Bohemian Barbarians Bohemia in Late Anti PDF

B OHEMIAN B ARBARIANS:
B OHEMIA IN L ATE A NTIQUITY
1
Jaroslav Jiøík
Introduction
T
he settlement of the Bohemian Basin passed through a very complicated
development during Late Antiquity. During the fourth century it is pos-
sible to observe the evolution of the so-called Elbe-Germanic culture
tradition which, for the Roman period, may be considered as native to the territory
of Bohemia. Indeed, a major source of information regarding that tradition is the
cremation cemeteries in Plotištì nad Labem near Hradec Králové, and Opoèno by
Louny. In Plotištì, Alena Rybová identified clear influences from the region of the
Lower Elbe territory, which she further interpreted as evidence of Suebian immi-
grants.1 Contacts with the territory of the Elbe-Germanic culture are also docu-
mented by a number of rich burials dated to the C3 (AD 300/20 to 380/400) and
C3/D1 (AD 380/400 to 410/20) periods of the general chronology of Central and
East Central Europe.2 Some burials in north-western and central Bohemia which
have been dated to the C3 period also point to contacts with present-day Bavaria.
Considerable similarities may be established, for example, between the pottery
found in Prosmyky and Neuburg an der Donau, respectively (Figure 9.1.A, C).
I wish to thank my colleague Dr. Jiøí V. Kotas, who read an earlier draft of this text and made
several language corrections.
1
Alena Rybová, ‘Plotištì nad Labem: Eine Nekropole aus dem 2.–5. Jahrhundert u. Z. II. Teil’,
Památky archeologické, 71 (1980), 93–224 (pp. 196, 203, 209, and 213–14).
2
Martina Beková and Eduard Droberjar, ‘Bohatý ženský kostrový hrob z mladší doby øímské
ve Slepoticích (Pardubický kraj)’, Archeologie ve støedních Èechách, 9 (2005), 401–39.
266 Jaroslav Jiøík
Figure 9.1. Pottery of Elbe-Germanic tradition: (A) distribution of the main types of Elbe-
Germanic handmade pottery (after Keller, Das spätromische Gräberfeld, fig. 3); (B) handmade
pottery of Elbe-Germanic tradition from Vienna (after Kronberger and Mosser, ‘Spätrömisches
Gräberfeld’, pl. 7.8–9; (C) fourth-century finds of Elbe-Germanic tradition from Neuburg an der
Donau (after Böhme, ‘Zur Bedeutung’, fig. 4); (D) selected grave goods from Beroun-Závodí (after
Tejral, ‘Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten’, fig. 14).
BOHEMIAN BARBARIANS 267
Figure 9.2. Archaeological finds

from settlements in Bohemia
dated to the C3 and C3/D1
periods. After Jiøík, ‘Vybrané síd-
lištní situace’, fig. 7.17–18 and
20–21; Jiøík and Kostka, ‘Ger-
mánské sídlišt?’, figs 3, 9, and 15.
Likewise, on account of
miniature bronze weapons
deposited in each one of
them, the burials excavated
in L itomìøice, Velké
Žernoseky, and Beroun-
Závodí (Figure 9.1.D)
must be compared with
that from Laisacker near
Neuburg an der Donau.3
More interesting parallels
have recently come to light
through the examination of
pottery assemblages from
contemporary settlements,
some of which may have
continued into the subse-
quent period (Figure 9.2).4
3
Josef Kern, ‘Germanische Miniaturbronzen des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Leitmeritz’,
Sudeta, 5 (1929), 148–55; Paul Reinecke, ‘Ein spätkaiserzeitliches Germanengrab aus dem
Neuburgischen’, Germania, 10 (1934), 117–22; Erwin Keller, Das spätromische Gräberfeld von
Neuburg an der Donau (Kallmünz, 1979), pp. 56 and 64 with pls 2.5–6 and 6.2–3; Jaroslav Tejral,
‘Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten beiderseits der norisch-pannonischen Grenze aus der Sicht
der Grabfunde’, in Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes, ed. by Thomas Fischer, Gundolf
Precht, and Jaroslav Tejral (Brno, 1999), pp. 217–92 (p. 239 with fig. 14).
4
Jaroslav Jiøík and Michal Kostka, ‘Germánské sídlištì v Dolních Chabrech’, Archeologie ve
støedních Èechách, 10 (2006), 713–42; Jaroslav Jiøík, ‘Vybrané sídlištní situace mladší doby øímské
až èasné fáze doby stìhování národù v severozápadních Èechách‘, in Archeologie barbarù 2006:
Sborník pøíspìvkù z II. Protohistorické konference, Èeské Budìjovice 21.–24. 11. 2006, Archeologické
výzkumy v jižních Èechách, Supplementum 3, ed. by Eduard Droberjar and Ondøej Chvojka (Èeské
Budìjovice, 2007), pp. 535–64.
The archaeological record of fifth-century Bohemia is dominated by assemblages

of the Vinaøice group (Plate IV.A), so called by Bedøich Svoboda after the burials
excavated in Vinaøice near Kladno, which produced artefacts now dated to the D2
and D2/3 phases of the so-called early Migration period. The Vinaøice group con-
sists of a cluster of cemeteries, many of which are the best-known sites in Bohemia
for this entire period. Nonetheless, only a few cemeteries have been properly exca-
vated: Lužec nad Vltavou, Prague-Zlièín, Vlinìves, Zbuzany, and Litovice (Plate
IV.B–F). The interpretation of the grave goods from those cemeteries has long
been a subject of heated debate.5 However, a much greater problem is the scarcity
of contemporary settlement sites. Only a few remains have been identified on the
hillfort site at Závist near Prague (Figure 9.3), and more sites are known from
Jenštejn (Figure 9.4.A–B), Sobìsuky (Figure 9.4.C), Prague-Dolní Liboc I–III
(Figure 9.5.C), Prague-Ruzynì, Žatec, and Siøem.6 The most prominent features
in Závist, Žatec, and Prague-Ruzynì are refuse pits, as well as sunken-floored
buildings of square or rectangular plan and post construction. At the time those
settlements were in existence, the southern and western parts of early fifth-century
5
Bedøich Svoboda, Èechy v dobì stìhování národù (Praha, 1965), pp. 78–126; Kazimierz
Godlowski, ‘Die Chronologie der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit in Mitteleuropa’, in Probleme der
relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter: Materialen des III.
Internationalen Symposiums „Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nördlichen
Mitteldonaugebiet, Kraków-Karniowice, 3.–7. Dezember 1990, ed. by Kazimierz Godlowski and
Renata Madyda-Legutko (Cracow, 1992), pp. 23–54; Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Vinaøice Kulturgruppe’, in
Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, XXXII, ed. by Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, and
Heiko Steuer (Berlin, 2006), pp. 414–23.
6
Libuše Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad Závistí v období pozdnì øímském a v dobì stìhování národù’,
Památky archeologické, 62 (1971), 135–76; Karla Motyková, Petr Drda, and Alena Rybová, ‘Some
Notable Imports from the End of the Roman Period at the Site of Závist’, in Archaeology in
Bohemia 1985–1990, ed. by Petr Charvát (Praha, 1991), pp. 56–63; Milan Kuchaøík, Michal
Bureš, Ivana Pleinerová, and Jaroslav Jiøík, ‘Nové poznatky k osídlení západního okraje Prahy v 5.
století’, in Barbarská sídlištì: Chronologické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje ve svìtle nových výzkumù.
Archeologie barbarù 2007. Sborník pøíspìvkù z III. protohistorické konference, Mikulov
29.10.–3.11.2007, ed. by Eduard Droberjar, Balázs Komoróczy, and Dagmar Vachùtová (Brno,
2008), pp. 341–72; Jan Blažek, ‘Die neuen unbekanten Funde der späten römischen Kaiserzeit und
der Völkerwanderungszeit in Nordwestböhmen’, in Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike
im mittleren Donauraum: Materialien der internationalen Fachkonferenz ‘Neue Beiträge zur Erfor-
schung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum’, Kravsko, 17.–20. Mai 1995, ed. by Jaroslav Tejral,
Herwig Friesinger, and Michel Kazanski (Brno, 1997), pp. 11–22 (p. 13 and figs 4–7); Eduard
Droberjar and Jan Turek, ‘Zur Problematik der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Siedlungen in
Böhmen (Erforschung bei Jenštejn, Kr. Praha-východ)’ in Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der
spätantike im mittleren Donauraum, ed. by Tejral, Friesinger, and Kazanski, pp. 99–118.
Figure 9.3. Závist near Prague: excavation plan, sunken-featured building, and associated
artefacts. After Motyková, Drda, and Rybová, ‘Some Notable Imports’, figs 1–6; Motyková,
Drda, and Rybová, Závist, fig. 50.1; Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad Závistí’, fig. 22.2–4.
Figure 9.4. Jenštejn: plan of the fifth-century settlement (A) and archaeological finds from feature
19 (B) (after Droberjar and Turek, ‘Zur Problematik’, figs 3 and 7). Sobìsuky: sunken-featured
building and associated finds (C) (after Blažek, ‘Die neuen unbekanten Funde’, figs 4–5).
Figure 9.5. The early ‘Migration period’ in Bohemia. (A) distribution of finds of the Pøešt’ovice-
Friedenhain group in southern and western Bohemia, as well as Bavaria (after Keller, ‘Germanen-
politik Roms’, fig. 1); (B) carinated bowl from Prague-Dolní Liboc II (drawing by author);
(C) fragment of a carinated bowl from Prague-Dolní Liboc I (after Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, fig. 9.2);
(D) handmade carinated bowls from Bavaria (after Keller, ‘Germanenpolitik Roms’, fig. 5);
(E) Fürst (Bavaria), grave goods (after Fehr, ‘Bemerkungen’, fig. 1); (F) Zbudov, settlement finds
(after Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských pohárù’, fig. 26).
Bohemia witnessed the spread of the so-called Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group

(Figure 9.5.A), a cluster of sites with clear parallels on the other side of the present-
day German-Czech border, in Bavaria.
‘East-Germanic’, Hunnic, and Sarmatian Foederati in the Late Roman

Army: The Material Culture of the Military Troops of Eastern Origin
Along the Danube and the Rhine, in Gaul and in Britain
In order to understand the explosion of cultural influences during the D1 and D2

phases of the ‘early Migration period’ in Central Europe, it is important to turn to
Late Roman military sites along the frontier, on which many artefacts have been
found signalling contacts with the region occupied in the late fourth century by the
so-called Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº culture. Emblematic for such contacts
are the finds from the Roman fort at Iatrus, on the right bank of the Lower
Danube, in Bulgaria: arrow heads, bone or antler reinforcement plates for compo-
site bows, combs of Thomas’s class 3,7 large glass or basalt beads attached to sword
pommels, sword scabbard mounts (very similar to finds in Vienna-Leopoldau or
Novorossiisk-Diurso), as well as sheet fibulae with semicircular head plates.8
Such artefacts have been interpreted as evidence for the presence at Iatrus, as
well as elsewhere, of federates of East European origin. Equally relevant in that
respect are finds of wheel-made pottery with burnished decoration from late
fourth- or early fifth-century assemblages excavated in the Balkans on the territory
of the formerly Roman provinces of Moesia inferior, Thracia, Dacia Ripensis,
Dacia Mediterranea, Scythia Minor, and Rhodope.9 Such pottery was found in
large quantities on earlier sites north of the Lower Danube and is one of the most
typical wares of Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº ceramic assemblages in that
region. To the same direction point finds of combs of Thomas’s class 2, which are
7
Sigrid Thomas, ‘Studien zu den germanischen Kämmen der römischen Kaiserzeit’, Arbeits-
und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, 8 (1960), 54–215.
8
Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs, ‘Zur Militärbesatzung im spätrömischen Limeskastell Iatrus vom
4. bis zum zweiten Viertel des 5. Jahrhundert’, Eurasia antiqua, 9 (2003), 509–22 (pp. 515–19 and
figs 5.2–8 and 6.1–5).
9
Ludmil Vagalinski, ‘Spätrömische und völkerwanderungszeitliche Drehscheibenkeramik mit
eingeglätter Verzierung südlich der unteren Donau (Bulgarien)’, in Die Sîntana de Mures-
Èernjachov-Kultur: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995,
ed. by Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs (Caputh, 1999), pp. 155–77.
typically decorated with horse heads (Figure 9.6.A7). Such combs are very similar
to specimens of Thomas’s class 3.3, which are equally decorated with animal pro-
tomes, and have been found in some quantity on sites of the Chernyakhov-Sântana
de Mureº culture (Figure 9.7.D4).10 Such combs have also been found on contem-
porary sites within the border provinces of the empire, in Budapest-Budafóki,
Mingolsheim by Karlsruhe, Rommersheim by Oppenheim, and Ettringen by
Tübingen.11 Similarly, examples of combs of Thomas’s class 2.3 are known from
Late Roman military forts on the Lower and Middle Danube. One of the most
important combs of that class is the specimen from a rich grave excavated in
[DAO1]Lébeny (Hungary; Figure 9.6.A), which is regarded by most scholars as
typical for a Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº aspect of the Late Roman culture to
be dated between 375 and 400. Among the grave goods associated with the Lebény
grave is a ceramic pitcher with grooved decoration (Figure 9.6.A[DAO2]), analogies
for which belong to Magomedov’s classes 1 or 6, most typical for a number of sites
in southern Romania and in Left-Bank Ukraine (Figure 9.6.B). The distribution
of such pitchers along the Middle Danube has been linked to the arrival in that
region, after 380, of a group of ‘East-Germanic’, Hunnic, and Sarmatian federates
under the leadership of Alatheus and Saphrax.12 A similar interpretation has been
applied to the distribution of combs of Thomas’s class [DAO3]2.3 along the
Danube and Rhine frontiers, in Gaul, as well as in Britain (Figure 9.6.C).13
According to Sándor Soproni the barbarians under Alatheus and Saphrax, who
are said to have been no less than one hundred thousand, settled north of the
Drava River, along the frontier and in Valeria. Soproni’s idea is substantiated by
finds of wheel-made pottery with burnished decoration from many Late Roman
forts or watchtowers in that area (Figure 9.6.D2–7). To the same group may also
10
Sofia Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning and Provenance of Horse Protomes Decoration on the Roman
Antler Combs’, Starinar, 49 (1998), 215–28 with fig. 1.8–9.
11
Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Zur Chronologie der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im mittleren
Donauraum’, Archaeologia Austriaca, 72 (1988), 223–304 with fig. 16.12.
12
Boris V. Magomedov, ‘Do vyvchennia cherniakhovs’kogo goncharnogo posudu’, Arkheo-
lohiia, 1973.12, 80–87 with fig. 2; Boris V. Magomedov, ‘Zur Bedeutung sarmatischer Kulturele-
mente in der Èernjachov-Kultur’, in Kontakt, Kooperation, Konflikt: Germanen und Sarmaten
zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Internationales Kolloquium des Vorgeshicht-
lichen Seminars der Philipps-Universität Marburg, 12.–16. Februar 1998, ed. by Claus von Carnap-
Bornheim (Neumünster, 2003), pp. 79–87 (p. 85 and fig. 6); Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning and Provenance’,
p. 221.
13
Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning and Provenance’, pp. 221–23.
Figure 9.6. The material culture of barbarian federates on the frontier: (A) selected grave goods
from Lébény (1–3, 5–9), Untersiebenbrunn (4, 10–13), and Mörbisch (14–16) (after Tejral, ‘Zur
Chronologie’, fig. 21); (B) distribution of clay jugs with grooved decoration (after Magomedov,
‘Zur Bedeutung’, fig. 6); (C) distribution of combs of Thomas’s class 3.3 (after Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning
and Provenance’, map 1); (D) settlement finds from the villa rustica in Höflein-Aubüheln (1; after
Kastler, ‘Archäologie in Höflein’, pl. 13: KN 1), the watchtower in Leányfalu (2–3), the fort in
Pilismarót-Malompatak (4–5 and 7), and from Visegrád-Sibrik (6; after Soproni, Die letzten
Jahrzente, pls 1–5).
Figure 9.7. The influence of the Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº culture in the West: (A) grave
goods from Götting (southern Germany; after Keller, ‘Germanenpolitik Roms’, fig. 3); (B)
Gloucester (Great Britain), inhumation burial (after Böhme, ‘Das Ende der Römerherrschaft’, fig.
25); (C) finds of wheel-made jugs with burnished ornament from Austria (after Friesinger and
Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, fig. 24); (D) components of a composite bow
(1), combs (4–7 and 9), fibulae (2–3 and 10), and buckle (8) from Intercisa (1), Oslip (2),
Carnuntum (3), Mingolsheim (4), Geldersheim (5), Alzey (6 and 9), Neuburg an der Donau (7),
‘Bürgle’ bei Gundremingen (8), and Geisfeld (10) (after Tejral, ‘Zur Chronologie’, fig. 12.1, 8–9;
Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning and Provenance’, fig. 1.10; Pescheck, Die germanischen Bodenfunden, fig. 74.3;
Kazanski, ‘Les Barbares orientaux’, fig. 3; Keller, Das spätromische Gräberfeld, pl. 12.5; Bernhard,
‘Germanische Funde’, pl. 35.2; and [DAO4]Böhnlein, ‘Geisfeld’, fig. 29.9).
be attributed the cemeteries excavated in Cságvár and Szabadbattyán.14 Finds on

several sites in Lower Austria (Vienna-Simmering, Vienna-Leopoldau, Schiltern,
Unterlanzendorf, Rannersdorf, Untersiebenbrunn, and the villa rustica in Höflein-
Aubüheln) have also been linked to the presence of federates of East European
origin (Figure 9.6.D1).15 The cultural transformations in the Middle Danube
region are fundamental for the understanding of developments taking place in
Bohemia during the D2 period.
However, artefacts of eastern origin are also abundant in the western provinces
of the Roman Empire. Connections with the Middle Danube may be illustrated
by such artefacts as combs with semicircular handles, which are most typical for the
Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº culture, but are also known from Carnuntum,
Grafenwörth, and Cologne. In the West, such combs appear within the former
provinces of Raetia (Neuburg an der Donau, ‘Bürgle’ bei [DAO6 ]Gundremmingen,
Lorenberg by Epfach, Frauenberg by Weltenburg, Regensburg, Abusina-Einig)
(Figure 9.7.A and D7–8), Gaul (Ebersberg, Wiesbaden, Alzey, Bad Kreuznach,
Eisenburg, Ruppertsberg, Worms, Beaucaire-sur-Baïse, Séviac et Bapteste, Rems,
Strasbourg, Basel, Troyes, Montréal-Séviac, Mézin, Moncrabeau, grave 4607 in
Krefeld-Gellep) (Figure 9.7.D4 and 6 [DAO7]), and Britain (Gloucester, Caerlon,
and Traprain Law) (Figure 9.7.B). Assemblages from all those sites include
brooches of several eastern types, combs of Thomas’s class 3, belt buckles, ‘Sar-
matian’ mirrors, ‘Hunnic’ kettles, and components of composite bows or of horse
gear. There is also evidence of artificially deformed skulls and other elements of
burial ritual believed to be of East European origin.16 The eastern federates under
14
Sándor Soproni, Die letzten Jahrzente des Pannonischen Limes (Munich, 1986), pp. 86–93.
15
Erich Polaschek, ‘Wiener Grabfunde aus der Zeit des untergehenden römischen Limes’,
Wiener prähistorischen Zeitschrift, 19 (1932), 239–58; Eberhardt Geyer, ‘Anthropologischer
Befund’, Wiener prähistorischen Zeitschrift, 19 (1932), 259–66; Gerhard Trnka, ‘Spätrömische
Funde des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts vom Burgstall von Schiltern im Waldviertel, Niederösterreich’,
Archaeologia Austriaca, 65 (1981), 119–38; Peter Stadler, ‘Völkerwanderungszeitliche Funde: eine
Siedlung bei Unterlanzendorf und ein Gräberfeld bei Rannersdorf, Niederösterreich’, Archaeologia
Austriaca, 65 (1981), 239–85; Raimond Kastler, ‘Archäologie in Höflein bei Bruck an der Leitha’,
Carnuntum Jahrbuch, [DAO5] (1994), 185–259 (p. 219 and pl. 13.KN1).
16
Keller, Das spätromische Gräberfeld, pp. 56–57, pl. 12.5, figs 5.1–3 and 5–10; Erwin Keller,
‘Germanenpolitik Roms im bayerischen Teil der Raetia Secunda während des 4. und 5. Jahr-
hunderts’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 33 (1986), 575–92 (pp.
582–83 and fig. 4.1–2, 4, and 6); Michel Kazanski, ‘Les Barbares orientaux et la défense de la Gaule
aux IV e– V e siècle‘, in L’Armée romaine et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, ed. by Françoise Vallet and
Michel Kazanski (Paris, 1993), pp. 175–86 (pp. 175–78 with figs 1–3); Michel Kazanski, ‘Les
Barbares en Gaule du Sud-Ouest durant la première moitie du V e siècle’, in L’Occident romain et
the leadership of Alatheus and Saphrax were drawn from the Gothic cavalry forces
mentioned as having participated in the battle at Adrianople (378). By 380 that
group of eastern federates had moved to Pannonia. According to Walter Pohl, the
move must be regarded as a Roman experiment in controlling groups of barbarians
operating on Roman soil. As such, it must have typically combined various forms
of contractual relations between the Roman government and the barbarian groups,
ranging from outright foedera to ad hoc arrangements.17
On the other hand, Peter Heather has noted that no mention exists of Alatheus
and Saphrax after 380. Their group must therefore have been among the barbarian
losers of the early campaigns of Theodosius I, and could not possibly have prospered
in Pannonia.18 However, given that a complete annihilation of that group would
have been impractical for a variety of reasons, its members could still have been
recruited for Roman cavalry units stationed in the region. In any case, there is to
date no alternative explanation for the archaeological record of the Middle Danube
region. For the purpose of this paper, it is more important to emphasize that cultural
influences from Eastern Europe are not restricted to the area immediately adjacent
to the Roman frontiers, but spread farther away into the neighbouring barbaricum,
as, for example, in the valley of the Main River (Figure 9.7.D5 and 10).19
‘East-Germanic’ Influences and Late Antique Imports in Early Vinaøice

Assemblages
The Vinaøice group seems to have emerged at some point during the D2 period,
that is, between 410/20 and 440/50. Most significant for the chronology of the
l’Europe centrale au debut de l’époque des Grandes Migration, ed. by Jaroslav Tejral, Christian Pilet,
and Michel Kazanski (Brno, 1999) pp. 15–23 (p. 15 with fig. 1.1–2); Horst W. Böhme, ‘Das Ende
der Römerherrschaft in Britannien und die Angelsächsische Besiedlung Englands im 5. Jahrhun-
dert’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 33 (1986), 469–574; Petkoviæ,
‘Meaning and Provenance’, pp. 227–28.
17
Walter Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung: Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart, 2002), pp. 50–51.
18
Peater Heather, The Goths (Oxford, 1996), p. 137.
19
Björn-Uwe Abels and Jochen Haberstroh, ‘Burgellern, Stadt Scheßlitz (Lkr. Bamberg)’,
Ausgrabungen und Funde in Oberfranken, 11 (1997–98) 33–36 and 103–05 (p. 35 with fig. 28.2–3
and 11–12); Christian Pescheck, Die germanischen Bodenfunden der römischen Kaiserzeit in Main-
franken (Munich, 1978), pl. 113; Jochen Haberstroh, ‘Germanische Stammesverbände an
Obermain und Regnitz: Zur Archäologie des 3.–5. Jahrhunderts in Oberfranken’, Archiv für
Geschichte von Oberfranken, 75 (1995), 7–40 (p.17 and fig. 1.10).
earliest Vinaøice assemblages are metal, antler, glass, and ceramic artefacts (mostly
from isolated finds) with numerous analogies in south-eastern Europe. Such is the
case of cast, gilt bronze bow fibulae with embossed decoration from Lovosice and
from an unknown location in Bohemia (Figure 9.8.2–3).20 Both brooches have
good parallels among bronze and silver specimens of Kokowski’s class F, which are
most typical for Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº assemblages.21 Some of those
parallels even have a similar embossed decorative pattern as that of the Lovosice
fibula. Specimens from the Middle Danube area, especially on sites on the frontier
such as Brigetio, Intercisa, Oslip, and Ternitz (Figure 9.7.D2–3) have been dated
to the first half of the fifth century, although an earlier date within the D1 period
may not be excluded.22
Equally ‘eastern’ may be the bow fibula found in Závist near Prague (Figure
9.8.14), for which many analogies are known from Chernyakhov-Sântana de
Mureº assemblages of the Late Roman period.23 Three other fibulae from the
Prague-Veleslavín cemetery (Figure 9.8.7–9) may belong to the same class,
although they are different in minute details from the Závist brooch. Mechthild
Schulze-Dörrlamm even called this group of brooches the ‘Prague type’ of crossbow
fibulae and dated it to the mid-fifth century.24
Excavations in Závist also produced an iron crossbow fibula, possibly of eastern
origin (Figure 9.8.14).25 Undoubtedly East European are also the grave goods in a
rich grave found in Bøíza near Litomìøice: a sword, silver belt and footwear buckles,
20
Jan Blažek and Oldøich Kotyza, ‘Další pohøebištì z doby stìhování národù v Lovosicích, okr.
Litomìøice’, Litomìøicko, 27–28 (1995), 7–11 (p. 8 with fig. 2.1); Blažek, ‘Die neuen unbekanten
Funde’, pp. 11–22; Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 81 and pl. 19.5.
21
Andrzej Kokowski, ‘O tak zwanych blaszanych fibulach z pó³okr¹g³¹ p³yt¹ na glówce i
rombowat¹ nó¿k¹’, Studia Gothica,1 (1996), 153–79.
22
Tejral, ‘Zur Chronologie’, pp. 244–45 and fig. 12.8–9.
23
Karla Motyková, Petr Drda, and Alena Rybová, Závist: Keltské hradištì ve støedních Èechách
(Prague, 1978), p. 182 with fig. 52.2. For analogies, see Anatolii K. Ambroz, Fibuly iuga evropeiskogo
chasti SSSR (Moscow, 1966), pp. 71–72 with pl. 10.12–13; [DAO8], ‘Sãpãturile de la Poieneºti
din 1949’, in Materiale Archeologice privind istoria veche a R.P.R. (Bucharest, 1953), pp. 213–506
with fig. 251.1.
24
It is nevertheless true that the Prague-Veleslavín and Závist brooches are somewhat different
from most other Prague-type fibulae in that they both have twisted bows.
25
Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad Závistí’, p. 147 and fig. 22.1; Eduard Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských
pohárù k vinaøické skupinì (Kulturní a chronologické vztahy na území Èech v dobì øímské a v
èasné dobì stìhování národù)‘, Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, series A-Historie, 53 (1999),
1–58 (p. 7).
Figure 9.8. Artefacts typically associated with the Vinaøice group of Bohemia: (1) grave goods from
Bøíza; (2) sheet fibula from an unknown location in Bohemia; (3) sheet fibula from Lovosice;
(4) bow fibula of the Wiesbaden class from Vinaøice; (5) comb of Thomas’s class 3 from Vinaøice;
(6) golden buckle from Prague-Radotín; (7–9) crossbow fibulae from Prague-Veleslavín; (10–11)
Murga ware from Závist; (12) ‘Thor’s pendant’ from Lužec nad Vltavou; (13–14) crossbow fibulae
from Závist; (15) iron pendant from grave 9 in Prague-Bubeneè; (16) comb from Litovice; (17)
comb from Prague-Radotín. After Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských pohár?’, pls 27.1–2 and 9–10, 28.1,
29.14; Droberjar, ‘Praha germánská’, pp. 791 and 795; Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad Závistí’, figs 20.7–9
and 22.1; Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebišt?’, fig. 13.1; Motyková, Drda, and Rybová, Závist,
fig. 52.2; Pleinerová, ‘Litovice (okr. Praha-západ)’, fig. 9.1; and Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pl. 32.18.
a golden torc, a kettle, and horse gear accessories (Figure 9.8.1).26 The buckles with
circular loop and rectangular plate are most typical for a group of burials known
as Untersiebenbrunn, which is dated to phase D1/D2 and appears to derive
directly from the Chernykahov-Sântana de Mureº culture, especially from its
26
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì , pl. 21.
variant documented in Crimea.27 Golden buckles with similarly circular loop are
known not only from a grave excavated in Prague-Radotín (Figure 9.8.6), but also
from Western Europe (e.g. Gloucester in Britain), where they are usually treated
as ‘index fossils’ of the early Migration period.28 The sword and the golden torc
from Bøíza were military insignia and symbols of rank in the Late Roman army.
Torcs and bracelets were among the gifts the emperor’s largesse bestowed on
soldiers in the scholae palatinae or on the imperial bodyguards.29 Torcs are known
to have also been used as ‘medals of valour’ for units of federates, to which the men
buried in Bøíza may have belonged.
An ‘East-Germanic’ origin may also be postulated for antler combs with bell-
shaped handles of Thomas’s class 3, such as found in Vinaøice, Prague-Podbaba-
Juliska, grave 1 in Prague-Veleslavín, as well as graves 17 and 19 in Litovice (Figure
9.8.5).30 The origin of such combs may be traced back to Chernyakhov-Sântana de
Mureº assemblages, particularly those of the Dniester River valley.31 Specimens of
Thomas’s class 3 are distributed along the Danube and Rhine frontiers and appear
on sites that may have been occupied by federate troops. Combs of that class were
27
Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Naše zemì a øímské Podunají na poèátku doby stìhování národù’, Památky
archeologické, 76 (1985), 308–97 (pp. 365–66); Tejral, ‘Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten’, p.
250; Aleksandr I. Aibabin, ‘Les Tombes des chefs nomades en Crimée‘, in La Noblesse romaine et
les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siecle: Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Musée Antiquités
Nationales, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 16–19 mai 1992, ed. by Françoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski
(Saint Germain-en-Laye, 1995), pp. 207–16; Bodo Anke, ‘Studien zur reiternomadischen Kultur
des 4.–5. Jahrhundert’, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, 8 (1998), [DAO9] pl.
104. 3–5.
28
Dieter Neubauer, ‘Ostgermannen beiderseits des Rhein? Ein Beitrag zu völkerwanderungs-
zeitlichen Schnallen in Mittel- und Westeuropa’, Würzburger Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte,
[DAO5] (1998), 133–55 (pp. 144–45).
29
Michael P. Speidel, ‘Late Roman Military Decorations I: Neck- and Wristbands’, in Les
Églises doubles et les familles: Antiquité tardive 4. Revue internationale ïhistorie et archéologie
(IV e– VIIIe s.), ed. by Jean-Michel Carrie (Turnhout, 1996), pp. 235–43.
30
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 124, pl. 26.9; Tejral, ‘Naše zemì’, p. 365 and fig. 34.2; Ivana
Pleinerová, ‘Litovice (okr. Praha-západ): hroby vinaøického stupnì doby stìhování národù‘, in
Archeologie barbarù 2005: Sborník pøíspìvkù z 1. protohistorické konference ‘Pozdnì keltské, germánské
a èasnì slovanské osídlení’, Kounice, 20.–22. záøí 2005, ed. by Eduard Droberjar and Michal
Lutovský (Prague, 2006), pp. 483–98 (p. 491 with figs 13.1 and 15.1).
31
Galina F. Nikitina, ‘Grebny cherniakhovskoi kul’tury‘, Arkheolohiia, 1969.1, 147–59 with
fig. 1; Alexandru Levinschi, ‘Gräberfeld der späten Sîntana de Mures-Èernjachov-Kultur‘, in Die
Sîntana de Mures-Èernjachov-Kultur, ed. by Gomolka-Fuchs, pp. 23–32 (p. 28 with fig. 6).
manufactured in Intercisa, on the Danube.32 Combs of Thomas’s class 3 appear

within the so-called Niemberg group of finds in East Central Germany, as well as
in the Alemannian territories. In both regions, such combs appear in the mid-fifth
century (later than on the Danube frontier) and with richer or much more
elaborate ornamentation.33 In the region of the Middle Danube, assemblages dated
to an earlier period also produced combs with triangular handles and horse heads,
which belong to Thomas’s class 2.3. One such comb with stylized horse heads is
known from a burial excavated in Litovice near Prague (Figure 9.8.16), with good
analogies in Predjama, on the Danube, but also in Pohleheim-Holzeheim in
Hessen.34 A peculiar variant of Thomas’s class I with a semicircular handle is also
known from Prague-Radotín (Figure 9.8.17).35 A similar comb was found in the
Alzey fort on the Rhine (Figure 9.7.D9).36
Also made of antler is the pyramid-shaped pendant (of a type improperly
known as ‘Thor’s pendant’) from early fifth-century grave 29b in Lužec nad
Vltavou (Figure 9.8.12).37 An iron pendant from grave 9 in Prague-Bubeneè has a
good analogy in Kosanovo (Ukraine) and may equally be viewed as an artefact of
East European origin (Figure 9.8.15).38 The same is true about the wheel-made
pottery with burnished, zig-zag decoration, known as the Murga ware. Such a ware
has been documented on a number of sites in Bohemia, at Zbuzany, Závist (Figure
32
Mária R . Alföldi and others, Intercisa II (Dunapentele): Geschichte der Stadt in der Römerzeit
(Budapest, 1957), pl. 84.10–11.
33
Berthold Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland (Halle, 1961), pl.
52a; Jan Bemmann, ‘Die Niemberger Fibeln und die Chronologie der Völkerwanderungszeit in
Mitteldeutschland’, Slovenská Archeológia, 49 (2001), 59–101 (p. 90); Ursula Koch, Das
alamanisch-fränkische Gräberfeld bei Pleidesheim (Stuttgart, 2001), pp. 47–48 with fig. 12.X85.
34
Pleinerová, ‘Litovice (okr. Praha-západ)’, p. 491 with fig. 9.1. For analogies, see Petkoviæ,
‘Meaning and Provenance’, fig. 2.3; Berndt Steidl, Die Wetterau vom 3. bis 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr.
(Wiesbaden, 2000), pl. 68.108.
35
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pl. 32.18.
36
Helmut Bernhard, ‘Germanische Funde der Spätantike zwischen Straßburg und Mainz’,
Saalburg Jahrbuch, 28 (1982), 72–109 at fig. 35.2. Several other specimens of this type of combs
are decorated with horse heads (see Petkoviæ, ‘Meaning and Provenance’, fig. 1.11–12).
37
Rastislav Korený and Olga Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì z doby stìhování národù v Lužci nad
Vltavou, okr. Mìlník’, Archeologie ve støedních Èechách, 11 (2007), 423 and fig. 13.1. For the
symbolism and distribution of this type of artefact, see Olg’a V. Bobrovs’ka, ‘Zhynochi poiasni
amulety cherniakhovs’koi kul’turi’, Arkheolohiia, 1999.4, 89–95.
38
Eduard Droberjar, ‘Praha germánská’, in Praha pravìká, ed. by Michal Lutovský and others
(Prague, 2005), pp. 777–814 (pp. 790–91 with picture at p. 791.1).
9.8.10–11), and Holubice near Prague (all jugs), as well as in Prague-Podbaba

(beaker).39 A particularly problematic group of finds of this ware is known from
Bohemia. The pottery with burnished decoration may well signal the presence of
federates in the early 400s, but several assemblages in the Middle Danube region
indicate that the Murga ware continued in use into the subsequent period, as
shown by the artefacts associated with a burial in Ve¾ký Pesek-Sikenica, especially
the fibulae of the Gursuf-Bakodpuszta-Sokolnice class dated to phase D2/D3.40
While the later specimens of the Murga ware may still be regarded as ‘imports’,
they may have just as well been produced locally. Runaways from the Middle and
Lower Danube region into the Roman provinces are known for the mid-fifth cen-
tury from written sources. The presence of the Murga type in Central Europe, as
far as the Niemberg group of East Central Germany, may therefore be associated
with the processes pushing splinter groups outside Attila’s empire.41
Most artefacts associated with the Vinaøice group appear to have been manu-
factured on sites on the empire’s frontier on the Danube and the Rhine rivers. This
is undoubtedly the case of the military belt sets with chip-carved decoration, such as
the specimen from Prague-Vokovice (Figure 9.9.8). Such belt sets are particularly
common along the Danube and Rhine frontier. As Horst Böhme has noted, their
value as symbol of military rank is well documented in the Notitia Dignitatum.42
39
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pp. 106, 108 with fig. 32.4 and pl. 23.3; Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad
Závistí’, fig. 20.7, 9. The Holubice jug is an unpublished find from the collection of the National
Museum in Prague, but which originated from the excavations of Dr. Vladimír Sakaø. I am grateful
to Dr. Eduard Droberjar for directing my attention to this artefact.
40
Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Spätrömische und völkerwanderungszeitliche Drehscheibenkeramik in
Mähren’, Archaeologia Austriaca, 69 (1985), 105–45 (pp. 124 and 126); Tejral; ‘Zur Chronologie’,
p. 277 with fig. 31.11; Karol Pieta, ‘Neue Erkenntnisse zum Grab von Sikenica-Vel’ký Pesek’, in
Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum, ed. by Jaroslav Tejral (Brno, 2002), pp.
237–45 (pp. 239–40 with fig. 1); Vagalinski, ‘Spätrömische und völkerwanderungszeitliche’, p. 165
with fig. 7.4.
41
The Niemberg group is now commonly identified as Thuringians, not as refugees from the
Middle Danube. See Jan Bemmann, ‘Zur Frage der Kontinuität von der jüngeren römischen
Kaiserzeit zur Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland’, in Die spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die
frühe Völkerwanderungszeit im Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. by Magdalena M¹czyñska and Tadeusz
Grabarczyk (£ódŸ, 2000), pp. 76–103; Christina M. Hansen, ‘Frauengräber im Thüringerreich:
Zur Chronologie des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.’, Basler Hefte zur Archäologie, 2 (2004), 88–90
with figs 109–13.
42
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 114 and pl. 32.3; Bedøich Svoboda, Èechy a øímské impérium
(Praha, 1948), pl. 23.3; Tejral, ‘ ‘Die spätantiken militärischen Éliten’, pp. 228–31 with figs 7–10;
Figure 9.9. Roman frontier mili-

tary culture in Bohemia: (1–2)
graves 28 and 38 in Lužec nad
Vltavou (after Korený and Kytli-
cová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, figs 12
and 15); (3 and 5) glass vessels
from Vinaøice (after Píè, Staro-
žitnosti, pl. 2.11 and 13); (4)
wheel-made jug from Prague-
Kobylisy, most likely of Roman
origin (after Droberjar, ‘Od
plaòanských pohár?’, fig. 27.3);
(6) grave goods from Prague-
Radotín (after Droberjar, ‘Od
(7 and 9) bracelets from Prague-
Malá Strana, Petøín, and Prague-
Vokovice (after Droberjar,
‘Praha germánská’, p. 792);
(8) military belt set with chip-
carved decoration from Prague-
Vokovice (after Droberjar, ‘Od
buckles from (10) Prague-
Radotín (after Droberjar, ‘Od
plaòanských pohár?’, fig. 27.7)
and (11) Kolín-plynárna (after
Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských
pohár?’, fig. 27.11).
The buckle found in Kolín (Figure 9.9.11) belonged to one such belt set of western
origin (probably from northern Gaul or from Britain).43 The specimen from
Prague-Radotín (Figure 9.9.10) is decorated with animal heads, and its analogies
appear in northern Gaul and, less frequently, in Spain.44 Also from Prague-Radotín
Horst W. Böhme, Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhundert zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire
(Munich, 1974), p. 97 and pl. 11.
43
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 115 and fig. 35.3–11; Böhme, Germanische Grabfunde, pp. 72–73
and pl. 16; Max Martin, ‘Observations sur l’armement de l’époque mérovingienne précoce’, in
L’Aarmée romaine et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle ed. by Vallet and Kazanski, pp. 395–409 (p.
396 with fig. 4).
44
Alexander Koch, ‘Zum archäologischen Nachweis der Sueben auf der Iberischen Halbinsel:
Überlegungen zu einer Gürtelschnalle aus der Umgebung von Baamorto/Monforte de Lemos
is a buckle of Sommer’s class 3e (Figure 9.9.6).45 Another buckle loop with animal
heads from grave 38 in Lužec nad Vltavou (Figure 9.9.1) has been wrongly attrib-
uted to the Haillot or Krefeld-Gellep type.46 In fact, this is more likely a barbarian
imitation of a military belt buckle, for which several other examples are known
from the Lower Main valley and from central Germany.47 To the opposite direc-
tion, namely to Pannonia, point analogies for the bracelets found in Prague-Malá
Strana, Petøín, and Prague-Vokovice (Figure 9.9.7 and 9), which are dated to
c. 400.48
Of Roman origin must also be the glass bowl and conical beaker found in
Vinaøice (Figure 9.9.3 and 5). Similar glassware was found in abundance both
within the Roman Empire and on sites of the Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº
culture.49 The bell-beaker from Prague-Podbaba may have been manufactured in
(Prov. Lugo, Spanien)’, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 31 (1999), 156–98 (pp. 169–70 with
fig. 10); Droberjar,’ Od plaòanských pohárù’, p. 8.
45
Alena Rybová, ‘Addenda zu dem Gräberfeld vom Beginn der Völkerwanderungszeit in
Radotín’, Památky archeologické, 79 (1988), 170–82 (p. 172 with figs 1 and 3.2).
46
Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, p. 422 and fig. 15.1. The wrong attribution was
based on the peculiar form of the loop. In fact, that seems to be little more than a miscast, good
analogies for which are known from other assemblages, e.g. grave 231 in Wenigumstadt (Germany)
or grave 719B in Schleitheim (Switzerland). See Eva Stauch, Wenigumstadt: Ein Bestattungplatz
der Völkerwanderung und des frühen Mittelalters im nördlichen Odenwaldvorland (Bonn, 2004),
pl. 155.20; Anke Burzler and others, Das frühmittelalterliche Schleitheim: Siedlung, Gräberfeld und
Kirche (Schaffhausen, 2002), pl. 89.719B/1.
47
Kahl am Main, grave 125: Felix Teichner, Kahl am Main: Siedlung und Gräberfeld der
Völkerwanderungszeit (Kallmünz, 1999), pl. 39. Butzow, Liebersee: Jan Bemmann, ‘Romanisierte
Barbaren oder erfolgreiche Plünderer? Anmerkungen zur Identität, Form und Dauer des provin-
zialrömischen Einflusses auf Mitteldeutschland während der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit und
der Völkerwanderungszeit’, in Antyk i Barbarzyñcy, ed. by Alexander Bursche and Renata Cio³ek
(Warsaw, 2003), pp. 53–108 (p. 59 with fig. 10.1–3).
48
Droberjar, ‘Praha germánská’, pp. 833, 839, and 792 figs 1–2; Ellen Swift, Regionality in
Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West (Montagnac, 2000), p. 124 and figs 148 and 167.
49
Josef L. Píè, Starožitnosti zemì èeské, díl III, svazek 1, Èechy za doby knížecí: Na základì
praehistorické sbírky Musea království Èeského a pramenù dìjepisných (Praha, 1909), pl. 2. 11 and 13;
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pl. 28.8. For analogies, see Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs, ‘Gläser der Sîntana de
Mures-Èernjachov-Kultur aus Rumänien und der Republik Moldavien’, in Die Sîntana de Mures-
Èernjachov-Kultur, ed. by Gomolka-Fuchs, pp. 129–40 (p.132 with fig. 2.4–12). The conical
beaker may have initially been made for a church chandelier, see Die Welt von Byzanz: Europas
östliches Erbe. Glanz, Krisen und Fortleben einer tausendjährigen Kultur, ed. by Ludwig Wamser
(Munich, 2004), p. 101 and figs 136 and 138.
the Middle Danube region, where such beakers appear in graves with weapons.50
Ceramic jugs often with burnished decoration of undoubtedly Roman origin have
been found in Prague-Podbaba-Juliska, grave 9 in Vinaøice, [DAO10]Prague-Prague-
Kobylisy, Øísuty, grave 4 in Prague-Veleslavín, and grave 15 in Litovice (Figure
9.9.4).51 Such jugs appear especially on Late Roman military sites of the D1 period,
for example, in Rusovce, Carnuntum, Vindobona, and Klostenneuburg (Figure
9.7.C). In barbaricum, jugs with burnished decoration are known from several sites
of the so-called Zlechov group in southern Moravia. This ceramic ware is dated
between second half of the fourth and the second third of the fifth century.52
The settlement excavated in Závist has produced also fragments of green-glazed
mortaria (Figure 9.3.12–13) of a kind most typical for the frontier provinces of
Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia.53 Another interesting example of a jug with green-
glazed and stamped ornament has been recently published from grave 28 in Lužec
nad Vltavou, grave 28 (Figure 9.9.2). Similar jugs are known from the ceramic
assemblages in Quadrata and Arrabona, two Roman sites on the Middle Danube
frontier.54
50
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pl. 28.5. See Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Archäologisch-kulturelle Entwicklung
im norddanubischen Raum am Ende der Spätkaiserzeit und am Anfang der Völkerwanderunszeit’,
in L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale, ed. by Tejral, Pilet, and Kazanski, pp. 205–71 (pp. 248–49
with fig. 40).
51
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pp. 106–08 and fig. 33; pls 22.2, 23.2, 25.10, 27.5 and 8; Pleinerová,
‘Litovice (okr. Praha-západ)’, p. 489 and fig. 7.1–3 and 12.
52
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 107; Vilém Hrubý, ‘Sídlištì z pozdní doby øímské ve Zlechovì’,
Archeologické rozhledy, 19 (1957), 643–58 with fig. 212.9–13; Karol Pieta, ‘Anfänge der Völker-
wanderungszeit in der Slowakei (Fragestellungen der zeitgenössischen Forschung)’, in L’Occident
romain et l’Europe centrale, ed. by Tejral, Pilet, and Kazanski, pp. 171–89 (p. 175 with fig. 6.2–4);
Herwig Friesinger and Helga Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit in Niederösterreich:
Ein Beitrag zur völkerwanderungszeitlichen Keramik (2. Hälfte 4.–6. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) in
Niederösterreich, Oberösterreich und dem Burgenland’, Archaeologia Austriaca, 65 (1981),
[DAO11]193–266 (pp. 253–55 with figs 48, 49, and 57); Tejral, ‘Archäologisch-kulturelle
Entwicklung’, p. 250 with fig. 41.
53
Jansová, ‘Hradištì nad Závistí’, p. 158 and figs 3.1–2 and 20.1; Motyková, Drda, and
Rybová, ‘Some Notable Imports’, pp. 60, 62 and figs 4.13 and 5.1. For analogies, see Doris Ebner,
‘Die spätrömische Töpferei und Ziegelrei von Friedberg-Stätzling, Lkr. Aichach-Friedberg’,
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 62 (1997), pp. 115–219 (pp. 153–62 and figs 22–30); Friesinger
and Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, p. 264 and figs 9–10.
54
Luboš Rypka, ‘Nìkolik poznámek k nálezu øímsko-provinciální glazované nádoby z Lužce
nad Vltavou, okr. Mìlník‘, in Archeologie barbarù 2006, Sborník pøíspìvkù z II., ed. by Droberjar and
Chvojka, pp. 241–47.
The abundance of artefacts of Roman and eastern origin is not the only sign of
dramatic changes taking place in the early 400s. Several settlements seem to have
been located on well-protected hilltops, as is the case in Závist and Žatec. Within
each one of those settlements, the most common feature is the sunken-floored
building with post construction, which has no local traditions.55 Important
changes were also noted in burial practices. Cremations in central and northern
Bohemia completely disappeared, and the orientation of most inhumation graves
was now west–south, instead of north–south. The only other fifth-century crema-
tion cemetery situated in the peripheral part of eastern Bohemia is Plotištì nad
Labem.56 What exactly caused such changes remains unknown, but the changes
themselves must have been linked to dramatic shifts in cultural patterns or
religious representations, such as have been assumed for the Chernyakhov-Sântana
de Mureº culture of the late Roman period.57 Particularly suggestive for the
presence within the Vinaøice group of cultural features of East European origin,
perhaps even of immigrants from that area, is, with few exceptions (Bøíza, Radenice
nad Ohøí, Litovice, and Stehelèeves), the relative lack of weapons deposited in
graves. The similar lack of weapons in graves excavated in Fenékpuszta and attrib-
uted to the Ostrogoths has been explained in terms of religious prohibitions.58 A
few skeletons with artificially deformed skulls are also known from northern
Bohemia.59 The custom first appeared in the Middle Danube region in the late
55
Milan Janèo, ‘Príspevok k pravekým sídliskám v Èechách: Polozemnice typu Leube C2,
C2/D2, D2 a D3’, Archeologie ve støedních Èechách, 6 (2002), 367–407; Miklós Takács, ‘Der Haus-
bau in Ungarn vom 2. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: ein Zeitalter einheitlicher Grubenhäuser?’,
in The Rural House from the Migration Period to the Oldest Still Standing Buildings: Ruralia IV.
8–13 September 2001, ed. by Jan Klápštì (Bad Bederkesa, 2002), pp. 272–90 (pp. 274–78 with pl.
1); Boris V. Magomedov, ‘Siedlungen der Èernjachov-Sîntana de Mures-Kultur’, in Die Sîntana
de Mures-Èernjachov-Kultur, ed. by Gomolka-Fuchs, pp. 69–87 (pp. 70–71 with fig. 2.2–3).
56
Alena Rybová, ‘Plotištì nad Labem’, pp. 175–89.
57
Ion Ioniþã, ‘Römische Einflüsse im Verbreitungsgebiet der Sântana-de-Mureº-Èernjachov-
Kultur’, Arheologia Moldovei, 17 (1994), 109–16 (p. 113); Levinschi, ‘Gräberfeld der späten
Sîntana’, pp. 29–30; Gheorge A. Niculescu, ‘Die sarmatische Kultur im Zusammenhang der
kaiserzeitlichen Funde aus Muntenien: unter besondere Berücksichtigung der Funde von Tîrgºor’,
in Kontakt, Kooperation, Konflikt, ed. by von Carnap-Bornheim, pp. 177–205 (pp. 195–96).
58
Péter Straub, ‘Die Hinterlassenschaft der Ostgoten in Fenékpuszta’, in Germanen am
Plattensee: Ausstellung des Balatoni Muzeums Keszthely im Museum für Frühgeschichte des Landes
Niederösterreich, Schloss Traismauer vom 6. April bis 1. November 2002, ed. by Róbert Müller
(Traismauer, 2002), pp. 9–12 (p. 10).
59
Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, p. 420.
300s and early 400s in association with groups of Huns, Alans, and Goths settled
as federates in Pannonia.60
So what caused the appearance of the Vinaøice group in Bohemia? There are
currently three different explanations. One of them is based on the idea of cultural
diffusion. The ‘East-Germanic’ cultural elements spread to Central Europe (in-
cluding northern Bohemia) only indirectly. The barbarians under the leadership
of Alatheus and Saphrax may have engaged in relations with other barbarians
across the frontier. Trade, matrimonial alliances, and political cooperation may
thus explain the cultural transformations associated with the Vinaøice group. The
second explanation stresses migration. By 406, most Bohemian Suevi, Vandals, and
Alans moved westwards to Gaul and Spain. The vacuum they left behind was filled
with refugees from the Roman provinces. Scholars embracing the ‘migrationist’
explanation do not agree on what exactly made those people leave the Roman
Empire: anti-barbarian violence, especially as a result of the Stilicho affair,61 or the
raids of the Huns (especially that of 408 under Uldin’s leadership)? An equally
possible explanation along such lines would be the defeat of the usurper Con-
stantine III. Coins struck for that usurper were found both in ‘Bürgle’ bei Gunn-
remingen, a Roman fort in Raetia with an abundant evidence of military frontier
culture to be associated with the presence of federate troops, and in a rich grave in
Mìcholupy (Bohemia).62 The main problem with the ‘migrationist’ explanation
is that it does not really account for the many and significant parallels between the
Vinaøice group and assemblages of the Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº. A
generation separates the advent of the eastern federates to Pannonia (c. 380) and
the earliest assemblages in Bohemia that could be attributed to the Vinaøice group
and dated to the 410s or 420s. If so, then a generation may have been sufficient for
the acculturation of the eastern federates, just as it was for the Vandals invading
northern Africa, whose material culture had more in common with the Middle
60
Ágnes Salamon and István Lengyel, ‘Kinship Interelations in a Fifth-Century “Panonian“
Cemetery: An Archaeological and Palaeobiological Sketch of the Population Fragment Buried in
the Mözs Cemetery, Hungary’, World Archaeology, 12 (1980), 93–104 (p. 98).
61
Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung, pp. 55–56.
62
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 218. Keller, Das spätromische Gräberfeld, p. 57. Another coin struck
for Constantine III was found also in Uherský Brod-Zbìsná (Moravia), a site otherwise known for
an early fifth-century grave with a skeleton with both artificially deformed and trephined skull, for
which see Tomáš Zeman, ‘Východomoravská periferie na prahu stìhování národù’, in Archeologie
barbarù 2006, Sborník pøíspìvkù z II., ed. by Droberjar and Chvojka, pp. 513–34 (p. 518).
Danube barbarian elites, than with assemblages of the Przeworsk culture, which
some archaeologists believe to be Vandal.63
Finally, a third explanation for the rise of the Vinaøice group combines elements
of the other two interpretations: a small migratory group emulated local cultural
practices. That at least a part of the old population continued to live on the same
sites is demonstrated by the cremation cemetery found in Plotištì nad Labem, the
fourth (and last) phase of which may be dated well into the fifth century. Hand-
made pottery similar to that from Plotištì nad Labem has been identified in the
ceramic assemblages of the Prague-Ruzynì settlement, especially in the assemblage
from feature 618, which is clearly dated to the second half of the fifth century be-
cause of the associated crossbow fibula of the Rathewitz class.64 It seems therefore
possible to assume that central Bohemia was populated by groups of different
origins.
The Rise and Decline of the Vinaøice Group
The development of the Vinaøice group has been dated in relative terms to the
D2/D3 and D3 phases, that is, between 440/50 and 480/90.65 In contrast to the
period of its inception, the full development of this group is characterized by a shift
from Middle Danube and East European to West European influences. Most
prominent during this period were contacts with Alamannia, the Middle and
Lower Main valley, and the western provinces of the empire. This is illustrated,
among other things, by the distribution of silver and gilt silver bow fibulae of the
Niederflorstad-Weisloch (Figure 9.10.2) and Groß-Umstadt classes (Figure
9.10.4). Such fibulae were found, often in pairs, on several sites in the Bohemian
63
Dieter Quast, ‘Völkerwanderungszeitliche Frauengräber aus Hippo Regius (Annaba/Bône)
in Algerien’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 52 (2005), 237–315 (pp.
286–87 and especially 300).
64
Alena Rybová, ‘Brandgräberfelder des 5. Jahrhunderts in Böhmen’, in Germanen, Hunnen
und Awaren: Schätze der Völkerwanderungszeit. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, 12. De-
zember 1987 bis 21. Februar 1988, ed. by Wilfried Menghin, Tobias Springer, and Egon Wamers
(Nuremberg, 1987), pp. 528–43 (p. 530); see also Jiøí Zeman, ‘Böhmen im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert’,
in Germanen, Hunnen und Awaren, ed. by Menghin, Springer, and Wamers, pp. 515–27 (p. 517).
Kuchaøík, Bureš, Pleinerová, and Jiøík, ‘Nové poznatky’, pp. 363–70 and fig. 16.6–24 and 17.
65
Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských pohárù’, p. 23; Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Neue Aspekte der frühvölker-
wanderungs-zeitlichen Chronologie im Mitteldonauraum’, in Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der
Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum, ed. by Tejral, Friesinger, and Kazanski, pp. 321–92 (p. 351).
Figure 9.10. The development of

the Vinaøice group of Bohemia
and its associated artefacts: (1)
the distribution of bow fibulae
of Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and
Groß Umstadt [DAO12](red
dots), as well as Smolín classes
(after Böhme, ‘Eine elbgerma-
nische Bügelfibel’, fig 5 and
Müller-Wille, ‘Prunkgräber’, fig.
3, with additions); (2–6) bow
brooches from Bohemia, dated
to phase D2/D3; (7) grave goods
from Prague-Libeò; (8) terra
sigillata from Slavhostice (draw-
ing by author); (9, 12, and 15)
glass vessels from Úherce, Ko-
bylisy, and Radonice; (10) brace-
let with widened ends (‘Kolbe-
narmringe’) from central Bohe-
mia; (11 and14) lamps from
Slavhostice and Staré Èivice;
(13) handmade pottery from
Úherce. After Droberjar, ‘Od
plaòanských pohár?’, pl. 29.2, 5,
7, 15, 18, 20, and 23–24; Dro-
berjar, ‘Zlatý náramek’, fig. 4.4;
and Janèo, ‘Nálezy lámp’, fig.
1.10–11.
basin (Plaòany, Prague-Michle, Vinaøice, Prague-Podbaba-Juliska, Prague-Podbaba,

and Prague-Zlièín). They come in a variety of forms, mostly with semicircular or
triangular headplates and foot ending in the shape of an animal head. In Europe,
there are two main clusters of finds besides Bohemia: one in Alamannia, the other
in the region in Germany between the Rhine, the Main, and the Neckar rivers.
Other finds are known from the Lower Elbe region, from northern Gaul, and from
the region of the so-called Moravian Gate. By contrast, fibulae of the Nieder-
florstad-Weisloch and Groß-Umstadt classes are almost absent from East Central
Europe (Figure 9.10.1).66 There is no agreement as to the origin of such fibulae.
66
Horst W. Böhme, ‘Eine elbgermanische Bügelfibel des 5. Jahrhunderts aus Limetz-Villez
(Yvelines, Frankreich)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 19 (1989), 397–406 (pp. 398–400
with fig. 5).
Some believed them to have originated from Western provincial prototypes, such
as the golden fibula from Pistoia with cloisonné decoration.67 Others see the pro-
vincial crossbow brooches (‘Zweibelknopffibel’) as the model used for the produc-
tion of Niederflorstad-Weisloch and Groß-Umstadt classes.68 Mechthild Schulze-
Dörrlamm, while maintaining the general idea that such brooches were a barbarian
imitation of provincial prototypes, nonetheless argues that the brooch of the
Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch found in Alkofen must have been produced in a provin-
cial workshop, as it morphologically resembles provincial bow brooches.69 Finally,
Alexander Koch further subdivided the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch class into
variants, one of which presents a diamond-shaped footplate (as, for example, the
specimen found in Vinaøice), which is otherwise typical for fibulae of the Bratei
class.70 Roman crossbow brooches of the ‘Zweibelknopffibel’ type were occasionally
made of precious metal and may have been used to mark rank in the Roman army.
Similarly, when worn by women, fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and
Groß-Umstadt classes may have been used to signal social distinction. Horst
Böhme linked such fibulae with the Elbe-Germanic culture and assumed that their
origin was with the Vinaøice group. Specimens found in the Lower Main area and
in northern Gaul are thus interpreted as evidence of migration from Bohemia, an
idea otherwise substantiated by finds from the cemeteries of Eschborn (Figure
9.11.B),71 Pleidesheim, Wenigumstadt (Figure 9.11.A) and others in south-western
Germany. Böhme thus suggests that by the mid-fifth century, a relatively large
number of the barbarian soldiers from the Vinaøice and Niemberg groups were
recruited in the Roman armies in the West.72 By contrast, Alexander Koch attrib-
uted the fibulae of the Niederflorstad-Weisloch and Groß-Umstadt classes to the
67
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 86.
68
Radu Harhoiu, ‘Chronologische Fragen der Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien’, Dacia, 34
(1990), 169–208 (p. 200).
69
Mechthild Schulze-Dörlamm, ‘Germanische Spiralplatenfibeln oder romanische Bügel-
fibeln? Zu den Vorbildern elbgermanisch-fränkischer Bügelfibeln’, Archäologisches Korrespondez-
blatt, 30 (2000), 599–613 with fig. 6.4.
70
Alexander Koch, Bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit im westlichen Frankreich (Mainz, 1998),
map 1. For the Vinaøice fibula, see Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 88 and pl. 24.10. For fibulae of the
Bratei class, see Völker Bierbrauer, ‘Bügelfibeln des 5. Jahrhunderts aus Südosteuropa’, Jahreschrift
für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, 72 (1989), 141–60 (pp. 143–47 with fig. 1.4).
71
Hermann Ament, Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Eschborn (Main-Taunus-Kreis)
(Wiesbaden, 1992), p. 15 and pl.2.2–3.
72
Böhme, ‘Eine elbgermanische Bügelfibel’, p. 400.
Figure 9.11. Bohemian barbarians? (A) Wenigumstadt, grave 231 (after Stauch, Wenigumstadt, pl.
155); (B) Eschborn, graves 43 and 18 (after Ament, Das alamannische Gräberfeld, pl. 4); (C) distri-
bution of finds connected to the Vinaøice group outside Bohemia (after Böhme, ‘Zur Bedeutung’,
fig. 10); (D: 1, 4) Mìcholupy, grave goods; (2) fibulae of the Wiesbaden class from Úherce
(Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských pohár?’, fig. 29.17); (3) fibula of the Wiesbaden class from Œwielino
(after Werner, ‘Zu einer elbgermanischen Fibel’, pl. 29.1).
Alamanni. In this interpretation, such fibulae spread from the Alamannian terri-
tory to Bohemia, and not the other way around. He further sees such fibulae as an
indication of strong influences from the Elbe-Germanic culture, which, according
to him, could explain their absence from the Frankish territory.73 Nonetheless,
more scholars seem now inclined to see the direction of influence from Bohemia
to south-western Germany (Figure 9.11.C).74
Although in disagreement as to the direction of influence, both Horst Böhme
and Alexander Koch attribute the fibulae of the Niederflorstad-Weisloch and
Groß-Umstadt classes to an Elbe-Germanic cultural tradition dating back to the
Roman period. They thus favour an ethnic interpretation of material culture
change. But the attentive examination of the distribution of several types of dress
accessories in Central Europe during the second quarter of the fifth century sug-
gests a very different approach. Particularly relevant in this context is the absence
of fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and Groß-Umstadt classes from the
regions in East-Central Europe, in which finds of East European ‘nomadic’ or ‘East
Germanic’ character are conspicuous. In such regions, the equivalent dress em-
ployed silver sheet fibulae of the Smolín class (Figure 9.10.1). There is a sharp
contrast between the distribution of fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and
Groß-Umstadt classes, on the one hand, and that of specimens of the Smolín class,
on the other hand.75 Within the areas of the Vinaøice and Niemberg groups, as well
as in Alamannia, the Smolín class is unknown. Such fibulae were an essential part
of a typically ‘Danubian’ fashion, which must have been associated with noble
women within the Hunnic Empire. That fashion also stressed the use of double-
layered combs, pins, earrings with polyhaedral pendants, and diadems. Male
accoutrements of that same region typically include swords, composite bows, three-
edged arrow-heads, as well as dagger scabbard, sword, and saddle mounts made of
gold or gilt bronze, with good analogies in a number of rich burials in Eastern
73
Koch, Bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit, pp. 541, 676 and pl. 1.
74
Koch, Das alamanisch-fränkische, p. 391; Dieter Quast, ‘Höhensiedlungen – donauländische
Einflüsse – Goldgriffspathen: Veränderungen im archäologischen Material der Alamania im 5.
Jahrhundert und deren Interpretation’, in Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit, ed. by Tejral, pp.
273–95 (p. 277 with fig. 6).
75
Michael Müller-Wille, ‘Prunkgräber der Völkerwanderungs- und Merowingerzeit‘, in
Herrschaft – Tod – Bestattung: Zu den vor- und frühgeschtlichen Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-
historische Quelle Internationale Fachkonferenz, Kiel, 16.–19. Oktober 2003, ed. by Claus von
Carnap-Bornhaim (Bonn, 2006), pp. 127–45 (p. 131 with fig. 3).
Europe and Central Asia, all dated to the age of Attila.76 Peter Heather advanced
the idea that the ‘Danubian fashion’ emerged in the context of new social hierar-
chies created within the Hunnic Empire. The Huns, according to Heather, created
new standards of ostentatious burial, which crisscrossed any ethnic boundaries that
may have existed within that empire. The ‘Danube fashion’ was a fashion of the
multiethnic elite running the Hunnic Empire, without being necessarily associated
with any particular ethnic group.77
Such an interpretation of the ‘Danubian fashion’ invites a re-examination of the
fibulae of Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and Groß-Umstadt classes as symbols of social
rank. If, as it seems probable, the Vinaøice group represents a political entity, how-
ever loosely defined, which was both independent from and outside the Hunnic
Empire, much like Alamannia in the West, then a rejection of the symbols of rank
used by elites in that empire may explain the adoption of completely different
badges of social status. If this interpretation is correct, then the Vinaøice group and
its analogies in the West may represent a political alternative to the Hunnic
Empire, which may have remained independent until Attila’s western campaign
in the 440s.
A similar explanation may be advanced for the distribution of fibulae of the
Wiesbaden class with chip-carved ornaments in the Nydam style. Such fibulae were
certainly produced in the north-eastern part of Central Europe. The best-known
specimens of this class have been found in Weilbach, Groß Köris, Ártánd, Œwielcza,
and Œwielino.78 A slightly later, ‘Burgundian’ variant is known from grave 216 of
the cemetery excavated in Yverdon-les-Bains (Switzerland).79 In Bohemia,
brooches of the Wiesbaden class have been found in Mìcholupy (Figure 9.11.D4)
and Úherce (Fig. 9.11.D2). The specimen from Úherce is quite similar to the
brooch from the Œwielino hoard (Fig. 9.11.D3) in which it was associated with
other brooches with stamped ornament in the Sösdala-Untersiebenbrunn style
76
Tejral, ‘Neue Aspekte’, pp. 344–48; Tejral, ‘ Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten’‚ pp.
266–67. For the ‘nomadic’ and ‘East Germanic’ styles of decoration employed for such dress acces-
sories, see also Irina Zasetskaya, ‘Les Steppes pontiques à l’époque hunnique’, in L’Occident romain
et l’Europe centrale, ed. by Tejral, Pilet, and Kazanski, pp. 341–56.
77
Heather, The Goths, pp. 121–23.
78
Tejral, ‘Neue Aspekte’, p. 349 and fig. 27.
79
Gilbert Kaenel, Archéologie du Moyen Âge: le canton V aud du V e au X V e siècle. Document du
Musée Cantonal ïarchéologie et ïhistoire (Lausanne, 1993), p. 30 and fig. 17; Dieter Neubauer, ‘Das
Maintal zwischen Würzburg und Karlburg: Eine neue entdeckte völkerwanderungszeitliche
Siedlungskammer’, Beiträge zur Archäologie in Unterfranken [DAO5] (1998), 129–45 (p. 143).
dated to period D1/D2.80 However, there are features connecting the Mìcholupy
burial assemblage to the rich grave found in Gáva on the Upper Tisza. Both assem-
blages produced golden pendants with encrusted stones (almandins). The shape of
the brooch from Gáva is also reminiscent of fibulae of the ‘Danubian fashion’, but
its geometrical chip-carved decoration executed in Nydam style is also similar to
the find from Mìcholupy.81 The Wiesbaden-type fibula from Œwielca was found
in an assemblage of the late phase of the Przeworsk culture, which has been dendro-
dated to AD 430±10.82 Late fibulae of the Wiesbaden class, often made of precious
metals and found within the territory of the Vinaøice group and in southern
Poland, within the area of the so-called Dêbczyno group, suggest matrimonial alli-
ances between the elites of the two groups, possibly with anti-Hunnic overtones.
At any rate, the distribution of fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch, Groß-
Umstadt, and Wiesbaden classes precludes any ethnic interpretation, but suggests
the existence of political networks linking regional elites in different parts of
Central Europe.The movement of goods from one region to the other cannot be
explained otherwise. Fibulae are definitely not the only reflection of such networks.
Equally relevant are the silver bracelet from Prague-Libeò (Figure 9.10.7),83 golden
trefoil pendants with filigree decoration (Figure 9.11.B4),84 some variants of the
antler combs of Thomas’s class 3,85 or an antler, so-called ‘Thor’s pendant’.86 Also
very important are artefacts originating in the western provinces, particularly in the
80
Joachim Werner, ‘Zu einer elbgermanischen Fibel des 5. Jahrhunderts aus Gaukönigshofen,
Ldkr. Würzburg: Ein Beitrag zu den Fibeln vom “Typ Wiesbaden” und zur germanischen Punzo-
rnamentik’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 46 (1981), 224–54 (pp. 244–52); Kazimierz God³ow-
ski, ‘Das “Fürstengrab” des 5. Jhs. und der “Fürstensitz” in Jakuszowice in Südpolen’, in La Noblesse
romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siecle, ed. by Vallet and Kazanski, pp. 155–79 (p. 156).
81
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pp. 116–17 and pl. 29.4; Katalin Almássy and others, Das Gold von
Nyíregyháza (Archäologische Fundkomplexe mit Goldgegenständen in der Sammlung des Jósa-
András-Museums Nyíregyháza) (Nyíregyháza, 1997), pp. 62–63 and figs 47–48.
82
God³owski, ‘Das ‘Fürstengrab’, p. 162.
83
Svoboda, Èechy vdobì, pl. 33.6.
84
Teichner, Kahl am Main, p. 225 and pl. 72; Alois Stuppner, ‘Amulette und Anhänger vom
Oberleiserberg bei Ernstbrunn, NÖ’, in Zwischen Rom und dem Barbaricum: Festschrift für Titus
Kolník zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Klára Kuzmová, Karol Pieta, and Ján Rajtár (Nitra, 2002), pp.
377–86 (pp. 381–82).
85
Koch, Das alamanisch-fränkische, fig. 12.F5.
86
Bemmann, ‘Die Niemberger Fibeln’, p. 90; Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit, p. 135;
Droberjar, ‘Od plaòanských pohárù’, p. 8.
Rhine frontier region of Gaul. Glass beakers of Rhenish manufacture have been
found in Prague-Kobylisy and Radonice (Figure 9.10.11–12[DAO13]). Another
glass vessel is known from Úherce (Figure 9.10.9).87 Shards of Argonne Ware or of
pottery made in the sigillata technique have been recorded from Závist (Figure
9.3.11 and 14) and grave 76 in Prague-Zlièín.88 Terra sigillata chiara of North
African production is also known from Závist and Slavhostice (Figure 9.10.8).89
Perhaps from Slavhostice is also the fragment of a lamp of Hayes’s type Ib, which
was also produced in Northern Africa (Figure 9.10.11).90
Among the most important categories of evidence are also Roman gold coins.
Almost two thirds of all Bohemian finds have been struck for the emperors Arca-
dius, Honorius, Constantine III, Valentinian III, and Theodosius II in the mints
of Ravenna, Milan, and Rome, and not in Constantinople.91 Finds from northern
Bohemia also include three barbarian imitations of solidi. The coin finds within
the area of the Vinaøice group is in sharp contrast to the situation in Moravia and
the neighbouring territories to the east, all the way to the Middle Danube, in which
most coins were issues of the eastern mints, no doubt because of the tribute paid
87
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pl. 31.17; Ursula Koch, Die Glas- und Edelsteinfunde aus den Plangra-
bungen 1967–1983 (Heidelberg, 1987), pp. 111–13, 116–20 and figs 45, 47. The glass beakers
from Prague-Kobylisy and Radonice belong to the Snartemo and Hammelburg classes.
88
Motyková, Drda, and Rybová, ‘Some Notable Imports’, p. 62 and fig. 5.2; Jiøí Vávra, Jaroslav
Jiøík, Pavel Kubálek, and Milan Kuchaøík, ‘Pohøebištì z doby stìhování národù v Praze-Zlièínì, ul.
Hrozenkovská: prùbìžná zpráva o metodice a výsledcích výzkumu’, in Archeologie barbarù 2006,
Sborník pøíspìvkù z II, ed. by Droberjar and Chvojka, pp. 565–77 (p. 570 and fig. 10). The
fragment from Prague-Zlièín is from a specimen of Chenet’s form 319. See Raymond Brulet and
Marc Feller, ‘Recherches sur les ateliers de céramique gallo-romains en Argonne: 2. le site de
production d’Avocourt 3 (Prix-Des-Blanches), zone fouillée’, Archaeologia Mosselana, 5 (2003),
301–451 with figs 56.60–66 and 57.67–75.
89
Jakub Halama, ‘Nálezy terry sigillaty v Èechách’, in Archeologie barbarù 2006, Sborník
pøíspìvkù z II, ed. by Droberjar and Chvojka, pp. 195–240 (p. 214 and fig. 12.4). Connections
between eastern Gaul and Bohemia may also be demonstrated by means of the burial assemblage
in grave 217 in Kahl am Main, which included a golden trefoil pendant and Argonne ware, as well
as by that in grave 218 with a belt buckle of eastern origin associated with terra sigillata chiara of
North African production. See Teichner, Kahl am Main, pl. 56.217 and 218.
90
Milan Janèo, ‘Nálezy lámp z doby rímskej v Èechách’, Památky archeologické, 92 (2001),
165–83 (pp. 166 and 170).
91
Jiøí Militký, ‘Finds of Roman and Early Byzantine Gold Coins on the Territory of the Czech
Republic’, Slovenská numizmatika, 17 (2004), 53–76 (pp. 61–64 and pl. 5).
to the Huns.92 The present-day border between Bohemia and Moravia thus repre-
sents the boundaries between the distributions of Roman gold coins struck in
eastern and western mints, respectively. Moreover, several old Roman coins have
been found in assemblages of the Vinaøice group in the Bohemian basin: two
denarii struck for Hadrian found in Závist (Figure 9.3.10), in addition to two
pieces issued for Faustina junior and another for Commodus.93 This is of course
not a unique situation, as old Roman coins are known from other sites in barbari-
cum as well, such as Œwielca in southern Poland, Runder Berg near Urach, and
Glauberg in Germany.94 Silver was minted only infrequently during Late An-
tiquity. However, soldiers were sometimes paid in silver, as in the disbursements
on the occasion of the Augustaticum or Quinquennium, when each soldier received
a pound of silver.95 Older Roman coins must have been part of such payments
during the early ‘Migration period’.
The impression one gets from the examination of the assemblages associated
with the Vinaøice group is one of intensive contacts with the world outside the
Bohemian basin. Particularly important seem to have been contacts with Alaman-
nia and the Lower Main valley. Specific conditions of the second quarter of the
fifth century may have encouraged the establishment of such contacts. As a conse-
quence, it is a mistake to regard the Vinaøice group, the Main valley, and Alamania
as sharing some ‘Elbe-Germanic’ tradition of the Roman age. Instead, we should
envision a network of interelite relationships, if not an outright system of trade.
Perhaps some artefacts, such as fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch class, indi-
cate movement of people as well.96 People, especially warriors, may have moved to
the opposite direction, in search of employment in the Roman armies stationed in
the West. The distribution of the artefact of an alleged ‘Elbe-Germanic’ tradition
with origins in Bohemia within the valley of the river Main and in Alamannia
92
Radu Harhoiu, Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien (Bucharest, 1997), pp. 143–47.
93
Motyková, Drda, and Rybová, Závist, p. 176 and fig. 50.1.
94
Alexandra Gruszczyñska, ‘Osada z wczesnego okresu wêdrowek ludów w Œwilczy, woj.
Rzeszów’, Materia³y i sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Oœrodka Archeologicznego za lata 1976–1979
(1984), 103–29 (pp. 118–20); God³owski, ‘Das Fürstengrab’, pp. 158–59; Steidl, Die Wetterau,
p. 24.
95
Wolfgang Hahn, Die Ostprägung des Römischen Reiches im 5. Jahrhundert (408–491)
(Vienna, 1989), p. 17.
96
Horst W. Böhme, ‘Zur Bedeutung des spätrömischen Militärdienstes für die Stammes-
bildung der Bajuwaren’, in Die Bajuwaren: Von Severin bis Tassilo 488–788, ed. by Walter Bachran
and Hermann Dannheimer (Munich, 1988), pp. 23–37 (pp. 30–31).
should now be reconsidered as evidence of contacts between the Vinaøice-Group

and the West Roman Empire.97
The late phase of the Vinaøice group is dated to the D3/E1 period and thus
synchronized with the developments taking place in the Carpathian Basin after the
battle on the river Nedao. Dated to this period is the massive golden bracelet from
an unknown location in central Bohemia (Figure 9.10.10). Such bracelets are
known from contemporary assemblages in Tournai (Childeric’s grave), Apahida I,
Bluèina, Großörner, Gáva, Pouan, Wolfsheim, and Fürst. In all such cases, the
golden bracelet has been interpreted as a symbol of royal authority.98 Such an inter-
pretation may also be applied to the specimen from Central Bohemia, especially
when we consider the independent position which the Vinaøice group seems to
have enjoyed in the past in relation to the Hunnic Empire. During phase D3/E1,
fibulae previously in use disappeared, especially the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch and
Groß-Umstadt classes. They were partly replaced by fibulae of the Bákodpuszta-
Sokolnice-Gursuf class, such as found in Horní Kšely by Kolín, Stehelèeves, grave
41 in Prague-Zlièín, and an unknown location in Bohemia.99 Those fibulae repre-
sent a new wave of influence from the Middle Danube. By contrast, the fibulae of
the Krefeld and Rathewitz classes found in Vinaøice,100 that of the Weimar/Arcy-
97
A comparative approach to the interpretation of the archaeological evidence is beyond the
scope of this chapter. Such mutual oppositions are well known from other periods: the opposition
between ‘barbarian’ and ‘Roman,’ as well as that between the late Merovingian and the ‘early Slavic’
culture of the seventh century, are both predicated upon such dichotomies. For an even earlier
example, see Wolfgang David, ‘Südbayern als westliche Verbreitungsgrenze ostkarpatenländischer
Nackenscheibenäxte der Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit’, in Popelnicová pole a mladší doba halštatská,
Pøíspìvky z VIII. konference, Èeské Budìjovice 22.–24. 9. 2004, ed. by Ondøej Chvojka (Èeské
Budìjovice, 2004), pp. 61–89 (p. 76).
98
Eduard Droberjar, ‘Zlatý náramek typu Tournai-Bluèina ze støedních Èech’, Archeologie ve
støedních Èechách, 5 (2001), 517–27; Almássy and others, Das Gold, pp. 61–63. For golden Kolben-
armringe within the empire, see Hubert Fehr, ‘Bemerkungen zum völkerwanderungszeitlichen
Grabfund von Fürst’, Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege, 43–44 (2002–03), 204–28 (p.
224 and fig. 12).
99
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 81 and pl. 29.7–8; Bedøich Svoboda, ‘Dva hroby z doby stìhování
národù ve Stehelèevsi u Slaného’, Památky archeologické, 66 (1975), 133–51; Jacek Kowalski,
‘Chronologia grupy elbl¹gskiej i olsztyñskiej krêgu zachodnioba³tyjskiego (V – VII w.), Zarys
problematyki’, Barbaricum, 6 (2000), 203–66 (p. 213 with pl. 7.8).
100
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, p. 85 and Kowalski, ‘Chronologia grupy elb³¹skiej i olsztyñskiej’, p.
213 and pl. 7.8.
Sainte-Restitue class from Ratenice,101 and that of the Pritzier-Perdöhl class from
Liteò-Dolní Vlence,102 are all reflections of contacts with the Thuringian kingdom
during the early Merovingian period. Our knowledge of the late Vinaøice group has
been considerably augmented by the recent excavation of the cemetery in Prague-
Zlièín with its 177 graves (Plate IV.C–D), one of the largest of its kind in Central
Europe. Such a large number of graves is a strong argument against the idea that the
hallmark of the period were small, ‘princely’ cemeteries with only a few graves.
Although the majority of the graves were robbed, a number of golden and silver
artefacts were found, which suggests that the cemetery was used by the élites of that
time.103 Finds of brooches of the Sokolnice-Bákodpuszta-Gursuf type as well as of
Rhenish glass vessels with oblique grooves link the cemetery in Prague-Zlièín to
similar assemblages in Ve¾ký Pesek-Sikenica and Bräunlingen.104
The Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain Group
The earliest knowledge of this group dates back to 1932, the year in which the
Czech archaeologist Bedøich Dubský discovered and then excavated a cemetery
with 522 cremations in Pøeš•ovice (southern Bohemia). The characteristic that
Dubský immediately recognized in the archaeological record of the Pøeš•ovice
cemetery was a number of handmade carinated bowls with oval faceting or oblique
grooves ([DAO14]Figure 9.11.D1–4). Other characteristics were identified later,
during excavations on neighbouring sites in Bavaria, on the Regen, Naab, and
101
Eduard Droberjar and Dan Stolz, ‘Nové nálezy germánských a slovanských spon z 5. a 7.
století ve støedních Èechách’, Archeologie ve støedních Èechách, 9 (2005), 523–30 (p. 523 and fig. 1).
102
Droberjar and Stolz, ‘Nové nálezy’, p. 524–25 and fig. 2.
103
Vávra, Jiøík, Kubálek, and Kuchaøík, ‘Pohøebištì z doby’, pp. 565–77. The dominant grave
orientation is west–east. In most graves, grave goods were placed in a special niche carved into the
western pit wall. See also Jaroslav Jiøík and Jiøí Vávra, ‘Druhá etapa výzkumu pohøebištì z doby
stìhování národù v Praze-Zlièínì’, in Barbarská sídlištì: Chronologické a historické aspekty jejich
vývoje ve svìtle nových výzkumù, ed. by Droberjar, Komoróczy, and Vachùtová, pp. 241–54 (pp.
242–46, and figs 2–6, 9–12).
104
Jiøík and Vávra, ‘Druhá etapa’, pp. 250, 252 and figs. 13 and 18; Gerhard Fingerlin,
‘Bräunlingen, ein frühmerowingerzeitlicher Adelssitz an der Römerstraße durch den südlichen
Schwarzwald‘, Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1997, 146–48 and pl. 14; Das
Gold der Barbarfürsten, Schätze aus Prunkgräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Zwischen Kaukasus
und Gallien, ed. by Alfred Wieczorek and Patrick Périn (Stuttgart, 2001), pp. 61, 170–71 with figs
4.5.2.1, 4.15.1.2, 4.15.1.1 and 4.15.3.1.
Schwarzach rivers. The finds from Altenburg near Cham (eastern Bavaria) were
dated to the D1/D2 period, but finds attributed to the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain
group have by now been identified not only in the environs of Regensburg, but also
on Roman military sites on the frontier, for example, in Neuburg and Straubing.
As a consequence, such finds were quickly interpreted as evidence of the presence
of Germanic federates among the Roman troops on the frontier. More recently,
settlement sites attributed to the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group have also been
identified in southern (Zbudov, Zliv, and Sedlec), as well as western Bohemia
(Nýøany, Plzeò-Radobyèice I and II, Vochov, and Plzeò-Vinice) ([DAO14]Figure
9.11.A).105 Quite surprising is the presence of artefacts most typical for the
Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group within assemblages, which can otherwise be associ-
ated only with the Vinaøice group, especially in Prague-Dolní Liboc I
([DAO14]Figure 9.11.C) and II, grave 7 in Litovice, and Prague-Ruzynì.106
The development of the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group is not yet very clear.
Most archaeologists seem to agree that a key component for the rise of the group
were the local Elbe-Germanic and Thuringian traditions. But, as Michel Kazanski
and Renaud Legoux have pointed out, the carinated bowls with oval faceting are
strikingly similar to bowls known from ceramic assemblages of the Chernyakhov-
Sântana de Mureº culture.107 According to Günter Moosbauer, either the bowls in
question appeared as an influence from Eastern Europe, or they are an indepen-
dent, albeit similar, development ultimately based on the imitation of Roman glass
bowls with faceted ornament.108 A strong argument in favour of the latter possibil-
ity is that, while the Chernyakhov-Sântana de Mureº bowls are wheel-thrown, all
Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain pots known so far are handmade. True, a certain influence
from the Middle Danube region has been recently recognized for the settlement
finds from Zliv, and especially Zbudov in southern Bohemia, which have produced
wheel-made pottery of provincial and East European production ([DAO14]Figure
105
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, fig. 15; Pavel Bøicháèek, ‘Nové nálezy z Vochova’, Pìší zóna 10, Revue
pro památkovou péèi, archeologii, historii, výtvarné umìní a literaturu, [DAO5](2002), 15–16.
106
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, fig. 9.2; Pleinerová, ‘Litovice (okr. Praha-západ)’, fig. 10.1–2;
Kuchaøík, Bureš, Pleinerová, and Jiøík, ‘Nové poznatky’.
107
Michel Kazanski and Renaud Legoux, ‘Contribution à l’étude des témoignages archéolo-
giques des Goths en Europe orientale à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: la chronologie de la
culture de Èernjachov récente’, Archéologie médievale, 18 (1988), 7–53 (p. 26 with pl. 3.46).
108
Günter Moosbauer, Kastell und Friedhöfe der Spätantike in Straubing: Römer und Ger-
manen auf dem Weg zu den ersten Bajuwaren (Passau, 2005), pp. 66 with n. 266, and 230–31.
9.11.F).109 This has shifted the pendulum in the opposite direction, with a recent
find of a brooch of the Bratei class in Vochov supporting Moosbauer’s idea of a
strong influence from Eastern Europe.110 More evidence is surely needed before a
firm solution to this problem will be offered.
While waiting for new finds, though, another problem is the presence of élite
graves. The only such finds known so far from the entire territory of the Pøeš•ovice-
Friedenhain group are those from Regensburg, as well as from a rich grave in Fürst
([DAO14]Figure 9.11.E).111 The burial assemblage from Fürst included a glass jug,
a glass beaker, three belt or footwear buckles with cloisonné ornament, and a mas-
sive golden bracelet with widened ends. Buckles are very typical for the ‘Danubian
fashion’ of the D2 period, while bracelets were symbols of rank. Since no such finds
are known from other assemblages of the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group, and since
analogies for the Fürst finds may be found only in the Middle or Lower Danube
region, it can be assumed that the burial was that of a nobleman of eastern, perhaps
Danubian, origin who, together with his followers, may have served, probably as
federates, in some unit of the Roman army stationed on the frontier in Bavaria. He
may even have been, like the man buried in a mid-fifth-century grave in Pouan, the
leader of a Hunnic unit in the Roman army. Be that as it may, there is no com-
parison between the Fürst and Regensburg finds and the assemblages attributed,
on a much firmer basis, to the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group.
If we set the Fürst and Regensburg finds aside, then the only high-status warrior
burial within the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group is that from Kemathen.112 Even so,
the Kemathen burial can hardly compare to the élite graves known from other
parts of barbaricum. The Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group thus appears as relatively
poor in material culture correlates of social stratification. The only power centre
known in Bohemia for the entire period of the early ‘Migration period’ is outside
the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group and within the territory of the Vinaøice group.
Bedøich Svoboda had long advanced the idea that the pottery of the Pøeš•ovice-
109
Petr Zavøel, ‘Souèasný stav výzkumu doby øímské a doby stìhování národù v jižních
Èechách’, Archeologické rozhledy, 51 (1999), 468–516 (p. 503 with figs 25.2, 26.3, and 27.9 and
11); Eduard Droberjar, Vìk barbarù (Prague, 2005), p. 73.
110
Bøicháèek, ‘Nové nálezy’, p. 16.
111
Fehr, ‘Bemerkungen’, pp. 204–28.
112
Bernd Steidl, ‘Zeitgenosse der Nibelungen: Der Krieger von Kemathen’, in Archäologie in
Bayern: Fenster zur Vergangenheit, ed. by C. Sebastian Sommer (Regensburg, 2006), p. 234.
Friedenhain group was of north Bohemian influence.113 The settlement assem-

blages excavated in Prague-Dolní Liboc I–II and Litovice have confirmed the idea
of a close contact between the Vinaøice and the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain groups.114
Moreover, as Dieter Quast has noted, the influences of both within the Main River
region or in Alamannia are intertwined, often on one and the same site, as in Kahl
am Main.115 In the absence of any power centre for the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain
group, it is probably safer to assume that northern Bohemia was the political core
of a multiethnic political formation.
Bohemia During the Early Merovingian Age (Phase E1), and the Politics
of Interregional Relationships
In order to understand what happened during the final stage of the Vinaøice-
Group, it is necessary first to take a brief look at the historical circumstances and
interregional relations across the European continent c. 500.116 In the West, a
number of so-called successor states had emerged at that time on the territory of
formerly Roman provinces. In most cases, including those of the Ostrogoths in
Italy and of the Thuringians in south-eastern and central Germany, those states
were multiethnic formations. The first recorded contact between Thuringians and
Ostrogoths dates back to 451, when both groups participated in Attila’s campaign
to Gaul. After defeating the Sueves, the Sciri, and the Sarmatians at the battle on
the river Bolia, c. 469, the Ostrogoths moved into Pannonia Prima. After their
migration to Italy, the border between the Ostrogoths and the Thuringians was
established on the Upper Danube.117 During Theoderic’s rule, especially between
504 and 505, the Ostrogothic kingdom expanded into the Middle Danube region,
besides already controlling, ever since the defeat of Odoacer, both Dalmatia and
the province of Savia. Following his general’s victory over the Gepids, the Ostro-
gothic king also won Pannonia Secunda, including the important city of Sirmium.
Theoderic temporarily controlled the Visigothic kingdom of Spain and intervened
113
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì, pp. 101–03.
114
Kuchaøík, Bureš, Pleinerová, and Jiøík, ‘Nové poznatky’, pp. 363–64 and fig. 2.1, 5.
115
Teichner, Kahl am Main, pp. 51, 111, pls 5.7 and 45.
116
For a more detailed account, see Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West,
376–568 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 284–319.
117
Friedrich Lotter, ‘Zur Rolle der Donausueben in der Völkerwanderungszeit’, Mittelungen
des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 76 (1968), 275–98 (pp. [DAO15]202–03).
in Vandal politics in northern Africa. In an effort to build an anti-Frankish coali-

tion, he further developed diplomatic relations with the Thuringians, the Varni,
and the Herules in the area north of the Alps. The Franks had emerged as a major
power shortly after expelling the Visigoths from Aquitaine and defeating the
Alamanni in 506. At about the same time, the Lombards defeated the Herules,
occupied Moravia c. 508, and emerged as a new power in the northern region of the
Carpathian Basin.
That in the meantime the Thuringians had moved into Raetia is known from
written sources mentioning their attack and sack of Porta Batavia (Passau) in 480.
Artefacts of Thuringian inspiration begin to show up in assemblages in Bavaria at
about the same time, as with the pair of fibulae of the Niemberg class from a female
burial excavated in Munich-Ramersdorf ([DAO16]Figure 9.13.A). A Thuringian
influence may also be detected farther to the north in Upper Franconia, for
example, the fibula of the Niemberg class from Saffelberg ([DAO16]Figure
9.13.E1). Thuringians may have been buried in Hirschlaid and Staffelstein
([DAO16]Figure 9.13.E2), two cemeteries dated to Schmidt’s period IIB.118
Excavations in Eggolsheim and Oberspitzheim suggest that during the second half
of the fifth century, a number of hillforts in the area were reoccupied, probably by
Thuringians.The presence of Thuringians has also been postulated for the
cemetery excavated in Zeuzleben ([DAO16]Figure 9.13.B), and their traces have
been discovered in local place names.119 Such a prominent presence of Thuringians
in Bavaria and Upper Franconia begs the question of what their influence was
upon late fifth- and early sixth-century developments in Bohemia.
Until that question is properly dealt with in future studies, let us now turn to
the other protagonists of the early sixth century, the Lombards. Most scholars have
assumed that by 500, the Lombards ruled over Bohemia, but in more recent studies
the archaeological assemblages previously attributed to Lombards have been re-
attributed to Thuringians.120 As Dušan Tøeštík pointed out, the source explicitly
mentioning Lombards ruling over Bohemia is a much later one, the Chronicon
118
Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit.
119
Jochen Haberstroh, Germanische Funde der Kaiser- und Völkerwanderungszeit aus
Oberfranken (Kallmünz, 2000), p. 134; Ludwig Wamser, Eine thüringisch-fränkische Adels- und
Gefolgschaftgrablege des 6./7. Jahrhunderts bei Zeuzleben (Würzburg, 1984), pp. 1–2 and 4–6.
120
Svoboda, Èechy v dobì , pp. 235–36. For Thuringians ‘replacing’ Lombards, see Droberjar,
Vìk barbarù, p. 153. For a slightly different interpretation, see Rastislav Korený, ‘Èechy v 6. století:
K problému konce germánského osídlení Èech’, Archeologie ve støedních Èechách, 9 (2005),
459–522 (p. 480).
Figure 9.12. Thuringians on the Upper Danube in Bavaria. (A) Munich-Ramersdorf, female burial
assemblage (after Keller, ‘Germanenpolitik Roms’, fig. 11); (B) Zeuzleben, grave 10 (after Wamser,
Eine thüringisch-fränkische Adels- und Gefolgschaftgrablege, fig. 8); (C) Thuringian wheel-made
pottery from Austria; (D) the distribution of Thuringian pottery in Austria (after Friesinger and
Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, figs 42 and 55); (E: 1) Saffelberg, fibula of the
Niemberg class; (2) Staffelstein, Thuringian wheel-made pot (after Haberstroh, Germanische
Funde, pls 112.17 and 119.6); (3) Regensburg, Thuringian handmade pot (after Koch, Die
Grabfunde, pl. 34.10); (4–5) S. Antonio, buckle loop and tongue (after de Vingo and Fossati, ‘Gli
elementi da cintura’, pl. 65.5–6); (F) the distribution of crossbow fibulae of the Rathewitz class
(after Schulze-Dörrlamm, ‘Romanisch oder germanisch?’, p. 615 fig. 22).
Figure 9.13. Interregional relations in the late fifth and the early sixth centuries. (A) the distribution
of so-called Ostrogothic bow fibulae (after Böhme, ‘Zur Bedeutung’, fig. 13); (B) Krefeld-Stratum,
bowl of the Altenerding-Aubing type; (C) the distribution of handmade [DAO17] of the Kaschau
6 and Altenerding-Aubing types (after Fischer, ‘Ein glätverziertes Knickwandschälchen’, figs 1 and
2); (D) Lužec nad Vltavou, grave 10 (after Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, fig. 7); (E) the
distribution of helmets of the Baldenheim type (after Müller-Wille, ‘Prunkgräber’, fig. 15); (F) the
distribution of Goldgriffspatha swords of the Althußheim type (after Müller-Wille, ‘Prunkgräber’,
fig. 8).
Gothanum written in 807–10. By contrast, from the little late fifth- or sixth-
century sources have to say about Lombards at this stage, it appears that Bohemia
may have been at the most a transit zone for Lombards moving farther to the south
and south-east.121 Conversely, a Thuringian influence, if not presence, seems to be
supported by both written and archaeological sources. By 500 or so, contacts be-
tween the Thuringian and Ostrogothic kingdoms are specifically mentioned in the
written sources, especially in connection with Hermenfrid’s marriage to Theod-
eric’s niece Amalaberga. At some point between 511 and 526 a treaty between
Theoderic and the Thuringian king allowed for the settlement of barbarians, most
likely of Bohemian origin, within the former province of Raetia. This barbarian
group would later turn into a new ethnic group known as Baiuvars (Bavarians). In
531, the Thuringian kingdom, which may have exercised its influence upon Bohe-
mia as well, was destroyed by the Frankish armies.122 The archaeological record,
which could be, with a certain degree of certainty, dated to this period, particularly
that of the cemeteries excavated in Irlmaut and Straubing, is particularly interest-
ing. According to Ursula Koch, specific types of fibulae, as well as the frequency of
skeletons with artificially deformed skulls, all point to a number of parallels with
other sites in the eastern Merovingian area, particularly in the Bohemian basin
(Prague-Podbaba and Radovesice). Contacts between Bohemia and Bavaria may
of course have been in both directions.123
On the other hand, contacts between Thuringians and Ostrogoths have been
illustrated with fibulae of the Reggio Emilia ([DAO18]Figure 9.5.A) and with
crossbow fibulae of Werner’s class Gurina-Grepault (Figure 9.14.E) and Schulze-
Dörrlamm’s class Desana (Figure 9.14.F).124 Thuringian-Ostrogothic contacts in-
volving gift-giving may have been responsible for the presence of a helmet of Italian
manufacture in Stößen. Early helmets of the Baldenheim type appear in Italy, in the
Balkans, and in Alamannia ([DAO 19 ]Figure 9.5.E), while later specimens are known
from the area controlled in the sixth century by the Franks.125 An Ostrogothic
mediation has also been assumed in order to explain the deposition of early sixth-
century solidi or of their ‘barbarian’ imitations in Thuringian burial assemblages.
121
Dušan Tøeštík, Poèátky Pøemyslovcù: Vstup Èechù do dìjin (530–935) (Prague, 1997), p. 36.
122
Tøeštík, Poèátky Pøemyslovcù, pp. 38–39.
123
Ursula Koch, Die Grabfunde der Merowingerzeit aus dem Donautal um Regensburg (Berlin,
1968), pp. 121–24.
124
Hans Losert and Andrej Pleterski, Altenerding in Oberbayern (Berlin, 2003), pp. 88–89.
125
Müller-Wille, ‘Prunkgräber’, p. 143 with fig. 15.
Figure 9.14. Late fifth- and early sixth-century brooches. (A) the distribution of ‘Thuringian’ tongs-
shaped bow fibulae; (B) the distribution of bow fibulae of the Staß class; (C) the distribution of
bow fibulae of the Mistøín class; (D) the distribution of bow fibulae of the Eisleben-Stößen class;
(E) the distribution of crossbow brooches of the Gurina-Grepault class; (F) the distribution of
crossbow brooches of the Desana class. After Losert and Pleterski, Altenerding, maps 3, 8–9, and
11; Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, ‘Romanisch oder germanisch? Untersuchungen zu den
Armbrust- und Bügelknopffibel des 5. und 6.Jhs. n. Chr. aus den Gebieten westlich des Rheins und
südlich der Donau’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 33 (1986), fig. 111.
Ten coins are so far known from the eastern and central parts of Germany, nine of
them struck for Roman emperors, from Anastasius to Justinian, and another being
an imitative Ostrogothic issue of Athalaric.126 A similar picture may be obtained
from the examination of coin finds from neighbouring Bohemia.127
Under [DAO 20 ]Theodorich, imitative gold coins were struck with countermarks
copying old Roman bronze coins. On the other hand, the Ostrogoths must have also
used coins struck within the imperial mints. That such coins reached the northern
region of barbaricum via the Ostrogothic kingdom is demonstrated by the fact that
hoards of gold solidi on the Baltic Sea shore and in southern Scandinavia end with
coins struck for Emperor Justinian. In other words, no solidi reached the North
after the destruction of the Ostrogothic kingdom by Justinian’s armies.128
Interesting conclusions could further be drawn from the examination of the
distribution of two particular types of pottery known as Kaschau 6 ([DAO21]Figure
9.5.B) and Altenerding-Aubing, respectively. Most finds dated c. 500 cluster in the
region of the Upper and Middle Danube, that is, along the frontier between Ala-
mannia and the Ostrogothic kingdom ([DAO19]Figure 9.5.C). In this context the
presence of pots of the Kaschau 6 type in Prague-Podbaba is significant. Thomas
Fischer has even suggested that the pottery in question may have been produced
in the area.129 The political situation in Central Europe was indeed favourable to
the development of a local trade network along the Danube, which could have oc-
casionally expanded north of that river as well. After all, the production of wheel-
made pottery with burnished decoration had by then a respectable tradition in the
Middle Danube region.130 The importance of the Danube frontier results from the
efforts the Ostrogoths made to maintain the late antique military organization in
the borderlands. Theoderic is said to have been magister utrisque militae in charge
126
Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit, pp. 157–59.
127
Militký, ‘Finds of Roman and Early Byzantine Gold Coins’, pp. 64–65 with pl. 6. All coins
are issues of Anastasius, Justin I, and Justinian.
128
Georges Depeyrot, ‘Les Monnayages barbares sont-ils la continuité du monnayage romain?’,
in Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage
and Monetary History 25.–27.3. 1993, ed. by Cathy E. King and David G. Wigg (Berlin, 1996),
pp. 129–37.
129
Thomas Fischer, ‘Ein glätverziertes Knickwandschälchen des Typs Altenerding-Aubing von
Krefeld-Stratum’, in Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit, ed. by Tejral, pp. 125–27. See also Jiøí
Zeman, ‘Na kruhu robená keramika z pozdní fáze doby stìhování národù v Èechách’, Praehistorica
21, Varia archaeologica, 6 (1994), 53–68 (p. 63).
130
Friesinger and Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, fig. 57.
of the administration of Italy. It is therefore possible to regard the military units

comites civitatum and duces provinciarum in Italy as successors of comitatenses, with
the units in frontier forts in Raetia, Pannonia, Dalmatia, and Savia as a substitute
for the now defunct units of limitanei. A soldier’s pay was assessed in the form of
the perquisite and in particular in monetary form during the campaign.131 Much
like in the fourth century, the presence of the military on the frontier may have
stimulated the rise of local markets, which in turn encouraged the continuity of
local manufacturing traditions.132 Pottery of the Kaschau 6 and Altenerding-
Aubing also appears in some quantity in Alamannia. It is known that Theoderic
congratulated Clovis upon his victory over the Alamanni, and the archaeological
evidence confirms that the important trade centre at Runder Berg near Urach was
destroyed at about that time, no doubt in connection with the Frankish occupa-
tion of Alamannia north of the Upper Danube.133 Prior to the Frankish onslaught,
Alamannia seems therefore to have had strong commercial ties to the south,
particularly to Italy. This is further substantiated by the find of a Goldgriffspatha
sword of the Althußheim type in Bräunlingen. Such swords were used to mark
high-status burials (one such sword was found in Childeric’s tomb in Tournai), but
they must have been manufactured in the Mediterranean region, either within the
empire or in Ostrogothic Italy ([DAO19]Figure 9.5.F).134
A Thuringian influence, if not presence, in the region of the Danube frontier
has been documented through finds of fibulae with good analogies in eastern and
central Germany. This is the case of fibulae of the Mistøín class (Figure 9.14.C), of
fibulae with opposing bird-heads (Figure 9.15.A and B), of bow fibulae of the Staß
(Figure 9.14.B), Eisleben-Stößen (Figure 9.14.D), and Weimar/Arcy-Restitue
classes (Figure 9.15.C), as well as of ‘Thuringian’ tongs-shaped fibulae (Figure
9.14.A, all of which have been found in assemblages in Bohemia to be dated to c.
500 or shortly thereafter). An indirect link may even exist between the tongs-
shaped fibulae and fibulae from later assemblages of the Vinaøice group. Con-
versely, the wheel-made pottery believed to be of Thuringian origin appears as far
south as Lower Austria ([DAO16]Figure 9.13.C, D, E3).135 Judging by the existing
131
Philippe Contamine, Válka ve støedovìku (Prague, 2004), p. 31.
132
Edward James, Frankové (Prague, 1997), pp. 118–20 with fig. 14.
133
James, Frankové, p. 86.
134
Fingerlin, ‘Bräunlingen’, p. 147–48 and pl. 14.
135
Friesinger and Kerchler, ‘Töpferöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, figs 42 and 55; Koch, Die
Grabfunde, pl. 34.10.
Figure 9.15. Late fifth- and sixth-century fibulae. (A) the distribution of fibulae with opposing
bird-heads (after Losert and Pleterski, Altenerding, map 10); (B) distribution of fibulae with
opposing bird-heads (after Koch, Bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit, map 24); (C) fibulae of the
Weimar/Arcy-Restitue class (after Koch, Bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit, map 25).
evidence, Thuringians or barbarians under Thuringian political influence may have

had a substantial contribution to the development of commercial networks on
both sides of the Danube frontier, as well as to the military infrastructure in that
region. A Thuringian political influence has also been assumed on the basis of the
examination of ‘exotic’ foreign goods associated with the family burial no. 5 within
the Pleidesheim cemetery in Alamannia.136 In Bohemia, a strong Thuringian influ-
ence was recently advocated by many archaeologists. However, there are serious
problems of ethnic interpretation, not the least of which is that the so-called
Lombard occupation of Moravia begins c. 500 with assemblages typically including
‘Thuringian’ artefacts.137
To be sure, such artefacts are also known from contemporary assemblages in
Italy. According to the excavators, the tongue of a belt buckle with rigged loop
found within the S. Antonio fort in Liguria ([DAO16]Figure 9.13.E5) has good
analogies in southern and central Germany.138 Similarly, ‘Thuringian’ crossbow
136
Koch, Das alamanisch-fränkische, pp. 394–95.
137
Jaroslav Tejral, ‘Beiträge zur Chronologie des langobardischen Fundstoffes nördlich der
mittleren Donau’, in Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit, ed by Tejral, pp. 313–58 (pp. 328–33).
For a historical interpretation of this phenomenon, see Tøeštík, Poèátky Pøemyslovcù, p. 36.
Similarly, Bavarians may be associated with artefacts of ‘Thuringian’ origin.
138
Paolo de Vingo and Angelo Fossati, ‘Gli elementi da cintura’, in S. Antonio, un insediamento
fortificato nella Liguria bizantina, ed. by Tizziano Mannoni and Daniele Arobba (Bordighera,
2001), pp. 475–82 (pp. 477–79 with pl. 65.6). A very similar buckle tongue is also known from
Crypta Balbi in Rome: Maria Stela Arena and others, Roma dall’antichità al medioevo: Archeologia
e storia nel Museo Nazionale Romano, Crypta Balbi (Milano, 2001), p. 372 and pl. II.4.581.
Another similar find comes from the isle of St Andrea in the Biotope ‘Loppio Lake’ (Trento, Italy),
which is however dated to the early Lombard period: Barbara Murina, Carlo Andrea Postinger, and
Maurizio Battisti, ‘Ricerche archeologiche a Loppio, isola di S. Andrea (TN): Relazione preliminare
sulla campagna di scavo 2004’, Annali del Museo Civico di Rovereto, 20 (2004), 23–51 (p. 39 and
fig. 20). The two fibulae of the Straß class (variant 2), which were found in Split (Croatia), also
point to a possibly Thuringian influence. A ‘Thuringian’ fibula of the hybrid type is known from
Ravenna, and a tongs-shaped one from Novi Banovci in Vojvodina (northern Serbia), a region con-
trolled in the early sixth century by the Gepids. Zdenko Vinski, ‘O rovašenim fibulama ostrogota
i tirinžana povodomu rijetkog tirinškog nalaza u Saloni’, Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 6–7
(1972–73), 177–227 (pp. 178–79, 217, 226 with pls 1.1, 2, and 12.69); Zrinka Buljeviæ, Sanja
Ivèeviæ, Jagoda Mardešiæ, and Ema Višiè-Ljubiæ, ‘Artes minores Salonae Christinae’, in Salona
Christiana: Izložba u povodu XIII. Meðunarodnog kongresa za starokšæansku arheologiju, Split 25.
9.–31. 10. 1994, ed. by Emilio Marin (Split, 1994), pp. 213–90 (p. 222 with figs 20–21). It is
possible to date the Split fibulae before 536, the year in which the city of Salona was retaken by the
Romans. See Milan Inaviševiæ, ‘Povijesni izvori’, in Salona Christiana: Izložba u povodu XIII, ed.
by Marin, pp. 105–95 (p. 191). Procopius of Caesarea, Wars, 6.13 and 7.25 mentions the presence
fibulae of the Rathewitz class have been found as far south as Toulouse
([DAO16]Figure 9.13.F).139
The Identity of the Vinaøice Group
Identifying the ethnic groups of the ‘Migration period’ has traditionally been a
problem of how to read the written sources of Late Antiquity. Identifying the
polity in northern Bohemia, the territory of which corresponds to that of the
Vinaøice group, with any of the ethnic groups mentioned in those sources requires
a re-examination of what is known about the location of the Central European
barbarians. Of special importance appears to be the location of so-called Danube
or Pannonian Sueves of the ‘Migration period’. They appear as a prominent group
in the much discussed narrative of Jordanes’s Getica, who, writing almost a century
afterwards, presents them as the major rival of the Pannonian Goths in the events
of AD 468, some fifteen years after Attila’s death.140 Friedrich Lotter rejected the
idea of treating the Pannonian Suevi as descendants from the second-century
Quadi mentioned by Roman sources as living in south-east Slovakia and Moravia.
Thus Lotter distinguishes the Danube Suevi from Quadi-turned-Suevi, barbarians
known to have been associated to the Vandals and Alans of AD 406, who partici-
pated in the ‘great Rhine crossing’ and the invasion of Gaul and Spain. 141
The archaeological picture of the Suevi in Spain has been drawn primarily by
Alexander Koch, with some recent additions by María Mariné Isidro, on the basis
of comparison with the archaeological record of the Danube region.142 As for the
of the Thuringian royal family in Ostrogothic Italy; see also Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungs-
zeit, p. 176.
139
Wolfgang Ebel-Zepezauer, Studien zur Archäologie der Westgoten vom 5.–7. Jh. n. Chr.
(Mainz, 2000), p. 36.
140
For Jordanes as a problematic source, see Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian
History, AD 550–800: Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton, 1988), pp.
20–111.
141
Lotter, ‘Zur Rolle’, p. 280. Jerome, Epistolae 123.15, ed. J. Labourt, VII (Paris, 1949–63), pp.
91–92: ‘Quadus, Vandalus, Sarmata, Halani, Gepides, Heruli, Saxones, Burgundiones, Alemanni,
et, o lugenda respublica! hostes Pannonii.’ For a cautionary note against taking Jerome’s letter
written from Bethlehem in 409 at face value, see Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides: The Migration
Age and the Late Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 2006), pp. 81–82.
142
Koch ‘Zum archäologischen Nachweis der Sueben’, pp. 156–98; María Mariné Isidro,
‘Fibulas romanas in Hispania: la Meseta’, Archivo español de arqueología, 24 (2001), 272–73 with
Danube Suevi, Friedrich Lotter regarded them as descendants of the Marcomanni

mentioned in late fourth-century sources as ruled by a queen named Fritigil. Those
barbarians lived since the early 300s in the Vienna Basin, as well as on the shores
of the Neusiedler Lake in Lower Austria. Under Honorius, there were Marco-
manni in auxilia palatina named Honoriani seniores, and iuniores, as well as in
cavalry units stationed in Africa.
Whether or not we accept Lotter’s idea, the barbarian presence around Vienna
is attested by finds of fourth-century handmade pottery of Elbe-Germanic tradi-
tion (Figure 9.1.B).143 After c. 400, there are significant changes in the settlement
pattern of the region, which have been traditionally attributed to the arrival of
Herules and Rugians by the mid-fifth century. Lotter places the Marcomanni-
turned-Suevi in the former province of Savia, around Siscia, Neviodunum, Emona,
Fines, Acervo, and Romula, primarily on the basis of a later source, the Ravenna
Geographer. According to Friedrich Lotter’s interpretation of Jordanes, Procopius,
and Cassiodorus, this is the region called Suavia (the land of the Sueves).144 The
mid-fifth-century Marcomanni-turned-Suevi are therefore located within a vast
area stretching from the Neusiedler Lake to the north to the Sava River to the
south. Other scholars demur, and if anything, the debate around the location of the
Danube Suevi is far from closed.145
However, the problem may also be approached from a different angle. Adopting
a proud ancient name, Suevi (first mentioned by Tacitus), was a way to bring
together, under a common identity, disparate groups of barbarians. This is clearly
the case of the Silingi and Hasdingi, said to have come together as Vandals, the
same people who would later invade Africa.146 One should not of course exclude
the possibility of small-scale migrations from northern barbaricum, but the ‘rise’
of the Danube Suevi is more a political than a demographic phenomenon. The
pls 186.1426–28 and 187.1429–30. See also Fernando Lopez Sánchez in this volume.
143
Michaela Kronberger and Martin Mosser, ‘Spätrömisches Gräberfeld Neuer Markt’, Fun-
dort Wien, [DAO5] (2001), 158–221 with pl. 7.8–9.
144
Lotter, ‘Zur Rolle’, p. 278; Jordanes, Getica, 273, ed. by Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA,
5.1 (Berlin, 1882), p. 129: ‘Dalmatia S u a v i a e vicina erat nec a Pannonis fines multum distabat,
praesertim ubi tunc Gothi residebant’; Jordanes, Romana, 218, ed. by Mommsen, MGH AA, 5.1,
p. 28; Procopius of Caesarea, Wars, 5.15.25 and 5.16.9, ed. by J. Haury (Leipzig, 1906); Cassio-
dorus, Variae, 4.49 and 5.14 and 15, ed. by Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA, 12 (Berlin, 1894).
145
Max Martin, ‘Mixti Alamannis Suevi? Der Beitrag der Alamanischen Gräberfelder am
Basler Rheinknie’, in Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit, ed. by Tejral, pp. 195–223 (pp. 218–19).
146
Goffart, Barbarian Tides, pp. 82–87.
Pannonian Suevi are mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris as participating in Attila’s

army in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451). Following Attila’s death, the
Danubian Suevi were among those who successfully rebelled against and eventually
defeated the Huns at the battle on the river Nedao (454). By 469, the Suevi were
allied Rugians and Sciri under the leadership of Edica, with Sarmatians, and Gepids
against the Pannonian Goths led by Thiudimer. However, Thiudimer prevailed
over the anti-Gothic coalition with a great slaughter in the battle on the Bolia
River.147 Thiudimer then pursued the remaining Suevi, who were still under the
leadership of a king named Hunimund. According to Jordanes, Thiudimer crossed
the frozen Danube and fell upon the Suevi in their own country, a region described
as having Baibari to the east, Franks to the west, Burgundians to the south, and
Thuringians to the north.148 Whether or not he found it in Cassiodorus, Jordanes’s
reference to the Suevian territory is not without problems.149 He has the Suevi both
in Pannonia and between Franks and Burgundians. In an attempt to solve the con-
tradictions of Jordanes’s text, Friedrich Lotter and other scholars suggested that a
group of Suevi fleeing the Goths after the battle on the river Bolia moved west-
wards into Alamannia. Such an interpretation is substantiated by a passage in Vita
Severini mentioning a certain leader named Hunumund who, together with his
barbarians, sacked Porta Batavia (Passau). Hunumund is not called a ‘king’ in the
Vita Severini, but some have identified him with Hunimund. Nonetheless, in the
early 500s, the bulk of the Central European Suevi were in Pannonia.150 A migra-
tion of a Suevic group to the west has been linked to the appearance of fibulae from
the Middle Danube region in burial assemblages excavated around Basel (Switzer-
land) and dated to the second half of the fifth century.151 But such artefacts could
have reached the territory of present-day Switzerland by a number of other ways,
such as trade or matrimonial alliances, without any migration of a large group of
people. Dieter Quast has skillfully delineated a number of other links in the
147
Jordanes, Getica, 277–79, pp. 129–30. Bolia has been tentatively identified with the Sárvíz
River in Hungary; see Attila Kiss, ‘Der Goldene Schildrahmen von Sárvíz aus dem 5. Jahrhundert
und der Skirenkönig Edica’, Alba Regia, 26 (1997), 83–132.
148
Jordanes, Getica, 280 [DAO22]. This is the earliest reference to Bavarians of certain date.
See Goffart, Barbarian Tides, pp. 218–19.
149
For a critique of the idea that Jordanes only copied Cassiodorus’s now lost work, see
Goffart, Barbarian Tides, pp. 59–61.
150
Lotter, ‘Zur Rolle’, p. 277.
151
Péter Straub, ‘Die archäologische Hinterlassenschaft der praelangobardischen Periode in
Transdanubien’, in Germanen am Plattensee, ed. by Windl, pp. 13–15 (p. 14 with fig. 3).
archaeological record of Alamannia and the Middle Danube region, respectively.

No artefacts could therefore be assigned to the Danube Suevi, and only to them.152
Jordanes placed Hunimund’s Suevi in the vicinity of Bavarians, Thuringians,
Franks, and Burgundians. He apparently knew of no other barbarian polities in
Central Europe. Most importantly, when locating the Suevian territory, Jordanes
does not mention the Herules among its neighbours, perhaps because after the
battle of the Bolia River, the Rugiland in Lower Austria had served as a launchpad
for Thiudimer’s punitive expedition. In other words, the location of the Suevian
territory must be restricted to a stretch of land between Bohemia to the east and
Frankish Gaul to the west. Moreover, Jordanes’s account contains the first refer-
ence to Bavarians that could be dated with any degree of certainty. Archaeologists
link the origin of those new barbarians to the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group of
southern and western Bohemia. However, while information exists about the
settlement pattern of that group, no power centre or structure has so far been
identified. If the archaeological finds from Prague and Litovice are to be given any
weight in this interpretation, then one will have to conclude that the political
centre in the region was within the area covered by the Vinaøice group. A one-to-
one relation between Bavarians and the Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group is fraught
with other problems as well. No evidence exists for dating that group back into the
second half of the fifth century, while southern Bohemia appears to have been
deserted (or at least without any settlement sites) during the early 500s. If the
Bavarians came from Bohemia in the early 500s, then they must have come from
the northern district of that region. This, at least, is the picture drawn on the basis
of written sources by Dušan Tøeštík as well.153
Such an interpretation has the great advantage of indirectly offering an explana-
tion for both continuity and discontinuity within the territory covered by the
Vinaøice group. ‘Thuringian’ tongs-shaped bow fibulae may have well derived from
older fibulae commonly found in assemblages of the Vinaøice group. In northern
Bohemia, occupation of several sites dated to the early ‘Migration period’ and
attributed to that group continued well into the Merovingian period (early sixth
century). Since the bulk of the evidence for that continuity comes from old or non-
professional excavations of cemetery sites, the continuity thesis was initially estab-
lished on the basis of artefacts alone. There are by now sufficient examples of well-
excavated sites, such as Lužec nad Vltavou, Radonice nad Ohøí, Zbuzany, perhaps
152
Quast, ‘Höhensiedlungen’, p. 279; Martin, ‘Mixti Alamannis Suevi?’, pp. 218–19.
153
Tøeštík, Poèátky Pøemyslovcù, pp. 37–38.
also Litovice. The idea of settlement continuity is also confirmed by the results of
the recent excavations in Prague-Zlièín.154 Continuity was also assumed indirectly
on the basis of a family group of burials in the Pleidesheim cemetery in Alamannia.
The fibulae of the Niederflorstadt-Wiesloch class from grave 65 are directly in-
spired from fibulae of the Vinaøice group, while the bronze hoop from that same
grave has a good analogy in Mochov, a burial site in northern Bohemia dated to the
early Merovingian period.155 Settlement continuity has recently been documented
in Závist near Prague, a site which has produced a model for the casting of fibulae
of the Taman class.156
In conclusion, the archaeological record of early sixth-century Bohemia seems
to indicate at least some degree of continuity. There are also clear influences from
the Niemberg group, while certain burial assemblages (e.g., those excavated in
Lužec nad Vltavou) suggest the existence of finds and customs which can be
explained only in the context of the interregional contacts and, possibly, of
Thuringian political control.
The Bavarian Language
The idea that Bavarians originated from barbarians settled in Bohemia, themselves
of East Germanic origin, may also explain some features of their language. Old
Bavarian is an unambiguously West Germanic language, but with some interesting
East Germanic influences, particularly obvious at lexical level, with such words as
Ergetag ‘Tuesday’ (from Gothic *arjausdags, ‘the day of Arius’), Pfinztag ‘Thursday’
(from Gothic *pinta-dags, ‘the fifth day’), Maut ‘duty’ (from Gothic Mota), Dult
‘fair’, Pfoad ‘shirt’, etc. Equally interesting in this respect is the so-called Bavarian
dual which, if not a local feature, can only be of Gothic origin. No clear explanation
has so far been offered for such parallels between Old Bavarian and Gothic. Some
scholars believe that they originate in contacts with the population of the Middle
Danube region (Rugians, Herules, and others), presumably speaking East Ger-
manic languages, others that such parallels are simply an indication of linguistic
influences from Ostrogothic Italy, possibly through a later, Lombard mediation.157
154
Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, pp. 428–30; Vávra, Jiøík, Kubálek, and Kuchaøík,
‘Pohøebištì z doby’, p. 571; Jiøík and Vávra, ‘Druhá etapa’, pp. 251–53.
155
Koch, Das alamanisch-fränkische, p. 391.
156
Motyková, Drda, and Rybová, Závist, fig.54; Droberjar, Vìk barbarù, p. 185.
157
Heinrich Beck, ‘Bajuwaren – Philologisches’, in Reallexikon der germanischen
If a Bavarian identity was indeed formed among people from Bohemia whose
material culture was of Elbe-Germanic tradition, with strong influences from
groups of East European federates in the Middle Danube region, then the East
Germanic features of Old Bavarian will have to be dated as early as the first decades
of the fifth century. In any case, the new name shows that a territorial identifica-
tion was preferred to the prestigious ancient name of Suevi: Baiuvari derives from
*Bai(a)-haim-warjôz, ‘the warriors from Bohemia’.
Altertumskunde, I, ed. by Heinrich Beck, Herbert Jankuhn, Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, and Reinhard
Wenskus (Berlin, 1973), pp. 601–06.
Appendix 1
In the late 1990s, a hoard of silver was found in a small cave in the Elbe canyon, not
far from Høensko, on the northern frontier of Bohemia. The hoard included a bow
fibula of the Wiesbaden class, a crossbow brooch of Almgren’s class 158, two brace-
lets with widened ends, and three small ingots (Plate V.1). The only non-metallic
artefact is a glass bead of Temmpelmann-M¹czyñska’s type 300. Judging from its
content, the assemblage may be dated to the first half of the fifth century.158
Its total weight (131.64 gr) represents two fifths of a Roman pound. According
to the Theodosian Code (13.2.1) the ratio of gold to silver in the early 400s was 1
to 14.4, which means that a solidus was worth a fifth of a silver pound, that is, 12
miliarense or 30 siliquae.159 The Høensko hoard was therefore worth two solidi and
was thus the equivalent in gold of the belt buckle from Prague-Radotín.160 By com-
parison, a single golden bracelet of the Bluèina/Tournai type from an unknown
location in Central Bohemia was worth 36 solidi.161 The high value of the dress
accessories found on élite cemetery sites (such as Prague-Zlièín) or local commu-
nity ‘headman’ graves within more modest cemeteries in which members of the
lower strata of society were buried (Lužec nad Vltavou) thus appears to have been
considerable and points to the significant wealth differentials in existence within
the local society.162
158
Jaroslav Jiøík, Vladimír Peša, and Petr Jenè, ‘Ein Silberdepot der frühen Phase der Völker-
wanderungszeit aus der Elbe-Klamm bei Høensko, Bz. Dìèín, und seinem kulturellen Kontext’,
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, 50 (2008), [DAO23]in print.
The site is at a distance of 70 km from the nearest known settlement site dated to the same period.
159
Hahn, Die Ostprägung, pp. 15–17.
160
In the 430s, two solidi could purchase 25 modii (i.e. 1135 gallons) of corn. See Edward A.
Thompson, Hunové (Prague, 1999), p. 78.
161
Droberjar, ‘Zlatý náramek’, p. 522.
162
Korený and Kytlicová, ‘Dvì pohøebištì’, p. 419.
Appendix 2
An important site dated to the early ‘Migration period’ has been discovered in the
karst region of north-western Bohemia, namely at Èertova ruka (Devil’s Hand)
near the town of Semily (Plate V.2). The finds excavated between 1934 and 1935
at Novákova pec cavity included metal, glass, and amber artefacts. They can be
divided into three groups in terms of the geographical direction of their analogies.
The bridle bit and one of the belt buckles (Figure 9.16.2 and 5) may be attributed
to the ‘Danube fashion’ of the early fifth century, while the fragments of bronze
torcs, the two fibulae of the Niemberg class, together with the crossbow brooch
with polyhaedral bow knob, the glass and amber beads, the bronze ring with
knuckles, and the fragmentary bronze bracelet (Figure 9.16.3–4, 6–8, 11, and
14–22) have good analogies within assemblages of the Niemberg group of central
and eastern Germany and among finds from Main River valley. Finally, the frag-
ments of glassware and the buckle with animal heads are most likely of Roman
origin (Figure 9.16.1 and 23–27). Judging from such analogies, the assemblage was
most likely a one-time collection of artefacts dated to the second third of the fifth
century.163 If, as has been suggested, one should equate the Niemberg group with
Thuringians, then the Èertova ruka find could well represent the wealth accumu-
late by Thuringian warriors who, according to Sidonius Apollinaris, served in
Attila’s army during the 451 expedition to Gaul. Nonetheless, such an interpreta-
tion would be based on a bluntly culture-historical approach to the archaeological
record. The Èertova ruka finds may be regarded as evidence of cultural contacts
that the native communities of north-western Bohemia maintained both with the
neighbouring Roman provinces to the West and to the East and with other regions
of barbaricum to the north.
163
Jaroslav Jiøík, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Besiedlung Ost- und Nordostböhmens
während der späten Kaiserzeit und frühe Völkerwanderungszeit’, in The Turbulent Epoch: New
Materials from the Roman Period and the Migration Period. Conference in Krasnobrod 18. 9.–22.
9. 2007, ed. by Barbara Niezabitowska-Wiœniewska, Marcin Juœciñski, Piotr £uczkiewicz, and
Sylwester Sadowski (Lublin, 2008), pp. 156–77.
Figure 9.16. Èertova ruka (Devil’s Hand), artefacts from the Novákova pec cavity and from the
top of the crag: (1, 3–4, 6–9, 11–13, 22) bronze; (2, 5) copper-silver alloy; (10) iron; (14–20,
23–27) glass; and (21) amber. Drawing by author, courtesy of the Museum in Turnov.

Bohemian Barbarians Bohemia in Late Anti PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bohemian Barbarians Bohemia in Late Anti PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bohemian Barbarians Bohemia in Late Anti PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B OHEMIAN B ARBARIANS:

B OHEMIA IN L ATE A NTIQUITY

Figure 9.2. Archaeological finds

The archaeological record of fifth-century Bohemia is dominated by assemblages

Bohemia witnessed the spread of the so-called Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain group

‘East-Germanic’, Hunnic, and Sarmatian Foederati in the Late Roman

In order to understand the explosion of cultural influences during the D1 and D2

be attributed the cemeteries excavated in Cságvár and Szabadbattyán.14 Finds on

‘East-Germanic’ Influences and Late Antique Imports in Early Vinaøice

manufactured in Intercisa, on the Danube.32 Combs of Thomas’s class 3 appear

9.8.10–11), and Holubice near Prague (all jugs), as well as in Prague-Podbaba

Figure 9.9. Roman frontier mili-

The Rise and Decline of the Vinaøice Group

Figure 9.10. The development of

basin (Plaòany, Prague-Michle, Vinaøice, Prague-Podbaba-Juliska, Prague-Podbaba,

should now be reconsidered as evidence of contacts between the Vinaøice-Group

The Pøeš•ovice-Friedenhain Group

Friedenhain group was of north Bohemian influence.113 The settlement assem-

in Vandal politics in northern Africa. In an effort to build an anti-Frankish coali-

of the administration of Italy. It is therefore possible to regard the military units

evidence, Thuringians or barbarians under Thuringian political influence may have

The Identity of the Vinaøice Group

Danube Suevi, Friedrich Lotter regarded them as descendants of the Marcomanni

Pannonian Suevi are mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris as participating in Attila’s

archaeological record of Alamannia and the Middle Danube region, respectively.

The Bavarian Language

You might also like