.1.1. / .......................................................... 84
.1.2.1.2. ,
-/ ................................................................................ 90
.1.2.1.3.
( ) ............................................................................................................ 101
.1.2.1.4. - ........................................... 105
.1.2.1.5. . ............................................................................111
.1.2.2. . . 119
.1.2.2.1. ...................................................................................... 119
.1.2.2.2. . .............................. 126
.1.2.2.3. . ........................................................................... 130
.1.2.3. ................. 134
.1.2.3.1. - . .................................................................... 135
.1.2.3.2. ................................................................................... 136
.1.3.
...................................................................................................... 140
.1.3.1. . .................. 141
.1.3.1.1. / . ..................................................... 141
.1.3.1.2. . ........................................... 146
.1.3.1.3. . ........................................................................... 148
.1.4. ................................................................................................... 150
.1.4.1. ......... 150
.1.4.1.1. / ........................................................................... 150

.1.4.2. .................................................................................................... 157

.1.4.2.1. .......................................................... 157
.1.4.2.2. ....................................................... 164
.1.4.2.3. ........................................................................ 166
.1.4.2.4. S- ............................................................. 172
.1.4.3. . ................................................................................... 173
.1.4.3.1. .............................................................................. 173
.1.4.3.2. . .............................................................................. 174
.1.4.3.3. ....................................................... 176
.1.4.3.4. .................................................................................. 179
.2. ................................................................................................................................ 182
.2.1. ........................................................................................................ 182
.2.1.1. ............................................ 182
.2.1.1.1. . ................................... 182
.2.1.1.2. . .................................. 187
.2.1.1.3. .......................... 197
.2.1.2. ............................................... 201
.2.1.2.1. ........................ 201
.2.1.2.2. ............. 213
.2.1.3. ............................................................................. 218
.2.1.3.1. - . ...................................... 218
.2.1.3.2. D- ....................................... 222
.2.1.3.3. ..... 227
.2.2. ................................................................... 229
.2.2.1. ........................................................... 229
.2.2.1.1. S- . ............................................. 229
.2.2.1.2. . .................................................................... 236
.3. ............................................................................................................................. 242
.3.1. ............................................................................................................................ 242
.3.1.1. ........................................................................... 242
.3.1.1.1. ...................... 243
.3.1.1.2. ...................................................... 249
.3.1.2. ............................................................................................. 251
.3.1.2.1. . ......................................................................................... 251
.3.2. ........................................................................................................................... 253
.3.2.1. .......................................................... 253
.3.2.1.1. ....................................................................... 253
.4. ................................................................................................... 258
.4.1. ........................................................................................................................ 258
.4.1.1. ................................................................................... 258
.4.1.1.1. / ....................................................................... 259
.4.1.1.2. . ............................................................................... 263
...................................................................................................................................... 267
. ............................................................................................................ 275
....................................................................................................................................... 277
. ................................................................................................................................. 298
. ............................................................................................................................................ 301
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 369

SUMMARY
The study concerns the elements of the fibula costume characteristic for the Old Germanic
cultural heritage of the 5th and 6th centuries AD. Analyzing various types of evidence, the
author outlines and focuses on several problematic subjects. These issues help to determine,
from an archaeological point of view, the presence of Germanic infiltrations in the Roman
provinces along the Lower Danube. All referenced archaeological finds are defined by types
and variants according to the modern typology. The study makes an attempt at a correct
dating of each artifact by correlating the context of its discovery and its general evolution
south of the Danube river with the situation in Central Europe. A detailed mapping of the
finds makes it possible to follow the routes of infiltration, the duration of presence and to
ascertain the regions of concentration of Barbaric population. The artifacts that allow a more
categorical ethnical interpretation are additionally examined in the context of the historical
movement of the Germanic tribes, in order to locate ethnically identifiable territories.
The author maintains that there are specific periods of Germanic infiltrations, confirmed
by several types of closed complex artifacts. From the end of the first third until the middle of
the 5th century AD the Lower Danube is invaded by Barbarians, identified archaeologically
as to belong to the common European horizon D2-D2/3, and historically as the peoples from
the Central European Hun state. As a result of the decline of this political establishment and
the subsequent migration of Germanic people, a new wave of monuments appears. They are
related to the different Ostrogothic formations that grow to become an ethnos in a leading
position in comparison to other Barbarians South of the Danube river. The first decades
of the 6th century already see the presence of materials, characteristic for the territory of
the Gepidic kingdom along the Tissa river, as well as non-traditional items of Northern or
Western German origin. After mid-6th century AD only singular complexes and finds are
registered, and the growing use of the Early Medieval belt mounts restricts the possibility of
identifying and localizing the Germanic infiltrations in the Empire.
The geographical diffusion of the finds shows two clearly defined regions that display
a permanent Barbaric presence and a variety of archaeological evidence: the Limes zone
and Moesia Inferior. In all Danubian provinces can be observed the process of distribution
of certain artifacts towards the hinterland over a long period of time. In Dardania, Dacia
Mediterranea and Thrace only occasional monuments are found, typologically and
chronologically limited. Single items are attested in Macedonia Secunda and in the mountain
regions of Haemimons. No certain evidence confirming Germanic presence has been found
so far in the other administrative districts of the Empire. The total absence of such artifacts
along the entire Western border of the provinces Moesia Superior and Praevalitana certainly
provokes interest. Bearing in mind the distribution of Barbaric materials at the same time in
the neighboring regions, it can be suggested that foreign infiltrations were deliberately not
allowed at the Western outskirts.
A major part of the archaeological data demonstrates genetic relations with the Middle
Danubian region. The objects appear either as direct imports, or slightly modified, which
speaks for the evolution of types. Single imported goods of Italic, Northern and Western
Germanic and Northern Black Sea origin are registered as well. In terms of chronology, most
of the Lower Danube materials are synchronic or only slightly posterior to Middle Danubian
ones, and earlier than those of the Northern Black Sea region. On the other hand, there are

369


direct and indirect sources about local production. Examples include semi-manufactured
items and leaden models; series of similar items, distributed only into the area in question;
low-quality imitations of imported goods; specific products that are distributed later to other
regions.
The correlation of archaeological evidence with historical data shows explicit
connections to the so called Gotho-Gepidic group of people. Some types and findings are
directly related to Ostrogoths and Gepids. There are hypotheseis about Herulan presence,
as can be inferred from certain closed complexes (in terms of ritual specifics) and artifacts
(fibulae and buckle types) which differ from the rest of the Eastern Germanic heritage. The
Heruls are also associated to certain (historical?) sources. The defining of some artifacts
distributed by the Hun invasion is disputable: the brooch-fibulae of the Cicada type and
the central loop mirrors. Some of the artifacts of Western and Northern Germanic character
also cannot be defined ethnically. Bent-stem and Viminacium types fibulae, as well as some
elements of the belt mount (buckles with no plates and B and D- shaped frames), jewels
(earrings with small opaque polyhedral beads), wide-end bracelets, are identified as Germanic
only when they are registered in a complex with additional Barbaric materials.
The evidence on the wearers of Germanic fibula costume elements suggests social
division. There are indications for members of the aristocracy, the military class and the lower
levels of society, as well as for a differentiation based on age or sex. Certain artifacts related to
the archaeological context and the characteristics of the geographical region make it possible
to determine the occupation of the integrated population: the majority are military people with
their families, but there are also certain cases of Barbarians pursuing a civil career.
The distribution of the studied finds begins around the second quarter of the 5th
century AD with the appearance of double-plate tin-made fibulae and their derivatives
Bratei, Vykov. The former are more or less strictly confined to the 30s-60s of the 5th century
AD. The materials from the urban necropoleis of Viminacium and Singidunum belong to
established stratigraphical horizons, while the date of the single grave from Almus is based
upon its inventory as a complex, and the two finds from Lom and Grozka are interpreted
in regard to their typological characteristics. The comparison to Central European artifacts
demonstrate synchronicity, and their distribution is also evident in the historical data about
the last decades of the Hun state and the time after its decline. The Bratei type develops
between the first third and the end of the 5th century AD. The beginning of the period is
attested by the samples from the Singidunum necropolis and castrum, and the Octavum
castel. During the second third of the 5th century AD, they are further dispersed eastwards,
as is evident from the single find near the Yagodina village and the necropolis at Han Krum
village towards the Eastern parts of Moesia Mediterranea, and the mountainous region at the
border with province Thrace. Their mass presence in the Balkan provinces of the Eastern
Roman empire is observed after mid-5th century AD, while they grow out of use only a few
decades later. Statistically speaking, the chronological span of this diffusion is confirmed by
the Vykov type artifacts, the imitations of double-plate tin-made fibulae and the singular
items connected with them.
Simultaneously with the introduction of these fibulae appear some early examples of
the Cicada brooch types. Terminus post quem for these objects is the period of Hun presence
along the Middle Danube, where the earliest items of the proximity of Kostol village and
Trajans bridge are synchronic with a bone plate from a Hun reflexive bow and two bone

370

Summary
single-rowed Germanic combs of a Late Chernyahovo character. All other items date to the
second half of the 5th century and the end of their development is attested in grave 16 at
Burdel from Viminaciums territory at the end of 5th beginning of 6th centuries AD.
Around the end of the 30s of 5th century, the first types of massive buckles with
rectangular and oval plates start to appear in the Germanic funerary context. The earliest
items of the first group are introduced during the D2 phase, or 420-430 AD (the cloisonn
object from Kruevac and the Kerbschnitt-decorated buckle from grave number 2/2006 of the
Singidunum IV necropolis). After a hiatus, the massive rectangular plate buckles are registered
again on a great scale from the first half of the 6th century on (grave number 1 of Singidunum
III and graves 1-2 from Han Krum village). Their final appearance dates to the mid-6th
century and after, when they are discovered as part of a composed belt mount (Viminacium
and Ulpiana). A considerably more restricted type of Germanic costume elements are the
oval- (or similar) plate buckles. They are introduced at the Barbarian grave complexes at the
time of the rise of the Hun state along the Middle Danube, after which they follow the southeast movement of the Germanic peoples. The evolution of these items can be traced during
the second half of 5th until the 30s of the 6th century AD, when their distribution is suddenly
disrupted. Two finds from the vicinity of Tran and the ancient Variana are synchronic to the
aforementioned types of buckles. They are characterized by the Cabochon technique and the
specific shaping of the rear side of the plate into a eagle head.
Closely related to Germanic costume are also different types of adornments and
personal belongings. As early as the 30s of the 5th century earrings with massive hollow and
ajoure-style polyhedral beads are attested in the Viminacium necropolis. Their prototypes can
be found in the territory of the European center of the Hun state around the middle of the 5th
century (Laa on the Taya, Periam, Weltz), whence they diffuse with the movement of peoples
after the demise of the coalition. A similar process occurs with the earrings of multiple beads
of different shape and material. South of the Danube they evolve until the first decades of
the 6th century (the necropoleis of Singidunum, Viminacium and Argamum), and after that
their use ceases abruptly. Simultaneously with them various types of mirrors are introduced.
Their chronological development coincides with the common European horizon Laa/Smolin,
or 430/440-450/460 AD.
Particularly interesting are two belt mount elements of an uncertain ethnical attribution.
The first of them are the composite S-shaped clasps which are also chronologically unclear. It
is likely that their origin lies in Late Roman context, as a type that proved to be attractive to
the Barbarians who distanced themselves from the Pannonian jewelry influence. Connecting
these clasps to Barbarians/Germans is based on indirect evidence and above all on geographical
distribution. All finds (except for the one from Kyustendil) are attested (or are supposed to
be) from a region or a settlement of previously published or synchronic Barbarian (mostly
Germanic) materials. What is unusual here is their complete absence in the Limes zone, while
at the same time they are extant in the Western Balkans, which points to the evolution of a
local type of monuments. The only other examples from another area belong to the Northern
Black Sea region which has a similar ethnical population. A different situation is observed in
the chronological distribution of Pursemounts. They are found in closed complexes from the
beginning of 5th mid-6th centuries AD a date that corresponds to the common European
development of the belt mount element.
The mapping of the finds from the first third of the 5th century demonstrates a distribution

371


mostly among the Danubian Limes settlements. During the next decades the routes of
infiltration towards the hinterland of the provinces are outlined via the imitations of doubleplate tin-made fibulae and the types Bratei and Vykov. Their way can be traced throughout
Moesia Superior, Dacia Ripensis and the eastern parts of Moesia Inferior. Modern day northeast Bulgaria is the region of the greatest concentration of items of Germanic character. The
wearers that are in touch with the Pannonian jewelry workshops show an identical costume
(complexes with a diversity of buckle types, polyhedral bead earrings, middle-loop mirrors
and other inventory), as well as similar funerary practices, to the Germanic Central Europe
complexes which contain findings from the D2-D2/3 phase according to Tejral. It is of a great
significance that the Middle Danubian fashion is transmitted directly into the Balkan Roman
provinces. On a local level, after a given amount of time, evolution of shapes can be noticed,
especially evident in mass production items such as the Bratei fibulae and the earrings with
massive hollow or ajoure beads.
The high-quality expensive elements of costume produced of precious metals (such
as the massive fibulae, made of tin plates), are traditionally attributed to aristocracy. Such
a statement can be supported by the synchronic complexes of the Laa/Smolin horizon that
can be interpreted as belonging to a society of noblemen in some dependent or contractual
relationship with the Hun state. At the same time, the mass bronze production of the Bratei
and Vykov types, as well as some Cicada type fibulae and oval-plate buckles can be attributed
to a population of a lower social status.
Another yet unsolved problem remains the exact format of receptio of the Barbarian
infiltrations, coming from north-east. A possible solution could be sought in the historical
sources on the diplomacy between the Huns and the Eastern Roman empire, where traditionally
exists the problem of the return of the Hun fugitives. That would explain the finds in the
eastern parts of Moesia Inferior a territory distant enough from Hun control. On the other
hand, the discovery of such items in a Limes zone of the empire provokes the interpretation
of a presence justified by military duties or another type of contract responsibilities.
After the fall of the Hun coalition and the subsequent migration wave, another type
of jewels is introduced south of the Danube. This type shows direct connections with the
jewelry traditions of the Middle Danube. The common feature of most of the items is the
Kerbschnitt decoration.
Various types of fibulae (by shape and decoration) available in series or as singular
finds are detected south of Danube around the end of the 60s of the 5th century, i.e. the
first decades after the political events that accompanied the fall of the Hun state. Some of
the most attractive and popular types are the countless modifications of the Bgelfibeln.
Chronologically speaking, the earliest items belong to the Domoshpusta/Bacordas horizon,
which falls into the period between the last third of the 5th (Oescus and Krasen village)
and the beginning of the 6th centuries AD (the grave complexes of Histria, Marcianopolis
and Sirmium). In the span of about a decade later appear the first monuments with an
ornamentation of the type Seskard-Palank/Sokolnice (the pair from Oescus, the Chiflika
vicinity). As a result, they develop into the most distributed variant of the Bow fibulae. There
are local series that can be traced, and for the first time direct evidence of local production
can be inferred (the lead model of Rish). Their complete development ceases around the end
of the 30s of the 6th century (Ratiaria, Iatrus).
In the span of the 60s-70s of the 5th century appear the first examples of fibulae with three

372

Summary
knobs on the head plate, in series (Gurzuf, Bakodpusta/Zemun) and as singular monuments
(Cifer/Pac, Kormadin/Yakovo, Krefeld). The graves from Argamum and number 1311 of
the Vie Grobalja site, Kostolac, give us a terminus post quem for the Gurzuf fibulae. The
end of the type is again attested in archaeological context at Augustae and Dimum. More
peculiar is the situation with the fan-shaped head plate items (Bakodpusta/Zemun). They
do not demonstrate any local specifics or variations, and all available examples have an
identical shape and decoration, which implies their mass introduction and, later, rejection
in the second half of the 5th century. In the analysis of this type the author suggests that the
jewels of Bakodpusta/Zemun can be attributed to a specific Barbarian group the Ostrogoths
of Teodorich. This can hypothetically narrow down the date to the last quarter of the 5th
century. The diversity of types is evident at grave number 8 of Singidunum III necropolis
(a singular piece Cifer/Pac), grave number 2 of the same necropolis (Comradin/Jakovo) and
two pairs from the city necropoleis of Viminacium 46 and 106 (Krefeld).
Another popular variant in the Roman provinces that draws attention is Levice/Pra.
Although all published examples come from archaeological sites or at least an archaeological
context, their date remains uncertain. Considering the common Europaen development of the
type, they fall into the second half of the 5th century AD. It is a fact that so far no Levice/
Pra examples have been found with 6th century materials, and this may suggest an ethnical
identification with the Barbarian population of the Teodorich union that leaves the area of the
Lower Danube in 488 AD, after which the type does not persist and falls out of use.
The second half of the 5th century AD is characterized by brooch-fibulae that demonstrate
a variety of shapes and decoration. The Cicada type also continues to be present, and it is
seen in closed complexes (grave number 54 from the early Christian necropolis at Novae and
grave number 16 at the Burdel site, Viminacium). In Novae (grave 76 of the early Christian
necropolis) for the first time is registered a brooch with eagle semantic. Another such piece, in
a rhomboid shape, is found in quarter 36/28 of the necropolis. The eagle decoration remains
one of the solid indicators of Germanic presence in the 6th century.
Changes are observed in terms of the belt mounts as well, where new typological shapes
are introduced. Closely related to the Domolushpusta/Bacordas are the massive rhomboid
plate buckles, decorated in the Kerbschnitt technique (Sadovsko kale). They are further
attested in grave 149 at Mavanska Mitrovica from the first decades of 6th century on. During
the second third of the 5th century, in the Germanic costume can be observed buckles without
a B- or D-shaped plate (grave 10 from Kosharevo necropolis, grave 69 from Singidunum III,
and a series of graves at the Barbarian necropoleis of Viminacium). They demonstrate an
exceptionally long period of use that goes beyond the chronological span of the study. These
pieces can be connected to a provincial Roman fashion that is introduced into Barbarian
medium. The same situation is observed with some emblematic adornment pieces such as
the earrings with an oblique polyhedral bead and the bracelets with widened ends. In graves
with additional Germanic materials, the earrings are evident from the second third of the 5th
until the first decades of the 6th century (the necropoleis at Viminacium I-II, Singidunum III,
grave 38, Kosharevo, grave 25, single grave from Karaburma), and the bracelets continue to
be used after the end of the 6th century in Barbarian environment.
The geographical positioning of the finds confirms the regions of the Danubian Limes
and the Eastern parts of Moesia Inferior as zones with a persisting concentration of Barbarian
finds. It is a crucial moment that during the second half of the 5th century for the first time are

373


found series of Germanic monuments in the area of the eastern Balkan mountains an area
that belongs to the eastern part of provinces Thrace and Haemimons. A substantial part of
the archaeological evidence is derived from Late Roman castels of the Haemus fortification
system. That ultimately leads to the question: why strategic points of the defensive line are
occupied by Barbarians? An explanation could be sought in the historical evidence about the
letting of the provinces Moesia Inferior and Dacia Ripensis over to Ostrogoth formations
related to the families of Amal and Strabo, which is most clearly observed between 481 and
488 AD. In fact, during this period, the Balkan mountain range plays the role of a limit zone
with the Empire and the Barbarians inside of it guarded the passages from the south. The
localization of finds of the last decade of the 5th century suggests that the same garrisons later
do an effective imperial military service.
A great amount of archaeological evidence from the southern Danubian provinces during
the second half of the 5th century can be directly connected to the Ostrogothic infiltrations
that play a leading role at the that moment in the region. In reference to that are the direct
parallels from geographical areas such as the Middle Danube, the Carpathian valley and the
Crimean peninsula, where very similar complexes are registered. From a historical point of
view, this is one of the periods that offer the most information on the Germanic presence
south of the Danube. The author describes the movements of different Barbarian groups, the
dynastical interplay for the territories that were let from the Empire, as well as the presence
of federate units in the Lower Danubian provinces.
The first decades of the 6th century continue to display a diversity of fibulae with five
knobs on the head plate. For the first time a direct Italic import is evident through the finds
of the type Reggio-Emilia (grave 1 of Singidunum III) and Udine-Planis (grave 2 from the
necropolis of church 2 at Han Krum village and a grave finding from Voinikovo village),
which is distributed entirely during the first third of the 6th century.
Another route of import is related to the simultaneously existing Gepidic kingdom
along the Tisa river. The most eloquent example is a classical type fibula with an inscribed
rhomboid on the foot plate which receives the ethnonym of their wearers. To this group can
be added some non-traditional shapes for the region, as demonstrated by some singular finds
such as the fibulae from Kamenovo and Kabyle, as well as the grave find of Troyan-Karnare.
The same ethnical element can be related to earlier shapes of square-headed plate fibulae
(grave 149 from the Mavanska Mitrovica necropolis).
The introduction of items with Northern and Western Germanic origin (the S-shaped
fibula from Ukosa and the Anglo-Saxon fibula from Margum respectively) arouse several
questions. In both cases we can assume Thuringian or other Elbe-Germanic mediation in the
transmission of foreign products for the eastern Germanic cultural environment on the Lower
Danube.
The development of the Seskard-Palank/Sokolonice fibulae still continues, as variations
of brooches with eagle symbolic (Vgelscheibenfibeln), or with three knobs on the head plate
(Gurzuf, Cifer/Pac, Krefeld).
The use of buckles with massive rectangular plates and Kerbschnitt decoration is revived,
as can be seen in the necropoleis Singidunum III and Han Krum (including some pieces with
an oval or similar plate Grozka). The first decades of the 6th century AD probably witness the
appearance of the related eagle-head buckles (Adlerkopfschnallen), which appear as one of the
basic elements of the costume in this period. There is a noticeable presence of buckles without

374

Summary
a D-shaped plate, but with a D-shaped, widened at the front tongue with a shield-shaped base.
These two types are the most used in the Gepidic necropoleis of the 6th century, which could
serve as an ethnically defining factor about their introduction in the South Danubian Roman
provinces.
The geographical distribution shows that the two regions (the Limes zone and Moesia
Inferior) keep their permanent concentration of Barbaric evidence, which results into a solid
continuity of Barbaric presence over more than a century. At the same time, specific types of
monuments can be defined, such as the Gepidic type fibulae found exclusively in the Limes
zone, or the eagle-head buckles that are attested only in Moesia Inferior. Such distribution
suggests definite zones for the different Barbaric infiltrations.
In terms of ethnical identity, for the first time it is possible to indicate direct examples
for the Gepidic presence. An interesting attempt has been made at the archaeological
identification of Heruls, to whom certain types of monuments are attributed: Reggio Emilia,
Ramersdorf, as well as some of the later rectangular-plate fibulae. For the presence of the
Heruls there are also historical sources, including direct evidence for a defined territory (in
the hinterland of modern-day Belgrade), given to the Heruls in the first decades of the 6th
century. The appearance of the monuments of Northern- and Western German origin remains
problematic.
After the middle of the 6th century the typological diversity of Germanic-related objects
decreases. Some new types are still introduced, like in the case of the rectangular-plate fibulae
and the belt mounts with massive rectangular-plate buckles. These items are singular finds
from the Limes zone (except for grave 6 of ancient Ulpiana) and they demonstrate the latest
changes in the Germanic fibula costume along the Lower Danube. During this period, the Early
Medieval belt mount is quickly accepted, and it replaces the fibula as a leading element of
costume. This makes the identification of Germans among the common Barbarian population
on the Lower Danube difficult. The last reminiscence of Germanic costume elements can be
seen in the buckles with eagle symbolic from the Kaliakra type which probably surpasses the
chronological limits of the 7th century.
The study of the elements of the Germanic fibula costume outlines one of the
possibilities for identification of the Barbarian infiltrations at the end of the Late Antiquity
and the beginning of the Early Medieval period. Certainly, this examination does not allow
us to clarify the entire situation of the presence of Germans in the Lower Danube provinces.
For the achievement of this goal, it is necessary to carry out a thorough research on all
accompanying archaeological groups of monuments and their correlation with the common
European status of the problem.
In the end of this study, the significance of the archaeological evidence in the Southern
Danubian provinces should be once again underlined. The wide chronological span and
the consistency of material in certain geographical areas demonstrates some traditions
that contradict the common perception of sporadically invading population. In the 5th-6th
centuries AD, this territory proves to be attractive for various groups of Barbarians, among
which the Germans play a leading role.

375




v - vi
: . -
:
: 16/70100
..: 23,5
: 300
: 12 .
ISBN 978-954-337-143-3

: alexander.stanev@gmail.com