Problems of Early Medieval Chronology in Eastern Europe

Soviet Anthropology and Archeology
ISSN: 0038-528X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/maae19
Problems of the Early Medieval Chronology of

Eastern Europe[Part I] (Sovetskaia arkheologiia,
1971, No. 2)
A. K. Ambroz
To cite this article: A. K. Ambroz (1972) Problems of the Early Medieval Chronology of Eastern
Europe[Part I] (Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1971, No. 2), Soviet Anthropology and Archeology, 10:4,
336-390
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-19591004336
Published online: 18 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=maae19
Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 13:46
Sovetskaia arkheologiia,
1971, No. 2, pp. 96-123
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:46 29 June 2016
A. K. Ambroz
PROBLEMS OF THE EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRONOL-

-
OGY OF EASTERN EUROPE [ P a r t I]* (a)
[ ~ r o b l e m yrannesrednevekovoi khronologii
vostochnoi Evropy]
A correct understanding of the process of formation of a

number of modern peoples, and of the genesis of feudalism, de-
pends upon the accuracy of dating of early medieval archeo-
logical materials. However, the various parts of the currently
accepted chronology a r e of very unequal value, and this chro-
nology has become obsolete in many respects. It was developed
bit by bit, beginning at the end of the 19th century, and often
empirically. Therefore, i t s dates a r e often vague ("5th-6th
centuries," "5th-7th centuries" and even "5th-8th centuries").
This chronology was based on a small number of burials with
coins (Kerch, Suuk-Su, Chmi), while the tremendous number of
burials containing no coins have been dated by looking for indi-
vidual approximate analogies in reference monuments.
*This article is being published in two parts. The numbering

of the figures (1-15) and graphs (I-IV) is continuous through
both parts (Figs. 1-8 and Graphs I and 11 appear in P a r t I, the
remainder in P a r t 11) - Ed., Sovetskaia arkheologiia.
SPRING 1972 337
Coins in themselves do not provide exact dates for assem-

blages. Even the necropoli of cities of Greco-Roman antiquity
may be 100 to 400 years more recent than the coins. This i s
true to an even greater extent of "coinless" periods and t e r r i -
tories. Here a r e a few of many examples. In graves dating
from the second half of the 6th, and from the 7th centuries at
Suuk-Su, the following platinum and copper coins have been
found: two from 279 and 308 C.E., and one each from the 3rd
century, 408-450, 518-527, 527-565, and 597-602 C.E. In
Galiat, coins of 613 o r 614 and 701 C.E. lay together. In graves
dated by Arab coins of the 8th and 9th centuries, Byzantine and
Sassanid coins (and bracteates) of the 6th and 7th centuries
were found (at seven assemblages in Chmi and six at Mydlan1-
Shai), and s o forth. (1) An analogous picture has been observed
in the West, in the close vicinity of the Roman and Byzantine
provinces with their developed money economies. Thus, in
thirty Western Sarmatian burials of the 4th century in Hungary,
the coins date from the 1st and 2nd centuries; only in six were
they contemporaneous with the interments. There, too, in 6th
century cemeteries of the Gepidae, only 2nd and 4th century
bronze and silver coins a r e found: in 4 of 73 graves at the
Szentes-Keken'zut [ ? ] , 8 of 306 in Szentes-Berekkhat [ ? ] , and
5 of 114 at Kiszombor B. And of 18 Roman coins found in these 523
burials of the 6th century, only two were gold pieces of 491-518
C.E. In the Byzantine fortress of Dinogetia, copper Roman
coins of the 4th and 5th centuries circulated on a par with later
and more abundant ones in the layer of the site of a fire in the
middle of the 6th century. (2) Nor is the degree of wear of a
coin informative: this depends upon how often it changed hands
in the coining country until it came into the possession of the
barbarians; and the degree to which the latter preserved it a s
a treasure can be known only from the local artifacts accom-
panying it.
The method of descriptive chronology i s the most objective.
First, stable combinations of "narrow" variants of artifacts
a r e employed to distribute assemblages into a s homogeneous
and, consequently, chronologically short-term groups a s
SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY
possible. When their relative place in sequence has been deter-

mined (by stratigraphy, o r in two, three, o r more parallel evo-
lutionary s e r i e s of artifacts), one obtains; a s it were, a series
of layers. Only at this point can one see which artifacts used
for dating a r e characteristic of each stage, and which got into
a given assemblage accidentally. (Fig. 1, 3). Each assemblage
is dated by the very latest artifact found there. The result i s a
large number of local vertical scales, each including between

two and six o r seven stages (Fig. 1, 2).
The next stage of the work is the synchronization of these
scales. Consider, for example, the heraldic buckles and bosses
(Figs. 5 and 6) found in many columns of the graph. It is cus-
tomary to refer them to the 6th and 7th centuries, on the basis
of Suuk-Su and the Byzantine cities on the Danube. But a num-
ber of sites with similar buckles (Pashkovskaia I, Giliach,
Shipovo) have been dated by researchers to the 4th and 5th cen-
turies merely on the ground that there a r e glass inlays in the
ornament (by comparison to the finds at Kerch). However, the
heraldic parts of belts a r e so distinctive in details of form that
no convergence i s possible; they were disseminated by borrow-
ing and imitation. Consequently, the assemblages in which they
were found were approximately synchronous. The wavy line in
Figure 1, 2 shows how contradictory a r e the dates different r e -
s e a r c h e r ~ a s s i ~assemblages
n with these artifacts (there is a
range of up to 350 years), while the straight line from the num-
ber 600 demonstrates their synchronization. True, this i s only
a visual diagram. The synchronization itself was based on the
arrangement of cards depicting all the finds in each assem-
blage. Comparison of other types of artifacts (various buckles,
rings, fibulae, pendants, weapons, stirrups, etc .) made it pos-
sible to synchronize other stages in local scales a s well.
As a consequence, a unitary relative chronological system
was obtained, demonstrating the interconnection among all
stages of the various cultures of the 4th to 9th centuries over
broad a r e a s of Southern Europe and Asia (Fig. 1, 1-2). This
system is like a firm but elastic net: i t s "knots," at t h e inter-
sections of the vertical columns for each locality and the
SPRING 1972 339
synchronic levels, "hold" the entire interrelated system in such

fashion that an upward o r downward correction of the firm date
of any stage in any of the columns (say, from the 5th to the 6th
century) inevitably results in shifts not only in the higher and
lower stages of that column, but in the stages synchronous with
them in the entire system. This i s very important. For when
objects were dated in isolation by the technique of analogies
taken at random, synchronous sites in various territories

might be dated arbitrarily and show differences of 300 to 400
years, which did not cause researchers to doubt the correct-
ness of the datings. Under a unitary chronological system, one
need find only the absolute dates of a few links in columns for
individual localities in order to fix the entire set in t e r m s of
absolute chronology. For example, a s we see in Figure 1, 2,
dating coins a r e available only for a few stages of a very small
number of sites, but in their totality they provide good identi-
fication of the entire system by half-century periods (column 1
in Fig. 1, 2). Coins and inscriptions a r e lacking in the second
half of the?th century, but earlier and later that segment i s ,
a s it were, 'buttressed" by stages with coins. Likewise, each
stage with coins on both sides is buttressed and limited by the
adjacent ones.
How were the first datings obtained at the beginning of the
work, when no system yet existed ? The relative chronology of
most of the materials of the 5th to 8th centuries in the south of
the USSR has not been well worked out. Stages had been identi-
fied for only a few sites, and there were many gaps. A firm
"frame" was provided only by the late-classical graves of the
4th century Crimea and the well-studied Saltovskii relics of the
second half of the 8th century and the 9th century. The only
f i r m point .between them was the bottom level a t Suuk-Su, which
V. K. Pudovin had dated to the second half of the 6th and the
first half of the 7th centuries. Therefore, the reference point
taken at the outset was the chronology for the middle reaches
of the Danube covering the 4th to 7th centuries. Many r e -
searchers had worked on it, and both in our country and abroad
it had become a generally accepted chronological standard,
340 SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY
thanks to the abundance of short cultural stages following each

other inquick succession. Here a r e these stages: (1)- 1st to 4th
centuries (Roman and Sarmatian cultures); (2) - first half of the
-
5th century (Hunnic period); (3) second half of the 5th century;
(4) - 6th century (Gepidae and Langobards); (5) - 7th century
(early Avars); (6) - turn of the 7th to 8th centuries (second
Avar period; (7) - 8th century (late Avars). None of these
stages i s over a century in length, and disagreements among

datings by different researchers do not exceed 50 years. De-
tailed comparison with the Danube region sufficed in itself to
introduce important corrections into the chronology of the
(Crimean) Bosporus and the Caucasus. The later working out
of a unified chronological system of the USSR was not only an
independent point d'appui, but introduced significant amend-
ments into the chronology for the middle Danube. The system
a s a whole i s now more conclusive. Therefore, in reading each
section, one must consider not only the grounds given for each
but the entire system of mutually supplementary sections.
What governed the selection of material for the work? I did
detailed datings of 4th to 7th century monuments in Eastern
Europe and the Caucasus (except for the Baltic area, which had
little connection with the south of the USSR), and made use of
published comparative materials for Siberia and Central Asia,
a s well a s for Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
and, to a lesser degree, for other countries (Fig. 1, - 1). Thus
far, pottery has been omitted; it is local everywhere and not
always well represented in burials. The primitive condition of
the chronology of the 5th to 8th centuries and the uneven avail-
ability of materials for different periods compelled u s to begin
with a development of a chronology of assemblages, but without
completely embracing all finds for the given period, which
would have involved use of the vast amount of undocumented
material from museums. It was precisely the need for work on
the compilation of a list of fibulae of the 5th to 9th centuries
that impelled me to begin with general questions of chronology.
Only on the basis of a preliminary unified chronological sys-
tem will it be possible to proceed to a deep monographic study
SPRING 1972
Fig. 1.
34 1
Fig. 1. (Continued)
(See Key on p. 344 for explanation
of numbers and letters.)
SPRING 1972
crJ
Fig. 1. (Continued)
(See Key on p. 344 for explanation

of numbers and letters.)
Fig. 1. Geographical and chronological distribution of mate-

r i a l s employed. 1 - distribution of artifacts (p. 341). 2 - princi-
ples of periodization (p. 342). Key: a - chronologically important
change in style; b, c - date confirmed by coins (b) and inscriptions
(c); d - example of discrepancy in generally accepted chronology
(for 7thcentury monuments). Key tonumbers: 1 - distribution of
dating coins and inscriptions, by centuries; 2 - Byzantine towns
on the Danube and 7th century settlement on the ruins of

Justiniana Prima; 3 - Roman graveyards (Sagvar and others);
4 - antiquities of the period of the great migration (with inlaid
artifacts of the Hunnic, post-Hunnic, Gepidic and Kern'e [ ? ]
types; 5 - Avars; 6 - r u r a l graveyards of the southwestern
Crimea; 7 - Tanais; 8 - the Cherniakhov culture; 9 -
Panticapaeum-Crimean Bosporus; 10 - sites of the Suuk-Su
type; 11 - "Antean" assemblages of the middle Dnieper region;
12 - Pereshchepino, Glodosy, and Voznesenka; 13 - the Saltov
culture, according to S. A. Pletneva; 14 - Abkhazia; 15 - Baital-
Chapkan; 16 - Nalchik: grave excavated by M. I. Ermolenko in
1923 outside Vol 'nyi Aul; 17 - Chmi; 18 - Galiat (1935) and
Peschanka; 19 - Musliumovo; 20 - Turaeva; 21 - Fedorovka;
22 - the Riazan and Penza cultures; 23 - Bashkiria (Birsk,
Shareevo); 24 - the Lomovatovskaia culture (Kachka, from
V. G. Gening's excavations; Burkovo and burial "A" in Kachka;
Demenki and Nevolino; Mydlan ' -Shai) ; 25 - Mazuninskaia cul-
ture; 26 - Azelinskaia culture; 27 - Upper Ob River (Odintsoz-
ian and Srostkinian stages); 28 - late Tashtykian culture;
29 - Kudyrge; 30 - Turkic carvings; 31 - Turkic antiquities
with belt insert plates ('Xatandinskaia group"); 32 - third
group of Pendjikent paintings; 33 - Turkic grave at Ulugbek's
Observatory; 34 - stages in stirrup development. 3 - Rela-
tion between archeological periodization and coins (p. 343). Key:
a - dating by coins; b - coins do not yield date. List of sites:
1 - Kerch, burial from 1841 excavations; 2 - Inkerman,
graves 37, 13, 31; 3 - Kerch, vaults 145, 154, and that of
June 24, 1904; Valia Strymba (Tekerepatak), hoard; 4 - Kara-
vukovo, Yugoslavia; Tournet, Belgium; 5 - Konazow , Poland,
hoard; 6 - Gepidae burials in Hungary: Szentes-Berekkhat [ ? 1,
SPRING 1972 34 5
of individual categories of artifacts in the form of "compila-

tions." Descriptions and quantitative indices have been omitted
from this article, reducing it considerably in size, because all
that material has been published. For example, it suffices to
glance over the publications cited here for the 4th and 5th cen-
turies in order to be persuaded, on the basis of rich data, of
the significant differences among buckle tongues. Points of

view concerning chronology with which the author does not
agree a r e not analyzed, for the sake of brevity.
Many years of experience in classifying compel me to reject
certain requirements of the formal method. To construct the
entire classification on the basis of a single criterion would
impoverish the diversity of the material and substitute a purely
arbitrary model for the real regularities of development of
artifacts. The building of evolutionary s e r i e s is absolutely e s -
sential, but their validity can only be confirmed by a chronology
of assemblages. I do not adduce the correlation tables of assem-
blages for each burial ground separately, for there is hardly
~ z o r e g Kiszombor
, "B"; 7 - Suuk-Su, grave 56; 8 - Suuk-Su,
grave 77; 9 - Suuk-Su, graves 166, 199; first Avarian group:
Synpetrul german, Krstur, Lovcenac, Kiszombor "0,"
Kunagota; 10 - Suuk-Su, burials 131, 154; Koreiz; Chmi,
grave XII; 11 - Pereshchepino, Kelegeiskie farmsteads;
12 - second Avarian group: Szegvar -Korogpart, Szeged-
~ a k k o s e r d y o Ozora;
, 13 - rubble foundation under building
of fourth assemblage of the sixth unit in Pendjikent; 14 - Novye
Senzhary; 15 - Kiu1'-Tegin site (with inscription of 732 C.E.);
Kudyrge, grave 15; Chmi, graves VII, XXIII; Nevolino, graves
4, 12, 13, 34, 53, 81; Demenki, graves 8, 63; 16 - third Avarian
group: Pilismaroth-Baszaharc, graves 188, 225; 17 - Nevolino,
graves 41, 65;Mydlanf-Shai, graves 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20,
21, 58a, 64, 69, 74; Demenki, grave 64; 18 - Chmi, graves 11,
V , XIV, XVI, XIX, XX, XXII, XXVI, XXVII; Kharkh, grave 2;
Galiat, 1935; Romanovskaia; Stolbitsa; Srostki, grave 2; Ka-
tanda II, grave 2.
one that has been excavated in its entirety. Their evolution

emerges more fully when several closely related sites a r e
combined into a single table. Special tables to demonstrate the
coincidence of artifacts a r e at best tautologies, and more often
blur the picture by associating data of different stages by the
accidental criterion of formal coincidence (due to the appear-
ance of early artifacts in assemblages of later date) and lead

to mistakes. (3) Only tables of correlation of assemblages
(Graphs I and TI) provide a sensitive demonstration of real
combinations, making it possible to distinguish the principal
period of their existence from accidental carry-over to a later
time. The exhaustive working out of a chronology of assem-
blages must also precede the use of statistical methods. (4)
We find that the generally accepted Eastern European chro-
nology f o r the 4th through 6th centuries i s largely based on
V. V. Shkorpills dating of the Kerch cemetery (as further de-
veloped by L . A. Matsulevich): the 4th century a s the period of
inlay, the 5th a s that of finger-like fibulae, the 6th according
to Matsulevichls definition. Kerch apparently declined, and the
next stage was represented by Suuk-Su. Shkorpil was not an
expert on the 4th to 6th centuries. He offered only tentative
datings of the graves he found, using just the coins, without
detailed analysis of the goods and without comparison with the
better-studied finds in western regions. The same procedure
.
was followed by N. I. Repnikov and V V. Sakhanev. However,
subsequent writers confined themselves to citing Shkorpil,
Repnikov, and Sakhanev, without subj ecting their preliminary
datings to verification o r correction. The only exception was
Pudovinfs valuable work on the chronology of Suuk-Su. (5) It is
not surprising that a more detailed study of Eastern ~ u r o ~ e a n
chronology of the 5th through 8th centuries revealed that a fun-
damental revision of the whole was inevitable.
Along the Crimean Bosporus, the period from the 3rd to the
8th centuries divides into five stages. The first half of the 3rd
century represents the heyday of the Bosporan kingdom. Its
influence, judging by the fibulae, extended over the North Cau-
casus, the Volga, the Don, and part of the Crimea (I have
SPRING 1972
devoted a book especially to the study of fibulae of the 1st through

4th centuries). Fibulae of the forms traditional on the north
shore of the Black Sea did not continue into the next century.
The buckles of the 1st through 3rd centuries (the dating is uni-
versally agreed upon) in the south of the USSR differ. Cast
figured buckles were associated with the culture of the towns
and disappeared in the 3rd century. The rounded, simple wire

buckles had smooth tongues, bent back a little in the middle
and curved slightly inward at their ends (as in Fig. 2, 2). (6)
The manner in which they changed from century to centuryhas
not been studied (there was another type of buckle with bent
tongue in the 6th and 7th centuries - Fig. 9, - 31, - 37, -
57). As
early a s the 3rd century, the rings and tongues of many rounded
buckles a r e uniformly thickened, and sometimes faceted (Fig.
2, - - (7)
1-5). - Some rings a r e just barely thickened in front.
Sometimes the tongues a r e not bent, but a r e massive and fac-
eted s o that a flat a r e a is left at the base. These features were
further developed in the 4th century. In the 3rd century, many
were covered with gold leaf and inlaid ornamentation (of the
"sepulcher with mask" type, Fig. 2, 3-5).
However, contrary to the t r a d i t i ~ n a l i ~ i n i o they
n , a r e differ-
ent in style from those in the period of the great migrations
(Fig. 2, -13, -
17-27,
- 29,
- - 30), and there is no direct continuity be-
tween them. Similar 3rd century artifacts have been found in
the Chersonese (Fig. 2, 3) and to the west, in Slovakia, Silesia,
Denmark, and northern Germany. (8) - The sources of this style
must be sought elsewhere - in Roman provincial a r t .
In the second half of the 3rd century, the Bosporan kingdom
was devastated by c a r r i e r s of the Cheniakhov culture. The cap-
ital survived, but the ruin of the agricultural region under-
mined the basis of the prosperity of the Bosporus. The king-
dom contracted until it comprised only the city, and went into
a decline which was deepened by the fact that farming came to
take on more and more of a subsistence nature. The coining of
money ceased, and many local ornaments disappeared. The
abundance of bent-hanger and split fibulae of the 4th century
testify to a strong barbarian (Cherniakhov) influence upon the
mode of life of the local people. Fourth century buckles had

thick, proboscis-like tongues and stairstep notching on the back
(often with a high projection). The sharp end of the tongue did
not project beyond the ring, o r did s o only a little (Fig. 2, 6-8).
The forward portion of the ring is markedly thickened, some-
times extremely so, particularly in round buckles. During the
4th century, these were customary over the entire territory of

the Cherniakhov culture from the Donets to Muresh, in the
Crimea (Inkerman, State Farm 10, Kerch, Kharaks, accom-
panied by 4th century coins), on the Oka, and in Bashkiria, the
North Caucasus, and Abkhazia. (9)
The polychrome style of the next period is considerably sim-
pler, drier, and cruder than the polychrome style of the Greco-
Roman towns o r of the height of the Scythian and Sarmatian cul-
tures. Wrapping of gold leaf around silver objects, rather i r -
regular arrangement of projecting and flat red stones in indi-
vidual settings - a s though scattered in a field - and sparse
use of metal beads and filigree a r e characteristic. Flat, parti-
tioned inlays a r e already present, but only to supplement the
dominant "fields of stone." (10) The style is a rather uniform
whole that cannot be d e r i ~ e d d i r e c t from
l ~ any single current
in the a r t of the previous period (Fig. 2, - 11-22,
- 25,
- 26,
- -29, -
30;
Fig. 3, 2-4). Signs that it came into existence gradually in the
4th century cannot be found anywhere (including the Bosporus).
It seems to appear suddenly in finished form during the first
decades of the 5th century. Its center is on the Danube, where,
until the turn of the 4th to 5th centuries, it had been preceded
by the culture of the Roman provinces (the sequence of ceme-
teries at Sagvar and Cakvar) .
The dating of 5th century sites is most advanced for the
Danube area. It has been set forth most completely by I. Werner.
I have verified and slightly amended it on the basis of fibulae
and buckles. A role in the shaping of the style was played by
the traditional crafts of the Danubian provinces. Danubian a r t i -
facts of the 5th century a r e larger and more luxurious than
their analogs in Eastern Europe, which were done in more di-
verse jewelers' techniques, with more complete representation
SPRING 1972 349
of the links in the evolution of fibulae (the development of other

artifacts has not been clarified). (11) The new style touched
only the elite in society. The p o o r 5 studied culture of the rank-
and-file of the population in the first half of the 5th century was
probably close to the culture of the 4th century in many r e -
spects: certain forms of buckles, fibulae, vessels, and glass
beakerswith deep blue ornamentation molded on. Even virtu-

ally all the coins and medallions in assemblages of that period
date from the 4th century. Only in ona crypt at Kerch was there
an indication of coins of the period 425-455. However, this does
not mean that sites of the 5th century may be identified by m e r e
extension of the period from the 4th century to the "4th and
5th,11a s i s done by certain investigators of the Cherniakhov
culture.
Fifth century buckles constitute further development of 4th
century forms, but the rings do not thicken in front a s abruptly
a s in the 4th century, and the proboscis-like tongues project
far in front (Fig. 2, - - A pronounced increase in the di-
12-16).
mensions of the artifacts, particularly fibulae, is characteristic
of the Danube. Little animal heads made their appearance on
the buckle tongues. On gold and silver ones, the bridges of
their noses a r e crosshatched, the arches of the eyebrows and
the maws a r e emphasized, and there a r e long e a r s flattened
against the back of the neck (Kerch: Novikovskii crypt of 1890
in the State Historical Museum, Fig. 2, 13, and crypt 154 of the
1904 excavations in the Hermitage. heh heads on bronze buck-
l e s from the North Caucasus and Abkhazia a r e simpler: brows
and e a r s have merged into long projections, the eyes a r e c i r -
cles with a center point, and sometimes the entire image is r e -
placed by carved lines (Fig. 2, - 11, -12). The tongues of Danubian
provincial buckles of the 4th century also had heads (Fig. 2,
-9, -lo), but they lacked all detail, and the projections in the form
of e a r s were short and rounded. (12) In the USSR, V. V. Kropot -
kin found them at Cherniakhov s i t s . There a r e also other cat-
egories of 5th century artifacts: rings in the style of kalach
loaves, with polyhedron beads (pending special study, it is not
yet possible to differentiate them from 6th and 7th century
specimens, o r , in the case of cast polyhedron types, from those of

the 8th and 9th centuries); long, thin stamped belt ends (Fig. 2,
-20-22);
- cruciform, rhomboid, and ribbon-like cheek-bars for
bridle bits (Fig. 2, - 17, -
19); and iron bits with thickened ends of
nonferrous metal. Only the presence of typical 5th century arti-
facts makes it possible to class a given assemblage in this pe-
riod.
In the 5th century, after a century-long interruption, many
rich graves again appeared in the Crimean Bosporus. It is
probable that, under the Huns, the city recovered somewhat
from the consequences of the Gothic onslaughts in the 3rd cen-
tury. Tanais, which had been destroyed by the Goths, arose
again at the same time. The entire square within the innermost
walls was again populated, ruins were buttressed and repaired,
and new buildings were constructed. Coins of 364-378, 379-
383, and 383-388 C.E. have been found, a s have glass, amphorae,
and a western clasp of the turn of the 4th to 5th centuries. (13)
This i s not surprising. The nomadic Huns sowed destructionin
the unsubdued neighboring regions to the west. But in their own
possessions, they needed centers of crafts and commerce, and
needed to preserve the subject sedentary population to raise
agricultural products. And the fact is that written sources
speak of their having subjected and made allies of the "Scyth-
ians." For example, the Ostrogoths, "subjected to the power
of the Huns, remained in that very country," and "a Gothic tribe
was always ruled by i t s own petty king, although in accordance
with a decision by the Huns" (Jordanes, sections 125-127, 130,
246-253). The yoke of the Huns was doubtless severe, but the
local elite, allying themselves with the nomads and participat-
ing in their raids for plunder (as did the Ostrogoths and
Gepidae) , found new opportunities for enrichment. This ex-
plains the wealth of the elite of the Crimean Bosporus subject
to the Huns. The find, in crypt 5 at Inkerman, of a bronze coin
of Theodosius I (379-395) showed that the cemetery functioned
without interruption after the Hunnic conquest. The vault con-
tained abundant grave goods - a sword, glass, vessels, gold,
- It still contains no signs of the polychrome
a coin, etc. (14)
SPRING 1972
style, which confirms the supposition that this was absent in

the Crimea until the first decades of the 5th century.
The depopulation, during the 5th century, of vast expanses of
the north coast of the Black Sea i s to be ascribed not to exter-
mination of the population but to the transporting of the bulk of
it westward with the Hunnic troops during the first decades of
the 5th century, when the center of the Hunnic state was trans-
ferred to the middle reaches of the Danube. This is why no
5th century artifacts have been found in the Cherniakhov sites
studied thus far. Individual rich graves in the Ukraine and
Moldavia (Kontseshty , Nezhin, Laski, Kachin, Kruglitsa) con-
tain artifacts by craftsmen from the Danube and not the north
coast of the Black Sea. They fall into the class of a large group
of isolated burials scattered in the region of the raids and wan-
derings of the Huns and their allies from the Volga to Nor-
mandy. These a r e the graves either of mounted horsemen o r
of noblewomen of Germanic o r Potissko-Sarmatian origin (the
eastern Sarmatians of the 4th and 5th centuries did not wear
split fibulae). The famous Romanian hoards at Simleul Sylvania
and Petrossa were the property of elite families, and, judging
by their style, one was buried in the middle of the 5th century,
perhaps in the period of the decline of the Huns, and the other
in the second half of the 5th century, in the epoch of the inde-
pendent Gepidic kingdom. (15) They a r e associated with the
individual destinies of the people of that bloody period: falling
into disfavor, dying in war, etc. They a r e too poor for kingly
treasures (as they a r e often mistakenly called), for royal
hoards were measured in many dozens of wagonloads (as, for
example, the property of a daughter of the Frankish Queen
Fredegunde of the 6th century).
Investigators have shown that the second half of the 5th cen-
tury was a special stage on the Danube. There were partitioned
inlays, with separated convex pieces projecting from a flat
background (like those shown in Fig. 6, - 27, - 37, - 38; ~ l u E i n a ,
Petrossa, Apachida). The partitions often had a laterally pro-
jecting semicircular section (Fig. 6, 25). Four-leaved rosettes
a r e typical (Fig. 2, -
23, -
24, -
27), a s a r e b o r d e r s with fine garnet
352
SPRING 1972 353
spheres (Fig. 2, 27) and inserts in cylindrical form (Fig. 2, - 25).

Sometimes stoneswere set not in soldered settings, but in
slits in the surface of the artifact (Petrossa). Carved faceted
ornamentation on buckles and fibulae appeared (Fig. 3, - 6, -
8).
Coins of 433 (Karavukovo in Yugoslavia) and the 480s (Tournai
in Belgium) confirm the dating. (16) Some of the objects (in-
lays, Fig. 2, -
23, -
24; split fibulae,variant 11-b, Fig. 3, 5; small
fibulae with three-faceted hollowed carving, Fig. 3, 6) have
also been found in our country, but a s a rule in finds-of un-
identified origin. However, the materials of the second half of
the 5th century in Eastern Europe chiefly have a different ap-
pearance than in the West.
The sixth century saw the appearance of the finger-like
fibula of the Crimean Bosporus, and of carved buckles (Fig. 3,
- - judging by analogies in the artifacts of the Ostrogoths
12-14),
of Italy and of the Gepidae on the Danube. But the frequent p r e s -
ence in these same Bosporus assemblages of belt s e t s of the
7th century (see section on Suuk-Su) compels one to conclude
that their existence here extended through the entire 7th cen-
-
tury. (17)
Fig. 2. Artifacts of the 3rd to 5th centuries. 1-5 - 3rd cen-

tury; 6-10 - 4th century; 11, 12 - 5th and f i r s t half of 6th cen-
turies; 13-22, 25, 26, 29, 30 - 5th century (13, 16, 18 - first
half of the 5th century); 23, 24, 27 (and perhaps 25) - second
half of 5th century; 28 - 6th and 7th centuries. 1-2 - Buden-
novskaia sloboda; 3 - Chersonesus; 4 - Timoshevskaia; 5 -
Kerch, on former Messaksudi estate; 6 - Budeshty; 7 - Span-
cov, Romania; 8 - Independenca, Romania; 9-10 - Sagvar,
-
Hungary; 11 Aukhvamakhva, burial 3 (according to M. M.
-
Trapsh); 12 Rutkha; 13, 18, 25, 29 -Kerch; 14, 15, 20 -
Vol'nyi Aul, grave; 16 - Jakusowice, Poland; 17, 19, 22, 26 -
Novo-Grigor'evka; 21 - Kalinin State Farm; 23 - Ukraine(State
Hist. Mus.); 24 - Chegem [?I; 27 - Apachida, Romania; 28 -
Abgydzrakhva, 13; 30 - Berezovka. Scale applies to drawings
1-18, 20-22, 24, 26-28.
Fig. 3. Evolution of Crimean and Danubian Ornaments in the

4th to 7th centuries. 1 - 4th century; 2-4 - first half of 5th
century; 5-8- -
second half of 5th century; 9 6th century;
-
10 second half of 6th and first half of 7th century; 11-
second half of 6th century; 12-14 - second half of 6th and
SPRING 1972 355
The culture of the Bosporus will appear before u s in greater

detail when the contents of the cemeteries a r e published and
studied. But it is already clear that a considerable population
was concentrated there in the 6th and 7th centuries. There a r e
no signs of decline in material culture a s compared to the 4th
and 5th centuries. The Bosporus also knew the luxurious jew-
elry work of the 7th century (Fig. 6, - 30, -
31, - - probably
33) (18),
an adaptation by the barbarians of Byzantine prototypes.
The most colorful site of the 5th century in the North Cauca-
s u s is the "moundless burial" excavated by M. I. Ermolenko on
September 6 and 7, 1923, outside Vol'nyi Aul in the town of
Nal'chik. (19) It yielded a typical narrow stamped belt end
(Fig. 2, 20);two local fibulae - a thin split specimen of variant
I-ab (or this a small version of 11-a ?), and a two-part type
with a coil on the end; six proboscis-type buckles (three with a
large glass insert each, Fig. 2, 15), a piece of a beaker of
yellowish glass, and carefully faceted beads of bright cherry
and dark yellow carnelian. It i s possible that grave 4 in Tam-
gatsik also dates from the 5th century. The cemeteries at
Baital-Chapkan and on the Giliach River were utilized for sev-
e r a l centuries. The earliest grave in each of them (that of the
clan ancestor ?) lies at the highest point of the graveyard:
grave 10 in Baital-Chapkan (a fragment of a small fibula with
an S-twist and two buckles with bent tongues, 2nd and 3rd cen-
turies), and grave 18 of the Giliach cemetery (5th century,
judging by the large proboscis-type buckle at the level of the
burial and by bits with bronze ends). Graves 17, 20, 24, and 30
a t Baital-Chapkan may be referred to the 6th century (not e a r -
l i e r , according to analogies from the west side of the Urals,
7th centuries; 15 - turn of 6th to 7th centuries; 16, 19, 20 -

-
first half of 7th century; 17, 18 - 7th century; 21 second half
of 7th century. 1, 7 - Ukraine; 2 - Kozminka, Poland; 3, 4 -
Untersiebenbrunn, Austria; 5 - fibula, Danube type from Borkov
(Riazan, collections of V. I. Zubkov); 6 - Carnuntum, Austria;
-
8 - Hungary; 9 Kerch (imported from Romanian territory);
10, 11, 15-19, 21 - Suuk-Su; 12-14 - Kerch; 20 - Chufut-Kale.
for which s e e below). Grave 29 dates from the 6th o r 7th cen-
tury; graves 9, 14, and 23 a r e of the 7th century, and virtually
all those from Giliach a r e of the 7th century. In Daghestan,
mound 2 at Palas-Syrt may be assigned to the 5th century. (20)
In the North Caucasus there is a predominance of uncertificzed
artifacts of the 5th century, chiefly from North Ossetia and
- typical inlays, local split fibulae of
Kabardino-Balkaria (21):
subgroup Il,proboscis-type buckles - each with a large insert of
glass -large animal-head buckles (Fig. 2,12), and perhaps some
-
of the garter fibulae and those with coils andadded spring tips. (22)
Of particular importance a r e the large cemeteries of
Abkhazia, known to the author from the publications and gra-
cious communications of M. M. Trapsh, Iu. N. Voronov, and
G. K. Shamba. (23) They contain a great deal of data which
yields readily tFcorrelation, coming from individual burials
with abundant goods and demonstrating contacts with the
Crimean Bosporus, the North Caucasus, and Transcaucasus.
There a r e both male burials (with sword, long battle dagger,
shield umbo and handle, two spears, axe, arrows, amphora,
glass goblet, large buckle, one fibula, a beaded sword pendant),
and female burials (with three to six fibulae, almost always of
diverse variants, earrings, bracelets, beads, small buckles,
double-spiral pendants, and a hoe). The increased precision in
the chronology of the Bosporus makes it possible to identify a
number of stages in Abkhazia (Graph I). (24)
Abkhazian graves of the 2nd and 3rd centuries contain bow-
type one-piece hanger fibulae, of s e r i e s I variant 4 (Fig. 4, l),
and Roman coins. (25) - In western Georgia, this is the epoch-of
sites such a s that at Kldeeta, with local bow-type hanger fibulae.
A later single-piece variant, from grave 37 at Abgydzrakhva
(Fig. 4, 2-3) may possibly date from the second half of the 3rd
century (similar ones, according to a communication from
Iu. N. Voronov, were found by him in 4th century graves, how-
ever). The 4th century graves (second stage) have small
proboscis-type buckles, local two-part bow-type hanger fibulae
of the third variant in s e r i e s IV of group 15 (Fig. 4, 4), and
glass vessels with deep blue pieces molded on (on t h e Danube
and in the Crimea, of the 4th century). In the North Caucasus, the
SPRING 1972
2nd and 3rd centuries a r e periods of fibulae and buckles from the
north coast of the Black Sea, while in the 4th century, massive pro -
boscis-type buckles and bent-hanger fibulae made their appearance.
The third stage is typified by local bow-type two-part fibulae
with figured wrapped coils (Fig. 4,a and bent -hanger fibulae -
"Lebiazh'e" types with oval backs (Fig. 4, 9) and wire types
(Fig. 4, 6-8) - pendant earrings, and with blue molded-
on parts,ihich were known not only in the 4th century but in

the Hunnic period (Tanais, Siniavka, Kerch, Untersiebenbrunn).
The bent-hanger fibulae were disseminated over the south of
the USSR from the Cherniakhov culture. The Crimean Bosporus
has yielded only Cherniakhov and local 4th century variants. In
the North Caucasus they a r e uncertificated, but typologically
even more remote from the Cherniakhov examples (having a
wide ring for the spring axis), and a r e clearly of local manu-
facture. Therefore, they may be preliminarily dated to the
second half of the 4th century. Their appearance in Abkhazia
is associated with North Caucasian influence (judging by the
"Lebiazh'e" fibulae), and consequently the date is somewhat
later. Apparently, it must be extended to cover the entire half
of the 5th century. The finds by S. F. Strzheletskii at State
F a r m 10 in the Crimea f i l l the gap in the chronology of the
'Zebiazh 'e " fibulae, permitting the two -part bow -type examples
to be put in the 4th century (found with 4th century coins in
graves 81 and 154; one fibula had been deformed),while the very
latest one-piece fibulae may be dated to the 3rd century (with a mid-
3rd century coin in grave 47). Consequently, the bent type appeared
at the end of the 4th o r in the 5th century. A late variant survived in
the North Caucasusuntil the 7th century (Pashkovskaia I),while in
Abkhazia they did not survive beyond the 5th century.
By i t s place in the total system, the fourth stage should oc-
cupy the second half of the 5th and the first half of the 6th cen-
turies. Ornaments were large buckles with animal heads (Fig.
2, l l ) , and cruciform fibulae with bows of circular c r o s s sec-
tion(Fig. 4, 10). The earrings with pendants and the large bow-
type two-partfibulae with figured coil wrapping persisted (Fig.
4, 5). Along with amphorae with gradual narrowing of the body
a n d a cylindrical section in the middle of a nearly vertical r i m ,
Graph I.
(SeeKey on p. 360.)
SPRING 1972
(See Key on p. 360.)

Graph I. (Continued)
Graph I. Evolution of cemeteries in Abkhazia from the 3rd

to the 5th centuries. The numbers of the burials and stages
a r e on the horizontal lines, the number of the artifacts on the
vertical ones. The diagrams of types of artifacts a r e drawn to
differing scales. Abbreviations: Vo - Iu. N. Voronov's collec-
tions in Tsebel'da; Kld - Kldeeti; Ab - Abgydzrakhva; Akh -
Akhatsarakhva; A1 - Alrakhva; Au - Aukhvamakhva; Ach -
Akhachcharakhva; Ar - Arakhva (five points, based on M. M.

Trapsh's materials); G - Gagry; Ve - Veseloe; Ap - Apushta;
m - male burial; w - female burial (determined by grave
goods). 1 - Black Sea coast fibulae a s in Fig. 4, 1; 2 - hanger
fibulae of Kldeeti type; 3 - 2nd century coins; 4, 5 - one-piece
bow-type fibulae of type shown in Fig. 4, 2 (No. 4) and Fig. 4 , 3-
(No. 5); 6 - knotted [zaviazannye] bracelets; 7 - glass vessels
with deep blue pieces molded on; 8 - laurel-leaf spears; 9 -
simple proboscis buckles; 10 - fibulae a s in Fig. 4, 4; - 11 - fib-
ulae a s in Fig. 4, 9; 12 - fibulae a s in Fig. 4, - - 13 - fibulae
6, 7;
a s in Fig. 4, -8; 14-- earrings with pendants; 15 - fibulae a s in
Fig. 4, 5; 16 - coin of 395-423 C.E.; 17 -bracelet with flat-
tened ends; 18 - glass vessels with deep blue pieces molded on
(not identical with No. 7, but characterization is difficult pend-
ing detailed study); 19 - large buckles, a s in Fig. 2, 11; 20 -
large buckles with unornamented tongue tip; 21 - fibulae with
riveted fastener but no crosspiece; 22 - glass vessel with deep
grooves; 23 - glass vessel with polished ornamentation; 24 - glass
bowl with protruding a r c -shaped ornamentation; 25, 26 - cruci -
l l ) ; 27 -
form fibulae (No. 25 a s in Fig. 4,lO; No. 26 a s in Fig. 4 , -
crystal beads; 28,29 - glass vessels (28 -with polished crosses;
29 -wound with deep blue thread); 30 - Christian pectoral crosses;
-
31 early hollow buckles in 5th century tradition; 32 - earrings
with overlapping ends; 33 - 6th century coins; 34 - cruciform fib-
- 35 -buckles a s in Fig. 2,28;
ulae a s in Fig. 4,12; - 36 -wire circular
earrings; 37 - earrings in shape of Easterkalach rolls; 38 - glass
ointment jar; 39 - footed glass goblet; 40 - late buckles (as in Fig. 6,
4 and 6) ;41 - fibulaewith curl a s shown in Fig. 15,l-2; 42 - cruci -
-
form fibulae, Fig. 4,13; 43 - spear with broad blad<;44 -buckle
a s in Fig. 6,7; 45 -b&sas in Fig. 4,16; 46 -hinged T-shape fib-
ula; 47 - cruciform fibulae a s in F~E 4, -
14, - 15.
SPRING 1972 36 1
there appeared amphorae with more abrupt narrowing down-

ward and a funnel-like rim, which persisted until the 7th cen-
tury. In a late portion of the stage, there a r e cruciform fibulae
of semicircular c r o s s section (Fig. 4, 11). A certain persis-
tence of buckles in the 5th century tradition, and their extensive
currency in the 6th century until the appearance of hollow belt
s e t s in the 7th century (see material on Suuk-Su) i s character-

istic of both the Cis-Ural territory and the Volga.
The 5th stage covers the second half of the 6th century. Cru-
ciform fibulae with a flat, ribbon-like body of uniform width
were typical (Fig. 4, 12), a s were glass vessels with polished
crosses, large facetedcrystal beads as at Suuk-Su (graves 46
and 56 - second half of 6th century; 59,67 -first half of 7th century;
86 - second half of 7th century) and in the Pashkovskaia I graveyard
(7th century). The large buckles continue the 5th century tradition,
but some of them a r e hollow at the bottom (Abgydzrakhva, 44). The
Christian crosses from female burials in Abgydzrakhva (burial 15)
and in Gagry may be compared with Prokopii's information of that
time about Christianity among the Abazgins and Apsilians.
The graves with 7th century artifacts fall into stages 6 and 7.
The sixth stage is to be dated to the first half of the 7th cen-
tury. Ornaments: cruciform fibulae with triangularly flattened
bases and with the hanger loop riveted to the lower third of the
body; simple, kalach-shaped wire earrings; crystal beads;
hollow, B-shaped buckle (Fig. 6, 6); North Caucasian fibula
with curl (as in Fig. 15, 1-2). ~ h & ea r e East Georgian glass
ointment j a r s and e a r r i n g fragments (Abgydzrakhva, 40) with
analogs in the same period in Mtskheta. The seventh stage fell
in the second half of the 7th century. As distinct from the cru-
ciform fibulae of the sixth stage, the rivet is in the middle of
the body. There a r e hollow buckles with noticeable features of
the "bizarre" style (Fig. 6, 5-7; on this style, see below) dating
to the second half of the 7thceitury. The details of the belt
s e t s a r e of the type shown in Fig. 5. There is a boss with
comma-shaped slots typical of the 7th century (Fig. 4, 16;
compare Fig. 5, 51). There is a broad-bladed spear ( ~ G e l o e
village). (26) Three gold coins of Emperor Justinian (527-565
--
C.E.) werefoundinthe same g r a v e a s the buckles (Fig. 6,5,8).
-
Fig. 4. Fibulae from 2nd to 7th century Abkhazia. 1 second
half of 2nd century; 2, 3 - second half of 3rd century; 4 - 4th
century; 5 - 5th century; 6-9 - first half of 5th century; 10 -
second half of 5th century and first half of 6th century; 11 -
-
first half of 6th century; 12 second half of 6th century; 13 -
first half of 7th century; 14-16 - second half of 7th century. 1, 6,
SPRING 1972 36 3
An inlaid buckle was also found (Fig. 6, 4).

The second half of the 6th century and the 7th century a r e
represented most vividly in the "standard" sites of that period,
of the type of Suuk-Su in the southwestern Crimea. (27) The so-
called bottom stratum of the Suuk-Su cemetery i s c o ~ m o n l y
dated to the second half of the 6th century and the first half of
the 7th century. V. K. Pudovin divided it into two stages:

(1) that having large buckles and fibulae, and (2) that with c e r -
tain small buckles that D. Csallany had dated to the 7th cen-
tury. (28) The "upper layer" (with burials primarily in stone
sepulchers) has not been specially studied. N. I. Repnikov r e -
garded it a s 'hardly being later than the 9th to 11th centuries."
Werner and Csallany date the Byzantine buckles of the Corinth-
ian type (Fig. 7, 13), characteristic of that period, to the sec-
ond half of the 7thcentury. (29)
Differences in grave goodsand burial rite make it possible
to distinguish six stages in the cemeteries of the southwestern
Crimea (Graph 11). Stage 1 is characterized by large eagle-head
buckles of variant I (Fig. 3, 11). The heraldic belt s e t s (Fig. 5,
- differ from the r e s t o f t h e belt s e t s of Suuk-Su. Two cop-
4-17)
-
per coins of Justinianls reign (527-565 C.E.) from grave 56
date this stage to the second half of the 6th century. This date
is also indicated by the typological connection of the early
large buckles (Fig. 3, 11) with Gepidic buckles of the first half
of the 6th century ( ~ i ~ T- 9). - Similar but more developed
3 , (30)
- have been found in Bulgaria in
belt accessories (Fig. 57 - 19-24)
the Byzantine fortress of Sadovsko-Kala, destroyed at the turn
of the 6th to 7th centuries (the latest coins in the fire stratum
a r e from 582-602 C.E.). (31)
Stage 2 (with variant I1 eagle-head buckles, Fig. 3, 5) is dated
to the turn of the 6th to 7th centuries o r the early 7thcentury
12 - Tsebel'da (materials of Iu. N. Voronov); 2-5, 7-12 -

-
Abgydzrakhva (materials of M. M. Trapsh; 2, 3 burial 37;
-
4 burial 6; 5, 10 - burial 31; 7 - burial 45; 8 - burial 39;
-
9 - burial 49); 11 - Tsebellda (State Hist. Mus.); 13 Alrakhva
I, burial 6 (materials of M. M. Trapsh); 14 - Veseloe; 15, 16 -
Apushta, burial 6 (materials of Iu. N. Voronov).
364
Graph 11.
SPRING 1972

Graph 11. (Continued)
Graph 11. Evolution of cemeteries of southwestern Crimea

from the second half of the 6th century to the 9th century. The
burial numbers and stages a r e shown on the horizontals; the
numbers of the artifacts on the verticals. Abbreviations: S -
Suuk-Su; Sd - Sadovets (Bulgaria); Chk - Chufut-Kale; Ba -
-
Bakla; K - Koreiz; Sg - Sakharnaia Golovka; Bg Bal-Gota;
Ub - Uzen'-Bash; E - Eski-Kermen; Kh - Chersonese. Dif-
fering scales a r e used to depict the artifacts. 1 - 4th century

coin; 2 - 5th century coin; 3 - coin of 518-527 C.E.; 4 - eagle-
head buckle, variarit I, as in Fig. 3, 11; 5 - belt s e t of group I, a s
- - 6 - coin of 527-565 C.E.; 7 - hollow buckles
in Fig. 5, 4-17;
with narrow B-shaped ring; 8 - large fibulae with laps, a s in
-
Fig. 3 , E ; 9 -polyhedral golden earrings; 10 B-shapedbuckles;
-
11 coin df 582-602 C .E.;12 - coin of 597-602 C.E .; 13 -
eagle-head buckles, variant I1 (Fig. 3, l-5); 14 - large buckles
with lion (Fig. 3, - -
19); 15 large split fibulae with projections
(Fig. 3, - 16); 16 - Crimean Bosporus "finger" fibulae (Fig. 3,
-
13); 17 - eagle-head buckles, variant I11 (Fig. 3, 17); 18 -
rhomboid buckles with long loops for rings (Fig. Tl-8); 19 -
belt set, group 11; 20 - Crimean Bosporus "finger" fibulae with
rhomboid foot; 21 - buckles with 'lips" projecting slightly;
22 - lyre buckles; 23 - small split fibulae (Fig. 3, - 21); 24 -
bronze polyhedral earrings; 25 - "finger" and zoomorphic
-
fibulae from the Dnieper; 26 buckle for bag with strap r e -
-
tainer; 27 - belt tips with three gouges (Fig. 5, 42); 28 cru-
ciform buckles, variant I (Fig. 7, 5); 29 - syracGe-type buckle
(Fig. 7, 2); 30 - buckles for bagsTwith cross (Fig. 7, - -
3, 4);
31 - eaFrings with hooks (Fig. 8, - - 32 - earrings with
18-23);
small pendant (Fig. 8, - - 33-35 - cruciform buckles
- 25);
18-23,
- -
(33 variant 11; 34 - variant In; 35 variant N ;Fig. 7, 6-8);
36 - Bal-Gota-type buckles, variant I1 (Fig. 7, 12); 37 - ~ ~ r g -
th-type buckles ( ~ i g 7, -
- 38 bag-type buckles with volutes
. 13);
(Fig. 7,14); 39-41 - U-shaped buckles (39 -with angular shield, a s
in Fig. 7722; 40 -with disk, a s in Fig. 7,18; 41 -with fleur-de-lis
~ .- - 42 -bag-typebuckles with slits, a s in Fig.
o r n a m e n t 7 ~ i7,19-22);
--
7,15-17;43 - -
scallopedbuckles;44 -stone sepulcher; 45 slotted
bell; 46 - open-jaw moon symbol; 47 - Saltovskaiabeads; 48 - Sal-
tovskaia earringswith pendant; 49 -bosses of Saltovskaiabelts;
-
50 coin of 800-850 C .E.
SPRING 1972 367
by a bronze coin of 597-602 found in burial 77. In stage 3,

eagle-headed buckles of variant 111 (Fig. 3, 17), large buckles
depicting a lion (Fig. 3, 19), rhomboid buckles with schematic
representations of animals (Fig. 3, 18), and very long loops
for fastening the clip to the buckle ring (as in variant III of the
eagle-head buckles) were widely disseminated. The belt s e t s
were slightly cruder in form but, for the most part, were
distinguished for their ornamentation (bean-shaped slits,

commas, well covers, figure eights, and U-shapes, a s in Fig.
5, -26, -
36, - 46, - --
50-59, 65). Stages 1-3 were characterized by
large split fibulae of variant 11-c with decorative laps over the
buttons on the head (Fig. 3, 10) and gold earrings with inlaid
polyhedral beads. Such fibulae gradually disappear during
stage 3. A relatively late variant on them is provided' by the
large fibulae with three projections instead of buttons (Fig. 3,
-16). The polyhedral earrings a r e of value for dating only for
excavated assemblages of the Suuk-Su type. In other places,
the various types of these earrings persisted from the 5th to
the 8th centuries. B-shaped buckles may be found in stages
1-3, but in Hungary and along the Dnieper, they were made for
a long time, until the stage of the pseudofibulae.
In stage 4, many forms of ornaments changed. The large
split fibulae were replaced by small ones with a triangular
foot (Fig. 3, 21). Probably the abandonment of the old forms of
fibulae is a l s o t o be explained by the appearance, on a m a s s
scale, of early finger-shaped and zoomorphic fibulae of the
Dnieper types. As A. L. Iakobson correctly observed, there
a r e no l e s s of them than on the Dnieper (where it should be ob-
served that no mass-scale excavations of cemeteries have
taken place), but the fact that they were foreign to the Crimea
is indicated by the use of different ones together a s p a i r s (in
the Crimea, the large local 6th and 7th century fibulae a r e al-
ways paired), and also by the absence of many variants here,
particularly those of later origin. On the Dnieper, they con-
tinued to develop in the 7th century. Buckles with loops for
belt ends (32) and belts with triple gouges on their buckles
(Fig. 4, - 52)(33)- find analogs in Avar antiquities from Hungary.
Cruciform buckles of variant I a r e characteristic (Fig. 7, - 5).
36 8 SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY
Fig. 5. Ornamentation of belts of the 6th to 7th centuries.

1-17, 19-24 - second half of 6th century; 18, 25, 26, 28-37,
42-44, 46, 47, 50-60, 62, 63, 65-67, 69, 71, 72 - 7th centurj
SPRING 1972 369
In Suuk-Su, the first representations of Christian c r o s s e s ap-

peared on them on bag-type slotted buckles (Fig. 7, 4), and on
large stamped buckles (Fig. 3, - 20). Byzantine bwklcs of the
Syracuse type (Fig. 7, 2) a r e common, and they were not r a r e
in stage 5 that followed~
During stage 5, sepulchres of stone slabs, often with group
burials, predominate at Suuk-Su and Bal-Gota, while at Uzenl-
Bash, Eski-Kermen, and Sakharnaia Golovka, vaults continued

to be used. The buckles were produced under strong Byzantine
influence: variants 11-TV of the cruciform type (Fig. 7, 6, -
- 71,
variant I1 buckles of the Bal-Gota type (Fig. 7, 12), the Corin-
thian type (Fig. 7, 13), the bag type with volutes and slits
(Fig. 7, - - U-shaped (some with ornamentation in relief,
14-16),
Fig. 7, -
17, - - U-shaped with disk (Fig. 7, 18; a develop-
19-22),
ment of the large buckle type from ~ e r e s h c h e ~ g Fig.
o , 7, 1,
found with coins of 641-668 in an assemblage from the turnof
the 7th to 8th centuries). Earrings had hooks for suspension,
and many had small pendants - pendulum shaped, spherical,
o r pyramidal (Fig. 8, - - Earrings with small pendants
18-23).
were typical in 8th century Avar sites (groups I1 and 111,
Fig. 8, - 11, -
10, - 14-17).
- (34)-
27, 38, 39,70, 74-76 - second half of 7th century; 41, 45, 48,
-
49, 61, 64, 68, 73, 77-81 8th century. 1-3 - ~ o l ' s h o ~i o k m a k ,
burial I; 4-17, 36, 42, 46, 65 - Suuk-Su (4-12 -burial 54; 13-
17 - burial 56; 36, 46, 65 - burial 67; 42 - burial 157); 18,
25, 27, 29-35 - Piatra Frekecei, Romania, grave; 19-24 -
Sadovsko-Kale, Bulgaria, fortress; 26, 28, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44,
47, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 71, 77-79 - Chmi (26, 38, 40, 63, 71 -
grave XI; 28, 37, 44, 47, 62, 66 - grave XVII; 43, 67, 69 -
grave XII; 77 - grave VII; 78, 79 - grave XXIII); 30 - Peresh-
- -
chepino; 41, 45, 48, 49, 61, 68 Nevolino (41 burial 13; 45 -
-
burial 71; 48 - burial 79; 49 - burial 65; 61 burial 57; 68 -
-
burial 41); 60 - Tyzyl, burial excavated 1928; 64 Kudyrge,
-
grave 4; 70 Belozerka, barrow 14; 72, 74-76 -
Martynovka,
-
hoard; 73 Kamunta; 80, 81 - Demenki, burial 9.
In burial custom and in t e r m s of most of i t s artifacts, stage

6 resembled stage 5, but Saltovskaia buckles, belt bosses, e a r -
rings, maw-type moon symbols, and beads which, a s S. A.
Pletneva has established, date well to the second half of the 8th
and the first half of the 9th centuries (of the type shown in
Fig. 8, - --
27-31, 33, -
42, and Fig. 12, - 33, -
34, -
52) made their ap-
pearance in this stage. In grave 18 of the 1914 excavations in
the Chersonese, a coin of 800-850 C.E. was found together with

a cruciform buckle (Fig. 7, - 8). (35)
- Christian pectoral crosses
and, in all probability, a majority of the burials without grave
goods date from stages 5 and 6.
Firm dating of stage 6 (by the Saltovskaia analogies) makes
i t possible to arrive at more precise dates for other stages,
for between stages 1 and 6, there a r e no sharp lines of demar-
cation in t e r m s of either the artifacts o r the burial rite; devel-
opment was gradual and uninterrupted. The "pre-Saltovskaia"
stage 5 falls into the first half of the 8th century. Stage 2 may
be dated from the coin to the turn of the 6th to 7th centuries,
and consequently stages 3 and 4 fall into the first and second
halves of the 7th centuries. The comparison below with sites
from other regions confirms this dating. One result is the e s -
tablishment of more exact dates for individual categories of
artifacts. The large split fibulae of variant 11-c with side laps
at the buttons (Fig. 3, 10) were current during the second half
of the 6th and the firstxalf of the 7th centuries. In the first
half of the 7th century, large fibulae with laps made their ap-
pearance (Fig. 3, 16). During the second half of the 7th cen-
tury, they disappeared, to be succeeded by simpler small ones
(Fig. 3, 21). Eagle-head buckles of variant 111 (Fig. 3, 17) and
B-sha~edbuckles(of the type of Fig. 4, 13, and Fig. 6 , 6 ) were
current during virtually the entire 7th c&ry. During the 7th
century, stamped buckles with a c r o s s o r a lion were made
. -
( ~ i g 3, 19, -
20). The Dnieper-type fibulae were prevalent in the
7th century, more in i t s second half (this is confirmed by the
Dnieper and Hungarian assemblages, for which see below).
In the second half of the 7th century, the old barbarian fash-
ion of very large ornaments of Gothic types disappeared in the
SPRING 1972 37 1
southwestern Crimea (Fig. 3, - 10, -18), while the number of By-

zantine ornaments (Fig. 7, 2-5) increased, and Christian sym-
bols made their appearance, The Crimean Goths had been
Orthodox Christians for a long time, perhaps since the 3rd o r
4th centuries. (36) But it was only from the second half of the
7th century thatByzantine influence took root deeply enough
here to lead to a certain change in the old pagan customs. This

is not surprising; the Christianized Franks still buried the dead
with a r m s , crockery, and jewelry in the 6th and 7th centuries,
and in 539 C.E. they "offered a s sacrifice" "as elements of
war" the captured wives and children of the Goths, for "while
they a r e Christians, they retain many of their earlier beliefs:
they offer human sacrifices and perform other religious rituals
remote from true piety." (37) Contrary to a widespread opin-
ion, Byzantine buckles of the Syracuse type (Fig. 7, 2) appeared
in the Crimea in the second half of the 7th century and per-
sisted in the 8th century, while a late variant of the Bal-Gota
type of buckle (Fig. 7, 12, early specimens in the 7th century),
Corinthian types of buckles (Fig. 7, 13), and U-shaped buckles
(Fig. 7, - - a r e here characterisgc of the entire 8th cen-
17-22)
tury. The increased Byzantine influence on the lives of the
barbarians of the southwestern Crimea and the deepening of
their Christianization in the 8th century were consequences of
internal development leading to weakening of the local tradi-
tions of primitive communal society.
This does not contradict the fact that the second half of the
6th century to the 8th century constituted a period of impair-
ment of the economic situation in the Chersoneseus and the re-
gions of Byzantium economically important to it. (38)
The data of Suuk-Su make it possible to pose thequestion of
the origin of the heraldic belt s e t s of the 6th and 7th centuries
(Figs. 5 and 6). Four groups may be distinguished: I - the sec-
ond half of the 6th century, from graves 54 and 56 in Suuk-Su
- - and from Sadovsko-Kale (Fig. 5, -
(Fig. 5, 4-17) - II - 7th
19-24);
century, from graves of stages 3 and 4 of Suuk-Su (of the types
shown in Fig. 5, -726 - 36, -
46, -
50-59,
- - 62, - 66); 111 - stamped
65, -
and bizarre, from Avar graves and from the middle reaches of
Fig. 6. Ornaments of the 7th and 8th centuries. 1-6, 8, 15,

-
18-21, 26-29, 32, 37, 39 7th century; 7, 9-11, 30-31, 33-36,
38 - second half of 7th century; 12-14 - 7th and 8th centuries
-
(13 is from a 7th century assemblage); 16, 17 8th century;
22-24 - from about the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries;
SPRING 1972 37 3
the Dnieper (Fig. 5, 38, 39, 42-44, 47, 63, 67, 70, 74-76;
Fig. 6, 2, 7,
-- 9, -
10,-18-20, -
- - 24); IV the very latest, already
decadent, from remote a r e a s (the Cis-Urals, the Altai; Fig. 5,
-
41, - 48, -
49, -
61, -
64, - - Fig. 6, -
77-81; 16, -17). The belts of group I
a r e quite simple in form, and the slits a r e of uniform type
(Fig. 5, 4-6,
- - 16,
- -17,- 21-24);
- their a r e a of origin is Suuk-Su and
Sadovsko-Kale in Bulgaria. More richly decorated in 7th cen-
tury style, but directly continuing the traditions of group I, a r e

belts from graves 67 (Fig. 5, - - -
36, 46, 65) and 199 in Suuk-Su and
from Piatra Frekecei in Dobrudja (Romania, Fig. 5, 18, 25, 27,
29-35).
- - (39)- Consequently, except for the southwestern Crimea,
they a r e typical only of the Byzantine fortresses along the
Lower Danube. In this area, they a r e represented in the second
half of the 6th century, and continued to develop in the 7th cen-
tury. Buckles of the Sucidava type (Fig. 5, I),which have not
yet been found in other regions of ~ ~ z a n t i u(40),
m and a r e very
similar to these in technique and style, were also made in the
Byzantine fortresses on the Danube during the second half of
the 6th century. These buckles came into the hands of the
Gepidae and Langobards. In the USSR, there is only one find
of this type, occurring in a buttressed grave with a board coffin,
sunk into a barrow of earlier date in the steppes near the town
25 - 6th century. 1-21 -Tyzyl, grave excavated in 1928; 2,

12, 14, 37 - Gizhgid (2, 37 -
random finds; 12, 14 vault-
-
opened in 1897); 3 Birsk, burial; 4, 6, 8 - Tsebel'da (4 -
Abgydzrakhva, burial 14; 5, 8 - Cibilium, grave with coins of
-
Justinian I; 6 - Abgydzrakhva, burial 47); 7 Veseloe, 9 -
-
Pereshchepino; 10 Khatski; 11, 13, 39 -
Chmi (11, 39 -
catacomb XI; 13 - catacomb XVII); 15, 16 - Szeged-"Csengele"
(Hungary), burial I; 16 - Nevolino, burial 13; 17 - Kudyrge,
-
burial 8; 18 Kunagota, Hungary; 20 -
Fel'nak, hoard, Ro-
mania; 22, 24 - Kamunta; 23 - Ufa (with Figs. 8, 9); 25 -
Cologne (West Germany); 26-28 -
Bylym (Kidunetovo), barrow;
29 - Baital-Chapkan, burial 23; 30, 31, 33 - Kercd; 32 North -
-
Caucasus; 34-36 - Kabardino-Balkaria; 38 Verkhnii Chir-
Iurt, grave 59.
of Bol'shoi Tokmak (Fig. 5, 1). (41) With it were belt bosses

(Fig. 5, g, 3) whose simplicity r G a l l s those on grave 45 at
Suuk-Su (F:~. 5, 8). The hypothesis may be offered (pending
new finds) that the style of the buckles and belt bosses made
from plates came into being in a semibarbarian milieu in the
Byzantine cities and fortresses on the Danube, from which it
penetrated into the Crimea and to the nomads in the south of

the USSR.
Group II existed during the entire 7th century. Many forms
of hollow buckles developed. The bosses became cruder in con-
tour, and their forms were already far removed from the By-
zantine prototypes (compare Fig. 5, 6, %, %, and Fig. 5, 65,
66). The slits a r e diverse, and sometimes a tendency is shown
to give them the appearance of a human face (of the type of
Fig. 5, -
26, -43, and more complex instances). (42) Group llI is
intimately interwoven with group 11. We know that weapon belts
were worn for a long time, more bosses were added, and lost
ones were sometimes replaced. (43) Therefore, bosses of
group Ill a r e common in sets of 11, although that group
appeared later, at the same time a s stage 4 of Suuk-Su (in
which assembled belts were not yet represented). The bosses
in group 111 a r e bizarre in shape, with complicated slits, and
often bordered in ribbed gold wire (sometimes they contain
glass inserts). This is the so-called pseudobuckle style (Fig. 5,
38, -
- 39, -
53, -56, -63, -
67, -
70, -
71; Fig. 6, -
7, -
9, -10). The most typical
assemblages a r e those with Dnieper fibulae (Martynovka,
Blazhki, Sudzha, Koloskovo, and Podbolot'e; Khatski, where
there a r e no fibulae), graves 11, 12, and 17 in Chmi, Peresh-
chepino and Kelegei farmsteads (with coins of 631 -668 C .E .). (44)
Some of the 7th century bosses have embossed stamped orna-
mentation (Fig. 5, - 39, -
42; Fig. 6, -
9, - - Belts containing
18-20).
elements of group I11 exist in the Crimean Bosporus, in
Abkhazia, in the North Caucasus, along the Oka, in Bashkiria
(45), and in the steppes from Hungary to the Volga, and late
echoes of the same (group N )may be found along the middle
and upper reaches of the west bank of the Kama, in western
Siberia, and in the Altai (for fuller detail, see the section on
SPRING 1972 37 5
the 8th century). Seventh century belts a r e found in association

with straight swords having P-shaped guards, circular stirrups
with loops, and also horizontal, oval stirrups with plate-type
irons [ushko] (Fig. 14, 2-4, 8,- - 9, -
11,-19).
It is usually held thatthe Avar cemeteries of stage 1 along
the middle Danube a r e synchronous with the 'bottom layer" of
Suuk-Su and the hoards from Martynovka and Khatski, allegedly

dating to the 6th century. Therefore, "early Avar" sites a r e
usually dated a s between 567 C .E. (the date when the Avars
came to the Danube according to written data) and the decade
of the 680s C .E. Finds of 6th century coins a r e taken to con-
firm the earlier date: a gold coin of 527-565 from a grave a t
Kupagota and bronze coins of 518-527 and 527-565 from de-
stroyed graves in Szent-Endrei (but others of 602-610 a r e
found in the same place) and Deske. The Avar inventory of
group I i s quite homogeneous: these a r e buckles with protrud-
ing 'lips" (Fig. 6, 15), stamped and smooth belt bosses (Fig. 5,
42; Fig. 6, -
- 18-20),
- with elements of the "pseudobuckle
style" (as in Fig. 5, 39; Fig. 6, 9; and others), stirrups of stage
3 (see below) - rounxwith loop~shapedstirrup irons and
slightly oval, "apple -shapedt' types with elongated plate -type
irons (Fig. 14, - - -
8-9, 19) - P-shaped sword guards (Fig. 10, 30,
31;
- Fig. 14, 2), fringe-like bridle bosses, large globe earrings
(Fig. 8, - 1, -2 c eye-like beads with swagings. (46) These goods
do not break down into chronological subgroups. The Avars had
no Byzantine belts of group I, no Sucidava-type buckles, and
few of the B-shaped buckles. Avarian antiquities (and those of
the ~ e r n i type)
e find correspondences in stage 3 (a little) and
stage 4 (more) at Suuk-Su, and particularly in the Dnieper a s -
semblages with fibulae having finger-like extensions and belts
of group 111, and in Chmi. Most of the coins in Avar assem-
blages of the 7th century a r e in complete accord with this:
Synpetrul german (610-641 C.E.), ~ r g t u r(610-631 C.E.),
~ o v E e n a (613-641
c -
C.E.), and Kiszombor " 0(602-610 C.E.). (47)
The assemblages from Pereshchepino and the Kelegei
farmsteads in the Ukraine, containing coins of 582-602, 602-
610, 613-631, 631-641, 641-668 in the former (a total of 69 coins)
-
Fig. 7. Buckles of Byzantine types, 8th and 9th centuries.
1, 9-11 - end of 7th and early 8th centuries; 2-5 - second
-
half of 7th century; 6, 7, 12-20, 22 8th century and, prob-
-
ably, part of 9th century; 8 9th century. 1, 10, 11 - Peresh-
-
chepino; 2-7, 12-14, 20 - Suuk-Su (2 burial 58; 3-5 - burial
131; 7, 13 -burial 53; 12 -stone sepulcher 7; 14 -burial 80;
SPRING 1972 377
and of 610-641 and 641-668 in the latter case (7 coins). (48) -

Avarian artifacts a r e known from 7th century Germanic graves
a t a settlement that arose on the ruins of the Byzantine city of
Justiniana Prima in Yugoslavia (to judge by the coins, the city
was destroyed subsequent to 602-610 C .E .). Belt bosses simi-
l a r to the Avarian ones were found in the Akalan hoard (Euro-
pean Turkey), with a coin of 610-641 C.E. The oval stirrups

depicted on the monument to Emperor T'ai Tsung, built in
637 C.E., a r e typologically more ancient (Fig. 14, - 10, - -
11). (49)
Thus, although there is an abundance of data on the 7th century,
there a r e a s yet none from the 6th century among the early
Avar sites from Hungary cited in the discussion (this includes
the grave of Halimba).
"Late" dating of Avarian antiquities is not new. As early a s
1939, Csallany placed the principal known assemblages, includ-
ing that of Kunagota, in the 7th century. (50) In so doing, he
presented a typological s e r i e s of sword buckles: 1 - Figure 14,
4; 2 - Figure 14, 3; 3 - Figure 14, 5, connecting the P-shaped
buckle with large projection (Fig. 14T3) with a later portion of
the 7th century sites. This is in good agreement with materials
from the USSR, where buckles of the type in Figure 14, 3 p r e -
dominate and a r e associated with the stage of "bizarre belts"
and the next stage at the beginning of the 8th century. (Marty-
novka, Chmi, Uch-Tepe, Glodosy , Armievo, Artsybashevo,
Borisovo, paintings in Pendjikent and Afrasiab). In 1938,
Csallany classed Avarian group I in the period prior to 680 C.E.
and group 11 (Fig. 13, - --
1-8, 11, - 12) in 680-720 C.E., with group
I11 (Fig. 13, -91 - - after 720 C.E. (51) The disagreements
9-17)
with other Hungarian specialists on the Avars a r e not a s great
a s might seem to be the case. For they hold that 'Yhe St. Martin
find is one of the key finds of that group for the 7th and 6th cen-
turies." And if, f o r the sake of tradition, they still place it in
"the 6th century, in part, perhaps even in the first half of the
- Werner demonstrated convincingly a s early
6th century" (52),
20 -burial 38); 8 - Chersonese excavation of 1914, vault 18; 9 -

Igar (Hungary), find III; 15 - Artek; 16,21- Eski-Kermen, vault 14;
17,18,22 - Uzen'-Bash, vault 1; 19 - Sakharnaia Golovka, vault 12.
50
Fig. 8. Ornaments of the 7th to 9th centuries. 1, 2 - 7th cen-
tury; 8, 9, 45-47 - end of 7th and early 8th centuries; 7, 10-
17 - 8th century; 18-25, 34 - 8th century. The degree to which
they reach into the 9th century has not been clarified; 27-32,
46 -
second half of 8th to first half of 9th centuries; 26, 35, 36,
48-50 - second half of 8th century and 9th century; 37-44 - 8th
and first half of 9th centuries; 33 - second half of 9th century.
SPRING 1972 379
a s 1960 that Martynovka dates to "the Pereshchepino epoch" -

i.e., the second half of the 7th century. (53) The placing of the
now known "early Avar" sites in the second half of the 7th
century was based not so much on Danubian material itself a s
on references to the chronology of the south of the USSR, which
had been but little worked out. Improvement of the latter in-
evitably led to modification of the chronology of the Avars.

.,
The Avars settled along the Danube in 567 -568 C .E and for
60 y e a r s were a serious adversary of Byzantium. In the 620s
and 630s, the Avar khanate became weaker (serious defeat by
the Byzantines, secession of the Slavic state of Samo and of the
Kuturgurs, cessation of Avar political influence north of the
Black Sea). In 681, the Bolgar state was established on the
Danube, separating the Avars from Byzantium. If the "early
Avar" sites a r e tentatively dated to within 620 and 690 C.E.
(reckoning that they co-existed with the new group II), it is
found that sites of the 50 o r 60 y e a r s of the Avars' greatest
power a r e still unknown. This is not surprising: Pletneva has
demonstrated that after conquering a new region, the nomads
were able for a long time to engage in encampment-type no-
madism, moving constantly from place to place and leaving
very few t r a c e s detectable by the archeologist. (54) In the
course of time, it will probably prove possible toidentify the
t r a c e s of the early Avars among the accidentally found and cul-
turally atypical relics of the second half of the 6th century.
-
1, 2, 7, 11, 14-17 Hungary (1 - Sarazd; 2 - Kiszombor "0,"
burial 2; 7, 11, 14-17 - Alattyan, burials 233, 471, 392, 502,
386, 317); 3-5 - Kamunta; 6 - Peschanka, burial 2; 8 - Glod-
osy; 9 - Dzhiginskoe; 10 - Nove Zamki (Slovakia); 12, 13 -
Novye Senzhary; 18, 21 - Sakharnaia Golovka, burials 20, 14;
19, 20 - UzenV-Bash,vault 1; 22, 23, 42 - Eski-Kermen, bur-
-
ials 55, 52, 41; 24 Katanda 11, barrow 5; 25 - Skalistoe, bur-
ial 307; 26,35,36 -Mydlant-Shai,burials 8,10,74; 27-33,37-41,
43,44,46,48-50 - Chmi (27 - catacomb 2; 28,32,44 - catacomb
26; 29,31,40,46,48,49 -catacomb 20; 30 -catacomb 3; 33,43 -
-
catacomb 8; 37 catacomb 13; 38 - catacomb 21; 39 - catacomb
22; 41 - catacomb 18; 50 - catacomb 27); 45,46 - Pereshchepino.
Only when the military success of the Avars declined in the early
part of the 7th century, and a parasitic existence from war booty be-
came more difficult, did they begin to settle on the land more firmly
and work out the first style common to all the Avars. It was still very
dependent upon external, Byzantine influence. This was facilitated,
a s~ i t s c h a - ~ & r h e i m
observed, by the annual Byzantine payment to
the Avars to remain at peace. (55) In the late Avar period, when sed-
entary life spread rapidly amongthem, large settlements and large
cemeteries arose, and the 720s and 730s saw the appearance for the
first time of an indigenous style of art - cast ornamentation (56) -
intimately associated with the intellectual culture of the ~ v a r p e o -
ple (Fig. 13, - 9, - -
13-17).
Belt sets of the 7th century a r e well represented in theNorth
Caucasus (Chmi, Borisovo, Verkhnii Chir -Iurt, Khusanaty ,
Nizhnii Dzhulat, and elsewhere). (57) There a r e large hollow
buckles (Fig. 6, 2), late P-shapedsword guards, and a t Chir-
Iurt, barbarian imitations of Byzantine coins of the mid-7th
century. The cemeteries of Pashkovskii I, Giliachskii (where
this i s illustrated with particular vividness by burial 21), and
the Kudinetovskaia find (Fig. 6, - - (58),
26-28) - a r e dated to the
7th century by the presence in them of hollow buckles, local
split fibulae of variant 11-c, and other artifacts. Among the
latter, inlayed brooch fibulae with bird heads (Fig. 6, - 32, -
37),
local cicada brooches, 'little anchor" brooches, others in geo-
metrical shapes (Fig. 6, - 29, -
38), large crystal beads, bronze
boxes - often with a 'little anchor" inlay (perhaps the two-
pronged symbol of heavenly fire, the cudgels of Jupiter and
Varuna) - and children's pendants in the form of phallic little
men (59) (synchronous with those of the Crimean Bosporus of
the 7thcentury) a r e characteristic of the 7th century. A vari-
ety of fibulae and vessels with conical projections in 7th cen-
tury assemblages a r e , a s yet, difficult to characterize cor-
rectly, since the preceding links from 5th and 6th century sites
a r e not known. It is probable that the gold belt s e t s abundantly
decorated with inset metal beads and stampings, and the pyra-
midal and certain other earrings put together from large
spheres, of "Avar" types (Fig. 6, - - Fig. 8, -3, -8) (60),
22-24; -
date to the end of the 7th century and in part to the 8th. The
SPRING 1972 381
quadrangular bronze buckles (Fig. 13, 21), triangular buckles

(Fig. 13, 22 - sometimes 'horned"), u-shaped and scalloped
buckles (ofthe type in Fig. 13, 19), the moon symbols with open
jaws (Fig. 8, 42), the bipyramid% glass beads (of the type of
Fig. 8, 39), and the painted carnelian beads (as in Fig. 8, 37),
along with the early bracelets thickened in their central pG-
tions - all found at Chir-Iurt -
must be regarded a s 8th cen-

tury artifacts. In all probability, Chir-Iurt dates primarily
from the end of the 7th and the f i r s t half of the 8th centuries.
Notes
1) N. I. Repnikov, "Nekotorye mogil'niki oblasti krymskikh
gotov, " P a r t I, -
IAK (Izvestiia Arkheologicheskoi kommissii) ,
19, St. Petersburg, 1906, pp. 16, 23; P a r t 11, --
ZOOID (Zapiski
Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei) , XXVII, 1907,
pp. 122, 123 (Suuk-Su); E. I. Krupnov, Iz itogov arkheologiche-
skikh rabot," Izv. SON11 (Severno-Osetinskogo Nauchno-
issledovatel'skogo instituta), IX,Ordzhonikidze, 1940, pp. 151-
153, 164 (Galiat); D. Ia. Samokvasov, Mogily russkoi zemli,
Moscow, 1908 (Chmi); V . F. Gening, "Drevneudmurtskii mogill-
nik Myd1an'-Shai," VAU - (Vestnik Ural'skogo otdeleniia Akademii
- , 3, Sverdlovsk, 1962.
nauk)
2) M. Parducz, ~ e n k m a l e rder Sarmatenzeit Ungarns, 111,
Budapest, 1950, pp. 226, 231, 245, 246; D. Csallany, ~ r c h a o -
logische ~ e n k m a l e rder Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken, Buda-
pest, 1961, pp. 28, 35, 73-92, 149, 174-190; J. Barnea,
"L'incendie de la cit'e de Dinogetia au VIe si'ecle," Dacia, X,
Bucharest, 1966, p. 257, 258.
3) V. B. Deopik, ''Klassifikatsiia i khronologiia alanskikh
ukrashenii VI-M vv.," - MIA (Materialy i issledovanii po arkhe-
ologii), 114, 1963, pp. 132-135, Fig. 4; certain 8th and 9th cen-
tury graves had been dated to the 6th and 7th centuries from
their coins (compare Graph N hereunder).
4) V. B. Deopik, 'Wassifikatsiia bus Severnogo Kavkaza
N-V w., SA (Sovetskaia arkheologiia), 1959, 3, pp. 49, 51, 57,
64 (the stacstical calculations a r e based on the traditional dat-
ing of Pashkovskaia I, Borisovo, Giliach, Baital-Chapkan, part
of Suuk-Su, and Chufut-Kale to the 4th and 5th centuries).
5) V. K. Pudovin, "Datirovka nizhnego sloia mogil'nika

Suuk-Su," SA, 1961, 1.
6) V. ~ . G a i d u k e v i c h ,"Nekropoli nekotorykh bosporskikh
gorodov," - MIA, 69, 1959, Fig. 82, 4; Fig. 85, 4; Fig. 91, 4;
Fig. 95, 4; V. P. Shilov, ' ~ a l i n o v s k i ikurgannyi mogil'nik,"
MIA, 60,7959, Fig. 49, 11; E. A. Symonovich, "Fibuly Neapolia
~kofskogo ," SA, 1962, 4 ,Fig. 3, 2.
7) V. A. ~ K n e t s o v Alanskie
, g e m e n a Severnogo Kavkaza,
Moscow, 1962, Fig. 4 (with them a r e silver hanger fibulae of
s e r i e s III, group 15, with faceted bows, in the Piatigorsk Mu-
seum. All the artifacts have analogs in Sarmatian and Kerch
3rd century graves); R. M. Munchaev, 'Wovye sarmatskie pamiat-
nikichecheno-Ingushetii,"SA, 1965,2, Fig. 3,l-3,7,8,12. -----
8) I. Tolstoi and N. ~ o n d a k o vRusskie
, drevnosti v
pamiatnikakh iskusstva, 2, St. Petersburg, 1889, Figs. 134-138;
M. Rostovtzeff, 'Vne trouvaile de lt6poque greco-sarmate de
Kertch," Monumentes et m6moires publihs par l ' ~ c a d 6 m i edes
inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondations E. Piot, 26, P a r i s ,
1923 (for the Bosporus); OAK, - 1894, pp. 37, 38, Fig. 40 (Cis-
Kuban); OAK, - 1897, Fig. 232 (Chersonese); A. L. Iakobson,
'Rannesrednevekovyi Khersones," - MIA, 63, 1959, Fig. 138, -
3,
4; D. Gempler, Der 11 und I11 Fund v o a a c k r a u , Berlin, 1888,
-
Table 111, - 18, -
19; B. Salin, Die altgermanische Tierornamentik,
Stockholm, 1904, Figs. 95-99; B. Stjernquist, Simris, Bonn and
Lund, 1944, pp. 108-165.
9) B. D. Blavatskii, 'Xharaks," 9-MIA 19, 1965, Fig. 10, 7; -
E . V . Veimarn, "Arkheologichni roboti v raioni Inkermana,"
-
AP (Arkheologickie pamiatki Ukrainskoi RSR), XIII, Kiev,
1963, p. 42 and Fig. 9; E. A. Symonovich, "Pamiatniki
cherniakhovskoi kul'tury stepnogo Podneprov'ia, " SA, XXN ,
1955, Fig. 13, - 2, - - Fig. 14, -
6-8; --
1-4; MIA, 82, 1960;%IA, 116,
1964; - MIA, 139, 1967; E. A. Rikman, Pamiatnik epokhi velikogo
pereseleniia narodov, Kishinev, 1967; I. Kovacs, "Cimetisre
de lVdpoquede la migration des peuples L Marosszentanna,"
Dolgozatok, III, 2, Kolozsvar; 1912; Gh. Diaconi, Tirgsor,
Bucharest, 1965 (buckle from grave 182 in Plate CLXII, 8, and
p. 91, looks in Plate CXIII, - 3, like ordinary ones for the 4th
SPRING 1972 383
century); V. Mitrea and C. Preda, Necropole din secolul a1 N

l e a e.n. in Muntenia, Bucharest, 1966.
10) J. Werner, ~ e i t r a g ezur ~ r c h a o l o g i edes Attila-Reiches,
Munich, 1956, p. 130, Fig. 2, plates 4, 9, 10, 13, 15-19, 26-29,
40, 50, 53, 59, 61, 64, 69-75; W. Kubitschek, "Grabfunde in
Untersiebenbrunn," Jahrbuch fir Altertumskunde , 5, 1-3,
Vienna, 1911; N. Fettich, Der. 2. Schatz von Szildgy-Somlyo,

Budapest, 1932; same author, Le dkcouverte de tombes
princi'eres hunniques ?A Szeged-Nagyszdksos, Budapest, 1952,
d a t e s I-V, XII-XVII; A. Abramowicz, D. Dabrowski,
K. Jazdzewski, and S. Nosek, Periode des migrations d e s
peuples. Inventaria archaeologica, Lodz, 1959 (Jakusowice);
T. M. Minaeva, "Pogrebeniia s sozhzheniem bliz G. Pokrovska,"
Uch. zap. SGU (Uchenye Zapiski Saratovskogo Gosudarstvennogo
Universiteta), VI, 3, Saratov, 1927 (Novogrigor'evka, graves
VIII and M;Nizhniaia Dobrinka); OAK, - 1899, Fig. 250; V. A.
Kuznetsov and V. K. Pudovin, "Alany v Zapadnoi Evrope v
epokhu 'velikogo pereseleniia narodov,' " SA, 1961, 2, Figs. 2-5;
A. A. Spitsyn, 'Veshchi s inkrustatsiei iz kerchenskikh kata-
komb 1904 g.," IAK, 17, St. Petersburg, 1905; T. N. Vysotskaia
and E. N. ~ h e r e G o v a ,"Nakhodki i z pogrebenii N-V vv. v
Krymu," SA, 1966, 3; 0. D. Dashevskaia, "Pogrebenie gunnskogo
vremeni v?hernomorskom raione Kryma," - MIA, 169, 1969
(Beliaus) .
11) A. K. Ambroz, "Fibuly iuga Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR I1
v. do n.e.-N v. n.e.," SAI, Dl-30, Moscow, 1966, pp. 86-91.
12) Iu. N. Voronov, K k h e o l ~ ~ i c h e s k akarta
ia Abkhazii ,
Sukhumi, 1969, Plate XL, - 10, -12
,-?- 14- MAK, VIII, Moscow, 1900,
Plate CIII, - 9, -
11, Plate C N , 18; B. Salin, Die altgermanische
Tierornamentik, Fig. 95, 20;>ig. 103, 141; Fig. 114, 257,
Plate XCII, - 3, -
6 (4th century [ ?] v a u 1 t ) T ~ Az. . ~ u r ~ e 7 ' ~ h e
Late Roman Cemetery at Sagvar," - AAN, XVIII, 1-4, Budapest,
1966. (b)
13) 6. B. Shelov, Novye dannye o Tanaise. Arkheologicheskie
raskpoki na Donu, Rostov, 1962, p. 75; same author Raskopki
severo-vostochnogo uchastka Tanaisa. Drevnosti Nizhnego Dona,
Moscow, 1962, pp. 127-129, Fig. 61; same author, Tanais i
Nizhnii Don, Moscow, 1968, pp. 53-55 (author's abstract of

doctoral dissertation).
14) E. V. Veimarn, "Arkheologichni roboti," pp. 37 and 42.
15) A. K. Ambroz, "Fibuly," pp. 88-91.
16) J. Werner, ~ G n z d a t i e r t eaustrasische Grabfunde, Berlin,
1935, pp. 30-34; same author, "Studien zu Grabfunden des V .
Jahrhunderts," - - VII, 2, Bratislava, 1959; same author,
SA (c),
"Eine ostgotische Prunkschnalle von Koln-severinstor,"
Kb'lner Jahrbuch fiir Vor- und ~ r h ~ e s c h i c h t 3, e , Cologne,
1958; same author, "Zu den donaulgndischen Beziehungen des
alamannischen Graberfeldes am alten Gotterbarmweg in
Basel," Helvetia antiqua, Zurich, 1966; K. Tihelka, "Kniieci
hrob z obdob? st6hovdni' ndrodfi u ~ l u c i n ," y -PA, LlV, 2,
Prague, 1963.
17) A. K. Ambroz, "Review of J. Werner, Katalog der
Sammlung Diergardt," SA, 1966, 4, pp. 213, 124; same author,
"Dunaiskie elementy v rannesr ednevekovoi kul 'ture Kryma
@I-VII vv.) ,"KSIA (Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta arkheologii)
AN
-- SSSR, 113, 1968, pp. 14-17.
18) N. Fettich, ~ r c h a o l o g i s c h eStudien zur Geschichte der
spathunnischen Metallkunst, Budapest, 1951, Plate XLVI, 1-7;
- 1891, pp. 59-61, Figs. 38-40; simple belts of the 7thc;n-
OAK,
tury: V. D. Blavatskii, "Raskopki Pantikapeia v 1962 g.,"
KSIIMK (Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta istorii material'noi
kul'turi), 58, 1955, Fig. 32; I. I. Bich, "Pervye raskopki
nekropolia Pantikapeia," - MIA, 69, 1959, Fig. 2, - A; Fig. 3, -P,
Q, 0
- - (barrow 1, vaults 7 and 17); M. I. Artamonov, Istoriia
khazar, Leningrad, 1962, p. 60, figure.
19) Nal'chik, Museum. No. 2525, artifacts sewn to a board
by M. I. Ermolenko, a detailed list of which is in the acquisi-
tion book for 1923, nos. 268-287; not long ago, typical 5th cen-
tury graves were excavated by M. P. Abramova in North
Ossetia (at Brut).
20) Materials in the State Historical Museum (GIM) and the
Nal'chik and Cherkessia museums. Publications: T. M. Minaeva,
Mogil'nik Baital-Chapkan. Materialy po izucheniiu Stavropoll-
skogo kraia, 2-3, Stavropol', 1960; same author, "Arkheolo-
SPRING 1972 385
.
gicheskie pamiatniki r Giliach v verkhov'iakh Kubani ," 9MIA-
23, 1951; same author, "Mogil'nik Baital-Chapkan v Cherkesii,"

.
SA, XXVI, 1956; E P. Alekseeva, 0 chem rasskasyvaiut
-
arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Karachaevo-Cherkesii, Cherkessk,
1960, Plate 10, 1; Plate 11, 2 (Tamgatsik); V. G. Kotovich,
"Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Iuzhnogo Dagestana,"
MAD (Materialy po Arkheologii Dagestana), I, Makhachkala,

1959, pp. 149-156, Plate XIII.
21) OAK, 1897,Fig. 176 (Chegem); E K , VIII, Plate CID,
- ; Plate CIV, 18 (Rutkha) ; I, Tolstoi and N. Kondakov ,
-9, 11
Russkie drevnostiT3, St. Petersburg, 1890, Fig. 180.
22) A. K. Ambroz, "Fibuly," Plate 6, 3-4; Plate 10, 7-9.
23) M. M. Trapsh, "Nekotorye itogi r&kopok ~ s e b e l ' - -
dinskikh nekropolei v 1960-1962 gg. ," Tr. Abkhaz. IIaLI
(Trudy Abkhazskogo Instituta iazyka, literatury i iskusstva),
XXXIII-XXXN. Sukhumi. 1963: G. K. Shamba. Fibulv i z
nekropolia Akhachcharkhva. Materialy po arkheologii Abkhazii,
Tbilisi, 1967; Iu. N. Voronov, Arkheologicheskaia karta
Abkhazii, Sukhumi, 1969; Iu. N. Voronov, A. S. Vozniuk, and
V. A. Iushin, "Apushtinskii mogil'nik IV-VI vv. n.e. v Abkhazii,"
SA, 1970, 1; G. K. Shamba, Akhachcharkhu - drevnii mogil'nik
-
nagornoi Abkhazii , Sukhumi , 1970.
24) A. K. Ambroz, "Fibuly," pp. 54, 55, 57. Study of the
cemeteries of Suuk-Su, the Cis-Urals, and the Oka compel me
to revise certain datings I offered in 1966, making them half
a century later.
25) Iu. N. Voronov, "Arkheologicheskaia karta," pp. 59, 64,
Plate XL,- 34, -
35; Plate XLI, -
1; G. K. Shamba, Akhachcharku,
Plate VI.
26) A little-known grave of the second half of the 7th cen-
tury in the village of Veseloe (Fig. 6, 7);
- OAK,
- 1904, p. 130;
A. A. Spitsyn, "Mogil'nik V v. v Prichernomor'e," IAK, 23,
St. Petersburg, 1907 (Veseloe and Gagry); A. A. ~ i z r ,
"Razvedki na Chernomorskom poberezh'e Kavkaza v 1907 g.,"
- 33, St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 83, Fig. 22, -
IAK, 3, -
11,-17; Fig. 23,
3. In 1904, two fibulae were found, and in a follow-up in 1907,
buckles (one of them shown in Fig. 6, - 7), a sword, a spear, a
knife, and a three-bladed arrow. No bones were found (crema-

tion ?).
27) I. N. Repnikov, Nekotorye mogil'niki, P a r t s I and I1
(Suuk-Su, Artek, Koreiz, Bal-Gota); same author, "Razvedki i
raskopki na iuzhnom beregu Kryma i v Baidarskoi doline v
1907 g.," - IAK, 30, St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 105-119 (Suuk-Su,
graves 189-200; Uzen' -Bash) ; same author, "Raskopki E ski -
Kermenskogo mogil'nika v 1928 and 1929 gg.," IGAIMK

(Izvestiia Gosudarstvennoi Akademii istorii material'noi
kul'tury), 12, 1-8, 1932; E. V. Veimarn, "Mogil'nik bilia
visoti Sakharna golivka," AP, - XIII, 1963; V. V. Kropotkin,
"Mogil'nik Chufut-Kale v Krymu," KSIA AN SSSR, 100, 1965;
E. V. Veimarn and A. P. Smirnov, "Sosud s rospis'iu iz
mogil'nika u s. Skalistoe (sklep 307) ," KSIA AN SSSR, 100,
1965.
28) V. K. Pudovin, 'Datirkovka," pp. 183, 184.
29) J. Werner, "Byzantinische ~;'rtelschnallen d e s 6. und 7.
Jahrhunderts aus der Sammlung Diergardt," ~ o l n e Jahrbuch r
fiir Vor- und ~ G h g e s c h i c h t e 1,
, Cologne, 1955; D. Csallany,
"Pamiatniki vizantiiskogo metalloobrabatyvaiushchego iskusstva,
P a r t I, Acta antiqua, II, 3-4, Budapest, 1954; P a r t 11, Acta -
antiqua, IV, 1-4, Budapest, 1956.
30) A. K. Ambroz, "Dunaiskie elementy," pp. 14, 16-20; the
connection between the Danubian buckles and the Gepidae is
.
confirmed by new data; Z Vinski, "Adlerschnallenfunde in
Jugoslawien," Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski, Wroclaw, Warsaw,
and Krakow, 1968, pp. 317, 318, 321-323, 325.
31) I. Welkov, "Eine Gotenfestung bei Sadowetz (Nordbul-
garien)," Germania, 19, 2, Berlin, 1935, pp. 157, 158, Plate 19,
2; H. Vetters, 'Dacia Ripensis," Schriften der Balkan-
omm mission. Antiquarische Abteiling, XI, Vienna, 1950, pp. 56,
57.
32) S. Uenze, 'Die Schnallen mit Riemenschlaufe aus dem
6. und 7. Jahrh.," Bayerische ~ o r g e s c h i c h t s - ~ l g t t e r31,
, 1-2,
Munich, 1966, pp. 142-146.
33) N. Fettich, Die Kunstgewerbe d e r Awarenzeit in Ungarn,
Budapest, 1926, Plate N ,- 7-13 -(Felynak); Istoria ~ o m h i c i I, ,
SPRING 1972 387
Bucharest, 1960; p. 721, Fig. 180, - 1-4- (Synpetrul i e r m a n , with

a coin of 610 -641 C .E .) .
34) Z. Cilinska, Slawisch-awarisches Graberfeld in Novd
Z ~ Q Bratislava,
, 1966, Figs. 10 and 11,
35) S. A. Pletneva, Ot kochevii k gorodam. Saltovo-
maiatskaia kul'tura, Moscow, 1967, pp. 135-143, 161-168;
V. B. Deopik, 'Wassifikatsiia bus Iugo-Vostochnoi Evropy
VI-M vv.," - .
SA, 1961; A. L Iakobson, Rannesrednevekovyi
Khersones, p. 275, Fig. 140.
36) A. A. Vasil'ev, "Goty v Krymu," I, IRAIMK (Izvestiia
Rossiiskoi Akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury), I, 1921,
pp. 286-287.
37) Procopius of Caesarea, Voina s gotami, Moscow, 1960,
p. 240 (I1 25, Sect. 9-11).
38) D. L. Talis, 'Voprosy periodizatsii istorii Khersona v
epokhu rannego srednevekov'ia," VV (Vizantiiskii Vremennik) ,
XVIII, Moscow, 1961, pp. 60, 61, 63-67.
39) P. Aurelian, "Predvaritel'nye svedeniia v sviazi s
khronologiei mogil'nika v P'iatra Freketsei," Dacia, VI,
Bucharest, 1962, Fig. 13.
40) J. Werner, Byzantinischen Gurtelschnallen, pp. 39, 40,
- - Map 1; Starinar, I, Belgrade, 1950,
Fig. 6, Plate 8, 6-11,
Fig. 35; D. Csallany, ~ r c h a o l o g i s c h e~ e n k m a l e rder Gepiden,
Plate XXV, 13; Plate CCXIII, 13; Plate CLXXX, 4; Plate
CLXXXVIII,?; P. Aurelian, "Predvaritellnye soobshchesniia,"
Fig. 11, 1-2;%. Tudor, Oltenia romana, Bucharest, 1968,
Fig. 142.- -
41) K. F. Smirnov, "Kurgani bilia m. Velikogo Tokmaka,"
-
AP, VIII, Kiev, 1960, pp. 176, 177, Fig. 128, - 1, -2.
42) An opinion exists to the effect that bosses with faces
shown in detail a r e the very earliest ones of heraldic character,
and that the style therefore arose in the northwestern Caucasus:
V. B. Kovalevskaja, 'Ttecherches s u r l e s syst&mes sdmiolo-
giques en archdologie," Archdologie et calculateurs, P a r i s ,
1970, p. 190. But in assemblages they a r e always accompanied
by bosses of groups I1 and 111(the "crutch-type" with a "duck
head" instead of a crossbar, and belt ends of the type shown in
Fig. 5, 43, and elsewhere).

43) AS
. Pletneva, Ot kochevii k gorodam, p. 166.
44) A. A. Bobrinskii, Kurgany i sluchainye arkheologiche skie
nakhodki bliz mestechka Smela, 111, St. Petersburg, 1901,
- 1895, p. 55, Figs. 111-114 (Kolo-
Plate 14 (Khatski); OAK,
skovo) ; V. A. Gorodtsov, "Dnevnik arkheologicheskikh issledo-
.
vanii v Zen'kovskom uezde ," T r XIV AS (Trudy XIV Arkhe-
ologicheskogo S'ezdu), 111, Moscow, 1911, p. 147, Plate 111, - -

1-3;
.
B A. Rybakov, 'Wovyi Sudzhanskii klad antskogo vremeni ,"
KSIIMK, XXVIII, 1949; same author, "Drevnie rusy," SA, XVII,
1963 (Khatski, Koloskovo, Martynovka) ; N. Fettich, ~ i e ~ e t a l l -
kunst der landnehmenden Ungarn, Budapest, 1937, Plates CXXI-
CXXIV (Martynovka); J. Werner, "Slawische ~Ggelfibelndes
7. Jahrhunderts," Reinecke-Festschrift, Mainz, 1950, pp. 168-
170, Plate 34, 3 (Martynovka); D. Ia. Samkvasov, Mogily russ-
koi zemli, pp. i75-185 (Chmi; artifacts in the State Historical
Museum); Ocherki istorii SSSR, 111-M vv., Moscow, 1958, fig-
u r e on p. 630 (Chmi, catacomb 11); A. A. Bobrinskii, "Peresh-
chepinskii klad," MAR, 34, Petrograd, 1914 (appendix to M. I.
Artamonov, Istoriia khazar, figures on pp. 240, 243, 245, 247);
N. Fettich, Die Metallkunst, Plate CXXVIII, - 1; Plate CXXXM,
1-43
-- (Kelegei farmstead).
45) A. P . Smirnov, "Zheleznyi vek Bashkirii," - MIA, 58, 1957,
Plate VI, 10; Plate VII, 1 (Bakhmutino); N. A. Mazhitov, Bakh-
mutinskaiakul 'tura, ~ o i c o w 1968,
, Table 5, -
24, - 25; ~ a b l -
---
26, 31, 32; Table 12, 14 (Birsk).
46) I. Kovrig, Das Garenzeitliche ~ r g b e r f e l dvon Alattydn,
Budapest, 1963, pp. 224-228; D. Csallany, "Grabfunde der
~riihawarenzeit,"FA (Folia Archaeologica) , 1-11, Budapest,
1939 (Kiszombor 'E' Desk "D," Szeged-Cengele) ; same au-
thor, 'Vizantiiskie monety v avarskikh nakhodkakh ,"AAH -
(Acts Archaeologica Hungarica) , 11, Budapest, 1952; I. Kovrig,
"Contribution au problsme de l'occupation de l a Hongrie par
l e s Avars," - AAH, VI, 1-4, Budapest, 1955; N. Fettich, "Garni-
tures de fourreaux des sabres du temps des Avares en
Hongrie," Arethuse, 1926, P a r i s , April 1926, Plate VIII
(Kunagota); L. Janko, "Grabfunde aus d e r Awarenzeit zu Papa,"
SPRING 1972 389
-(Archaeologiai ertesit;), XLIV, Budapest, 1930.

AE
47) I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Graberfeld, pp. 106, 113;
Z. Vinski, "0 nalazima 6 i 7 stoljeca u Jugoslaviji," Opuscula
archaeologica, Zagreb, 1958, Plate VII, - - D. Csallany ,
20-25;
"Grabfunde. "
48) V. V. Kropotkin, 'Xlady vizantiiskikh monet na territorii
SSSR," SAI (Srod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov), E4-4, Mos-

cow, 1962,pp. 10, 36, 37.
49) D. ~ s a l l a n i~, r c h a o l o ~ i s c h~ e n k m a l e rder Awarenzeit
in Mitteleuropa, Budapest, 1956, pp. 152, 153 (Linz); A. Lippert,
"Ein friihawarischer Grabfund aus Wien XII," AAN, - XXI, 1-2,
Budapest, 1962, pp. 48-50; Starinar, V-VI, Belgrade, 1956,
p. 163, Fig. 37, - 9, -
13,-14; Starinar, VII-VIII, Belgrade, 1958,
p. 325; J. Werner, Slawische ~ugelfibeln,p. 168 (Akalan):
I. Kovrig, "Contribution," Plate VI, - 1-2- (the monument to
T 'ait sung).
50) D. Csallany, "Grabfunde," pp. 166-169.
51) D. Csallany, "Rapports archdologiques entre l e s
trouvailles tombales de ltdpoque avare de Szeged et des c o r s
k boire hunno-bulgares," AE , VII-VIII-M, Budapest, 1948,
p. 360; H. M i t s c h a - M h r h z , "Eine awarische Grenzorganisa-
tion d e s 8. Jahrhunderts in ~iederGsterreich,"Jahrbuch d e s
RGZM, 4, Mainz, 1957, pp. 133, 134.
52) I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Graberfeld, pp. 227, 228.
53) J. Werner, Slawische ~Ggelfibeln,p. 170.
54) S. A. Pletneva, Ot kochevii k gorodam, pp. 181, 182.
55) H. Mitscha-Mshrheim, "Eine awarische Grenzorganisa-
tion," p. 133.
56) Ibid., p. 134.
57) Collection of the State Historical Museum and of the
Nal'chik and Ordzhonikidze museums; V. V. Sakhanev, "Ras-
kopki na Severnom Kavkaze v 1911-1912 gg.," IAK, 56, St.
Petersburg, 1914 (Borisovo, a majority of the graves in sec-
tions I and II); N. D. Putintseva, "Verkhnechiriurtovskii
mogil'nik," - MAD, 11, Makhachkala, 1961; M. P. Abramova,
"Rannesrednevekovye pogrebeniia Nizhne-Dzhulatskogo
mogil'nika," Uch. zap. KBNII, XXV, Nal'chik, 1967.
58) I. Tolstoi and N. Kondakov, Russkie drevnosti, 3, p. 143,

Figs. 149, 150, 172, 173; M. I. Artamonov, Istoriia khazar,
figure on p. 129; N. Fettich, ' Z e dcbouverte," Plates XXXVIII,
XXXM - Kudinstovo; M. V. Pokrovskii, "Pashkovskii mogilT-
nik No. 1," SA, I, 1936, K. F. Smirnov, "0 nekotorykh itogakh
issledovanii~mogil 'nikov meotskoi i sarmatskoi kul'ture
Prikuban'ia i Dagestana," KSIIMK, XXXVII, 1961, pp. 155-159;

Ocherki istorii SSSR, figure on p. 639 - Pashkovskaia; A . K.
Ambroz, "Fibuly," pp. 57, 87, 88, 91, Fig. 8, 8.
59) I. T. Kruglikova, "Pogrebenie N-VI vv. v der.
Aivazovskoe," SA, 1957, 2, Fig. 1, 3; Fig. 2, - 1, -2, -4, -
6, -
7 (three
fine 7th c e n t u r y ~ s s e m b l a g e s goods
, of two not known); V. V .
Kropotkin, Mogil'nik Chufuk-Kale, Fig. 44, 6.
60) -
MAK, VIII, Moscow, 1900, Table C ~ V - - 14-16;
7,, 12, --
P . S. Uvarova, Kollektsii Kavkazskogo muzeia, V, Arkheologiia,
Tiflis, 1902, Tables V, VI; A. A. lessen, "Raskopki bol'shogo
kurgana v urochishche Uch-Tepe ,"- MIA, 125, 1965; compare
Artsybashevo and Voznesenka.
Editor's Notes
a) The second half of this article, which appeared in Sovet-

skaia arkheologiia, 1971, No. 3, will be translated in a subse-
quent issue. In the interests of speed, economy, and the editor's
convenience, no attempt has been made to verify the spelling of
non-Soviet site names when this cannot be done from the foot-
notes o r the editor's memory. Likewise, the correctness of
certain Soviet archeological names which appear in the text in
adjectival form cannot be guaranteed.
b) There is a typographical e r r o r in the original: a line has
been dropped, and the s e r i e s of numbers following the citation
of Voronov i s repeated after the Burger entry (we have omitted
the repetition here).
c) This journal should not be confused with the one cited
elsewhere by the same abbreviation. I was unable to find the
expansion for this abbreviation.

Problems of Early Medieval Chronology in Eastern Europe

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

Problems of Early Medieval Chronology in Eastern Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soviet Anthropology and Archeology

ISSN: 0038-528X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/maae19

Problems of the Early Medieval Chronology of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-19591004336

Published online: 18 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

PROBLEMS OF THE EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRONOL-

A correct understanding of the process of formation of a

*This article is being published in two parts. The numbering

Coins in themselves do not provide exact dates for assem-

possible. When their relative place in sequence has been deter-

large number of local vertical scales, each including between

synchronic levels, "hold" the entire interrelated system in such

taken at random, synchronous sites in various territories

thanks to the abundance of short cultural stages following each

stages i s over a century in length, and disagreements among

(See Key on p. 344 for explanation

Fig. 1. Geographical and chronological distribution of mate-

on the Danube and 7th century settlement on the ruins of

of individual categories of artifacts in the form of "compila-

the significant differences among buckle tongues. Points of

one that has been excavated in its entirety. Their evolution

ance of early artifacts in assemblages of later date) and lead

devoted a book especially to the study of fibulae of the 1st through

and disappeared in the 3rd century. The rounded, simple wire

mode of life of the local people. Fourth century buckles had

4th century, these were customary over the entire territory of

of the links in the evolution of fibulae (the development of other

beakerswith deep blue ornamentation molded on. Even virtu-

specimens, o r , in the case of cast polyhedron types, from those of

style, which confirms the supposition that this was absent in

spheres (Fig. 2, 27) and inserts in cylindrical form (Fig. 2, - 25).

Fig. 2. Artifacts of the 3rd to 5th centuries. 1-5 - 3rd cen-

Fig. 3. Evolution of Crimean and Danubian Ornaments in the

The culture of the Bosporus will appear before u s in greater

7th centuries; 15 - turn of 6th to 7th centuries; 16, 19, 20 -

on parts,ihich were known not only in the 4th century but in

(See Key on p. 360.)

Graph I. Evolution of cemeteries in Abkhazia from the 3rd

Akhachcharakhva; Ar - Arakhva (five points, based on M. M.

there appeared amphorae with more abrupt narrowing down-

s e t s in the 7th century (see material on Suuk-Su) i s character-

An inlaid buckle was also found (Fig. 6, 4).

the 7th century. V. K. Pudovin divided it into two stages:

12 - Tsebel'da (materials of Iu. N. Voronov); 2-5, 7-12 -

(See Key on p. 366.)

Graph 11. Evolution of cemeteries of southwestern Crimea

fering scales a r e used to depict the artifacts. 1 - 4th century

by a bronze coin of 597-602 found in burial 77. In stage 3,

distinguished for their ornamentation (bean-shaped slits,

Fig. 5. Ornamentation of belts of the 6th to 7th centuries.

In Suuk-Su, the first representations of Christian c r o s s e s ap-

Bash, Eski-Kermen, and Sakharnaia Golovka, vaults continued

In burial custom and in t e r m s of most of i t s artifacts, stage

the Chersonese, a coin of 800-850 C.E. was found together with

southwestern Crimea (Fig. 3, - 10, -18), while the number of By-

here to lead to a certain change in the old pagan customs. This

Fig. 6. Ornaments of the 7th and 8th centuries. 1-6, 8, 15,

tury style, but directly continuing the traditions of group I, a r e

25 - 6th century. 1-21 -Tyzyl, grave excavated in 1928; 2,