Archaeologia Bulgarica XIII 2009
Review 1 119-123 Sofia
REVIEWS
ÐÀÍÈÑÀŠÅÂ, A.: ÐÀÍÎÑÐÅČÎÂÅÊÎÂÍÀ ÍÅÊÐÎÏÎËÀ ÊÎÄ ÌÎÊÐÈÍÀ
(Ñðïñêî àðõåîëîøêî äðóøòâî, Ïîâðåìåíà èçäàœà 4) [Ranisavljev, A.: Early Medieval
Necropolis near Mokrin] (Serbian Archaeological Society, Occasional editions 4)
Áåîãðàä / Belgrade 2007, 96 pp.1
Aleksandar Ranisavljev’s book on an Early Mediaeval
cemetery located near Mokrin in the northeast of the Ser-
bian part of Banat is the first archeological monograph de-
voted to one of the numerous explored cemeteries from the
period of Avar predominance in our territory. The book
(ISBN 978-86-904455-4-7) is paper bound, A4 page for-
mat, has 76 pages of text and 18 pages of illustrations (with
a total of 75 photographs) as well as 43 plates with draw-
ings of the finds done by the author. The book contains the
following chapters: Preface (7), Introduction (9-11), Cata-
logue of the graves (13-27), Burial customs (29-39), Ar-
chaeological findings (41-56), Conclusion (57-63),
Zusamenfassung (65-70), Abbreviations (71), Bibliography
(72-75) and Primary Sources (76).
In his short preface the author explains that the cem-
etery on the site Dobrosavljeva ciglana (a brick making
plant) was excavated in 1931 by a local teacher, J. Saser.
The teacher, an amateur archaeologist, dug out 75 graves
and left a written description of 60 of them in Hungarian.
The finds from these excavations are housed in the Museum
of Vojvodina. In the period from 1945 to 1958 another 25
graves were excavated, partly by the workers of the brick
plant and partly by another amateur archaeologist, L.
Nadlaèki, with no documentation at all. The finds are
housed in the National museum in Kikinda, without any
accompanying notes. Some indications that part of the
drawings and photographs of the finds may be stored in the
Museum in Szeged prompted the author to officially ad-
dress the institution through the Museum of Vojvodina to
inquire about them, but he did not receive any response.
None of the osteological material from the cemetery has
been preserved.
In the introduction Ranisavljev briefly repeats some of
the circumstances under which the cemetery was explored,
explains what happened to the finds and the state of the
documentation, and cites articles in which the finds were
published or mentioned. The author then gives a short geo-
graphical introduction (he includes the map of the Serbian
part of Banat and a topographical map of Mokrin with the
exact location of the site) and recapitulates the historical cir-
cumstances of the formation of the Avar state in Pannonia.
Following this he briefly cites comments of J. Saser de-
scribing how the cemetery is formed in rows, with all the
graves oriented east-west, as well as the impression of
1
This review has already been published in Serbian (Áóãàðñêè 2007). It is included here at the invitation of the Editor-in-
Cheif in order to present a different point of view in a popular language (see also the review of S. Stanilov here).
M.Giriæ from the 1960s that the cemetery was probably
fully destroyed by farming works (p. 11). Ranisavljev esti-
mated that around 30 children were buried in the cemetery,
together with 11 men, three women and 29 individuals of
undetermined sex, but believed to be mostly female.
The catalogue of the graves in the largest part refers to
finds whose inventory and scarce documentation is housed
in the Museum of Vojvodina. Descriptions of the graves are
translated from the notes of J. Saser, as well as the disposi-
tion of the grave finds, which the author then describes sum-
marily, listing also their marks from the inventory books in
the Museum of Vojvodina. As mentioned above, descrip-
tions of the graves 61-75 are lacking. Then follow descrip-
tions of the finds, with no data of the grave they came from,
which are housed in the Museum of Vojvodina, and finally
the description of finds kept in the National museum in
Kikinda, also without details of the graves they come from.
The chapter dealing with burial customs first discusses
the form of the grave’s pit, which the author had managed
to reconstruct and illustrate on the basis of Saser’s descrip-
tions. Simply dug pits with no grave constructions predomi-
nate (88.33%), a post pit was observed in the case of just
one child grave. Graves with projecting ledges account for
6.66%, there is one grave with a niche (1.66%) and (maybe)
two are catacomb-type graves (3.33%). The breakdown of
the type of graves is also presented in the form of a table.
All the graves with projecting ledges in the Mokrin cem-
etery, without exception, also contained horse skulls and
bones in the upper, wider part of the grave. One catacomb-
type grave held in its upper part a horse skull and two bo-
vine skulls, while three horse skulls were found in another
grave, which the author believes must also have been of a
catacomb type. In one case the body was laid in the niche
of the grave which contained at the bottom four horse skulls
and many horse bones. Horse heads, in some cases several
of them, even up to five, and bones of the lower parts of
horse extremities were often put in ordinary grave pits (they
were found in 20 graves altogether). They come from the
graves of adults of both sexes as well as from children’s
graves. In the case of one child grave two bovine skulls and
bones of cattle were found. Skeletons of dogs, generally laid
above the body, were found in six graves. Each of these
graves also held horse skulls and horse leg bones. The de-
ceased were almost all buried in the usual manner, in ex-
119
 Review
tended supine position but turned in the east-west direction.
Only one body was buried in a crouched position. A.
Ranisavljev presents numerous analogies for all the listed
burial cases, placing them in a territorial, historical and eth-
nic context. The author includes two maps – the first one
represents the Early Avar sites which show graves with the
east-west orientation, graves with partially buried animals,
catacomb-type graves and graves with niches, while the
other map shows graves with partially buried animals, cata-
comb-type graves and niche graves from the Late Avar pe-
riod. Even though the layout of the maps could have been
clearer, particularly of the first one, it is evident that the
sites in which the listed phenomena were observed are
grouped east of the Tisza river, while the second map shows
that such graves in the Late Avar period appear west of the
same river as well. One should bear in mind that the empty
spaces noticeable on the maps could also reflect the fact that
the material has not been sufficiently explored or published.
The chapter on archeological material, or the finds from
the graves, in an unusual order first presents the weapons,
then the harness, then parts of clothes, jewelry, pottery, tools
and other artifacts. It can be concluded that Ranisavljev for
the most part opted not to discuss the finds in detail, which
may well be a justified approach by itself but largely differs
from the minute details with which he presented the burial
customs in the previous chapter. On the other hand, the pre-
sented objects are mostly supported by numerous analogies.
In his discussion of weapons the author first presented the
bone plates of the reflex bow, then also parts of the quiver,
especially the attractive bone plates, and the iron hooks with
which they were attached to the belt. In the discussion of
the arrowheads it is correctly stated that the trilateral arrow-
heads are characteristic of nomadic peoples, that they were
used “as early as by the Huns”, but it should perhaps also
have been noted that the Roman army also used them (Za-
nier 1988). Much more attention was paid to the sword finds
than to the find of the lance. When speaking about the har-
nesses the book first summarily presents the very attractive
bone plates of the saddle. It seems that more attention could
have been devoted to this find than for example to horse
bits. After presenting the stirrups the author introduces a
group of unusual bone-made harness parts. Even though he
successfully finds analogies for the finds in the wider area,
the function of the objects is not closely determined. Two
iron cattle-bells, which are unusual for Avar cemeteries, are
also included in the part describing the harnesses, albeit
with a reserve. The chapter, rightly, pays more attention to
various bronze decorations of the harness. Besides the de-
scriptions of the pieces it also includes numerous analogies.
Since these are chronologically the most indicative finds
processed by the author so far, I would like to point out
briefly some problems related to the dating of Early Avar
finds.
First of all, it should be taken into account that some
60,000 archeologically processed Avar graves enabled pre-
cise comparisons and narrowing down the chronology of
the archeological material. This is more evident in the case
120
of Late Avar cemeteries, which are not only bigger and
more numerous but the cast material from the graves is bet-
ter preserved and easier to clearly recognize and compare.
However, it needs to be stressed, substantial progress has
also been made in the study of diverse Early Avar material.
Not disputing that A. Ranisavljev used reliable Avar-related
literature – the bibliography lists a total of 107 works – in-
cluding some more recent, particularly important books,
such as monographs of the Tiszafüred cemetery (Garam
1995), the book dealing with finds of Byzantine origin from
the Avar context (Garam 2001), or the book on Early Avar
pottery (Vida 1999), one may get the impression that on the
basis of the listed sources more precise dating of certain
groups of finds could have been deduced. On the other
hand, the author apparently did not have access to some
important works which concentrate on a clearer determina-
tion of the Avar material, including from the Early Avar
period, which is represented in the Mokrin cemetery. I will
mention some of those studies: an older study of H. W.
Böhme (Böhme 1965) is still useful, and seriation of ele-
ments of belt sets worked out by J. Zábojník (Zábojník
1991) is very important, as well as the study of É. Garam
considering finds from Avar graves which were dated
through coins (Garam 1992). As a result of not consulting
such works, small strap-ends from graves 69 and 58 were
not recognized as material dating from a later period than
the date Ranisavljev established as the end of the activity of
the cemetery. Incidentally, the small strap-ends from grave
69, which the author just mentions and for which it is dis-
putable whether they represent a harness decoration, most
resemble the model found in Praesidium Pompei in the
Aleksinac basin, which has wrongly been attributed to a
much earlier period (Ðàøêîâèž 2007, 224, fig. 18/1). The
model represents an important find which supports the view
that the corresponding small strap-ends are of Early Byzan-
tine origin. Finds like the gilded mounts from the Mokrin
cemetery also appear later, as decoration of horses in char-
acteristic equestrian burials of the Tótipuszta–Igar group,
therefore in the Middle Avar period, which covered the last
two or three decades of the 7th century, and which had been
written about much earlier, by I. Bóna (Bóna 1970) for ex-
ample. It is possible that A. Ranisavljev did not go into the
detailed dating of the finds from the cemetery because there
is no plan of it, which makes it impossible to embark on the
discussion of the stratigraphy of the site.
The author then proceeds to analyze the finds of cloth-
ing of the buried persons. Iron buckles predominate in this
site, like in other similar sites, while there are fewer bronze
buckles. One of them could be determined as Germanic; a
second one which is preserved in fragments, as Early Byz-
antine. Ranisavljev attributed this buckle to the Salona-
Histria type, while it is also possible that this find is a frag-
ment of a purse buckle of the Pápa type. The strap-ends are
made of thin metal plates, mostly silver, and come from four
graves. Similar strap-ends are regularly found along with
the coins of Emperor Maurice (582-602), terminating with
the forgings of Emperor Constans II, or with the year 668.
 Review
The author correctly does not interpret the decoration of
some small strap-ends as tamga, drawing the right conclu-
sion that finds of the Martynovka type cannot represent a
reliable ethnic indicator on their own. Among the finds of
other belt fragments Ranisavljev also lists narrow bronze
strips, which are in fact side-bands of the strap ends made
of two bronze plates, which have not been preserved. It is
not fully clear why the author discussed the finds of iron
rings and the bronze chain in the part depicting clothing.
As he remarked himself, similar rings and bronze chains
which were attached to them were used to hang various ob-
jects on the belt, mainly among the female population. Part
of a recent study has been devoted to these finds (Garam
2002). The author starts the discussion on the jewelry with
a detailed report on earrings which is supported by numer-
ous good analogies. Among the earrings found in Mokrin,
the luxurious gold pair with pyramidal pendants stand out.
A well preserved pendant with four spheres, each in two
parts, made of thin bronze plates and strung on a thin wire
is also interesting. Several analogies dating to a later period
are provided, which leaves the determination of this find
unclear. Also interesting are metal parts of necklaces, while
more attention has been paid to beads, among which a big-
ger cylindrical bead and a bead-pendant stand out. The au-
thor also offers numerous analogies for the beads. The sole
ring found in the cemetery has not been preserved.
The pottery is examined summarily. All the 21 vessels
from the graves of the Mokrin cemetery are hand-made. The
more interesting pieces are the vessels with rims decorated
by finger pressing, a smaller pot with a handle and vessels
with a funnel-shaped spout. Ranisavljev’s study provides
short comments on the vessels as well as corresponding
analogies, but it seems that the book it quotes as reference
(Vida 1999) should have been used more extensively, since
it is the most complete work devoted to pottery of the Early
Avar predominance, which among other things provides a
good basis for more precise dating of graves which do not
contain chronologically sensitive finds. In the part devoted
to tools the author presented, very concisely for the most
part, some inventory groups which are usually classified as
utensils: spindle-whorls, knives, strike-a-lights and flints.
After mentioning the finds of spindle-whorls, Ranisavljev
also made a note of iron knives which are widely present in
Avar cemeteries. That is why it is interesting he remarked
that in the Mokrin cemetery the iron knives are only to be
found in graves of male individuals. A large battle knife is
particularly notable, with its bronze plating, which should
however have been presented in the part of the text devoted
to weapons finds. A little more text is devoted to the strike-
a-lights and the flints, mostly while discussing a piece
which in fact represents the iron purse clasp. Admittedly,
the author also offers this correct functional determination
of the find as a possibility, but opts to describe it as a strike-
a-light. Three objects are described as awls, with due cau-
tion tagged on the descriptions. Their function is in fact dif-
ficult to determine because of the state of preservation they
are in. The second listed object could perhaps be a punch,
and the last one, as Ranisavljev also suggested, could have
been an arrowhead. In the part on tools Ranisavljev also
presents an iron tool whose use is not clear, as well as the
find of a whetstone. The discussion on characteristic Early
Avar horn-made objects, so-called disentangling hooks
(Ênotenlösser) is particularly interesting. Some authors
doubt that the object had this type of functional use, putting
the name itself under quotation marks (Daim 1987, 219),
but Ranisavljev offers a very instructive piece of informa-
tion, stating that even today, the shippers on the Danube use
similar iron-made tools to tie knots at the end of ropes.
Other objects include an interesting find, made of bone,
whose use is unclear, followed by four semi-processed horn
objects. The author devotes more text to the well-known
bone tube with an engraved drawing. The comment on the
scene is very insightful. The presentation of the “tree of
life” from Mokrin has again attracted the attention of re-
searchers recently, in a work which establishes a link be-
tween the central Asian, ancient Turkish artistic presenta-
tions and European, Avar ones which stem from them
(Êóáàðåâ 2001). The next presented bone-made object is
in fact the end of a whip-handle, which is exactly how one
of the offered analogies has been interpreted. A special
study has been devoted to this type of finds (Garam 1998).
Ranisavljev describes the next object as a “bronze object
which resembles a spoon handle” (p. 56). The find most
probably does represent a perforated spoon handle, of type
A according to B. Tobias (Tobias 2001), characteristic of the
first Avar wave in the Carpathian hinterland. As an anal-
ogy, although he does point out that this is not certain, the
author offers the find of a lanzette from Budapest which
does not correspond to this find, while making the correct
comment that the function of such objects from the graves
of female individuals is not very clear. At the moment the
most likely possibility is that these are parts of grooming
sets. In the rest of the chapter on archeological inventory
the author lists some less recognizable finds.
In its conclusion the book again mentions groups of ar-
cheological inventory dated to the time of the so-called First
Khaganate, to the end of the first third of the 7th century.
Some remarks about this have already been presented in this
review. It then cites data from Theophylactus Simocatta
showing that members of different ethnic groups lived in
Pannonia at the time, and then on the basis of the presented
specific burial customs at the Mokrin cemetery draws the
conclusion that the cemetery belonged to the Kutrigurs. It
provides further data from primary sources which refer to
these and other Protobulgarians. The analysis of funeral
customs in the area they lived in leads the author to the cor-
rect conclusion that the group was not ethnically uniform.
The same description, however, also refers to the Avars. Just
as Ranisavljev himself notes, the finds from the Mokrin
cemetery do not differ from those from Avar cemeteries, but
rather correspond to them. He therefore attributes the site
to the Kutrigurs solely on the basis of the specific burial
rites. In this respect it should, however, be noted that the
cemetery was not examined by experts, and that there are
121
 Review
no other documents on it except for the written remarks of
an amateur archaeologist. Even if one were to unreservedly
trust the notes of J. Saser, it would seem that the proposed
ethnic attribution was daring.
One of Ranisavljev’s more important arguments is the
presence of catacomb-type graves. Just as a reminder, there
are, at best, two such graves. There is only one grave with a
niche. Therefore just 5% of the graves in the cemetery could
by the type of burial be considered closer to a population
which we would perhaps not consider Early Avar. Graves
with projecting ledges are usual in Avar graveyards while
simply dug graves are predominant in them. The author
links the fact that dogs are buried in the graves to the Bul-
garians (Âàêëèíîâà 1989), even though he did list some
examples of dogs also being buried in Avar cemeteries.
Chronologically close burials of dogs with their masters are
also known in a different cultural circle, in the Alaman-
Frank cemetery at Pleidelsheim for example. The burial of
dogs together with their masters is not infrequent in the area
of Thuringia, especially among the equestrians, i.e. in
graves belonging to higher social levels, as registered in the
cemeteries of Zeuzleben and Schretzheim (Koch 2001, 157,
Abb. 43, 58, 220, 221, 276). Ranisavljev further cites au-
thors who consider that burials which include heads and
lower extremities of horses are typical of the Kutrigurs but,
being thorough, he also lists authors who do not share that
opinion but assess that “the specificity of this type of burial
cannot for the moment be ethnically interpreted”. It would
have been useful if the exact locations on which the cited
authors state their opinions had also been given, consider-
ing that these are all well-known Hungarian Avar special-
ists.
Ranisavljev was therefore misled by the attractive idea
that the Mokrin cemetery belongs to the Kutrigurs. In my
opinion it would have been more exact, albeit more gener-
alized, if it had been described as Early Avar. The Early
Avar determination should be understood as cultural and
temporal, and not as a strictly ethnic one, because it is clear
that the ethnic genesis of the Avars was multilayered, and
that their Khaganate was multiethnic. Viewing the Early
Avar society in this way is broad enough to cover the dif-
ferences which seem to appear in the Mokrin site. It should
be underlined once again that the examined objects of ma-
terial culture generally unequivocally belong to the Early
Avar period, and that no set of finds has been observed at
Mokrin or in any other site which could with certainty be
attributed to the Kurtigurs. The Bulgarian component in the
Khaganate is definitely present, and Ranisavljev’s conclu-
sion should not be discarded a priori, but it should be taken
with considerable caution, even if the site had been profes-
sionally examined and documented.
However the population buried in Mokrin is deter-
mined, it is questionable if it should have been given a no-
madic attribute. It has been explained much earlier in the
relevant literature that the area of Pannonia is not big
enough to allow for a nomadic way of life, just as the move-
ments of a military-cavalry population such as the Avars
122
should not be seen in the context of nomadic movements.
Established settlements, though not numerous, speak in sup-
port of this assertion (Êîâà÷åâèž 1977, 154-155). The fact
that there are around 100 graves in the Mokrin cemetery
attests more to a settlement process than a nomadic one. As
in the cemetery of Èik near Baèko Petrovo Selo, numerous
objects were found which are of nomadic origin. However,
finding such objects in graves of cemeteries such as these is
actually an indication that this was a settlement process of a
population which was nomadic in its origin.
In this regard I would like to comment on the partly cor-
rect piece of information from the book’s preface that
Mokrin is located in an alluvial plain. This location is in
fact on the border between the alluvial plain and the loess
plateau, and is also the spot where two rivulets meet – the
Begej and the Djukošina (Žóð÷èž/€óðè÷èž 1994, 156).
Prior to extensive hydro-regulatory works undertaken in
modern times, a much smaller part of the Vojvodina area
was suitable for making settlements. The settlers most fre-
quently chose locations in the seams of different
geomorphological units, because they offered more practi-
cal possibilities. It is therefore not surprising that the
“Mokrin area holds numerous archaeological sites from dif-
ferent periods”. A discussion on determining the location
of the Avar settlements in the area of southern Pannonia,
along with the geographic references, is currently available
in the master’s thesis of this reviewer (Áóãàðñêè 2006).
Ranisavljev links the end of the activity of the Mokrin cem-
etery to the year 632, when Bulgarians left Pannonia. The
impression left by some objects of material culture would
move this date to around the year 670/680.
The main points of my observations in reviewing this
monograph consist in advising caution when attributing the
site to an ethnic group, in discussing the (non) nomadic na-
ture of the buried population, and in providing a certain cor-
rection of the dating, along with less important remarks
which mostly refer to objects of material culture. Altogether
they in no way question the value of this modern-style book.
The attractive archaeological material, and above all a good
text and a competent bibliography, recommend it to both
archeology students and experts in the early mediaeval pe-
riod, who will undoubtedly frequently use it and quote from
it. It is important to stress once again that this is the first
monograph devoted to a cemetery from the (Early) Avar
period in the territory of Serbia. As such it calls for similar
studies of other authors from Serbia, and, hopefully, from
Aleksandar Ranisavljev himself.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Áóãàðñêè, È. 2007. Ïðèêàçè: Àëåêñàíäàð Ðàíèñàâ-
šåâ. Ðaíîñðåäœîâåêîâíà íåêðîïîëà êîä Ìîêðèíà.
Ïîâðåìåíà èçäàœà 4. Áåîãðàä 2007: Ñðïñêî àðõåî-
ëîøêî äðóøòâî. – Ãëàñíèê Ñðïñêîã àðõåîëîøêîã
äðóøòâà 23, 437-446.
Áóãàðñêè, È. 2006. ×èê è Âî¼êà – ïðèìåðè ðàíî-
ñðåäœîâåêîâíèõ íåêðîïîëà ñà òåðèòîðè¼å Áà÷êå è
Ñðåìà. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archae-
 Review
ology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
Âàêëèíîâà, M. 1989. Ïîãðåáåíèÿ îò ïåðèîäà íà
âåëèêîòî ïðåñåëåíèå ïðè Ïëåâåí. In: Ïðîáëåìè íà
ïðàáúëãàðñêàòà èñòîðèÿ è êóëòóðà. Âòîðà ìåæäóíà-
ðîäíà ñðåùà ïî ïðàáúëãàðñêà àðõåîëîãèÿ, Øóìåí,
1986. Ñîôèÿ. 129-142.
Êîâà÷åâèž, £. 1977. Àâàðñêè êàãàíàò. Áåîãðàä.
Êóáàðåâ, Ã. Â. 2001. Ñðàâíèòåëüíîå èçó÷åíèå
àâàðñêèõ è öåíòðàëüíîàçèàòñêèõ ðàííåñðåäíåâåêî-
âûõ ãðàôôèòè. In: Ïðîáëåìû àðõåîëîãèè, ýòíîãðà-
ôèè, àíòðîïîëîãèè Ñèáèðè è ñîïðåäåëüíûõ òåððè-
òîðèé. VII. Íîâîñèáèðñê. 343-349.
Ðàøêîâèž, Ä. 2007. Ðèìñêî íàñåšå Praesidium
Pompei – Ðèìšàíè ó Àëåêñèíà÷êî¼ êîòëèíè. In: Íèø
è Âèçàíòè¼à, ïåòè íàó÷íè ñêóï, Íèø, 3-5. ¼óí 2006,
Çáîðíèê ðàäîâà. V. Íèø. 205-226.
Žóð÷èž, Ñ./€óðè÷èž, £. 1994. Ðåšåô êàî ôàêòîð
ïîëîæà¼à è ôîðìèðàœà ìîðôîëîøêèõ êàðàêòåðèñ-
òèêà âî¼âîàíñêèõ íàñåšà. – Çáîðíèê Ìàòèöå ñðïñêå
çà äðóøòâåíå íàóêå 97, 147-178.
Böhme, H. W. 1965. Der Awarenfriedhof von Alattyán,
Kom. Szolnok. – Südost-Forschungen 24, 1-55.
Bóna, I. 1970. Avar lovassír Iváncsáról. – Archaeologiai
Értesítö 97, 243-263.
Daim, F. 1987. Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobers-
dorf, NÖ. 1. Wien.
Garam, É. 2002. Ketten und Schlüssel in frühawaren-
zeitlichen Frauengräbern. – Communicationes Archaeolo-
gicae Hungariae, 153-176.
Garam, É. 2001. Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der
Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhun-
derts. Budapest.
Garam, É. 1998. Avar kori csont ostor vagy korbácsvé-
gek és ostorbuzogányok. – Communicationes Archaeologi-
cae Hungariae, 109-121.
Garam, É. 1995. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von
Tiszafüred. Budapest.
Garam, É. 1992. Die münzdatierten Gräber der
Awarenzeit. In: Awaren Forschungen. 1. Wien. 135-250.
Koch, U. 2001. Das alamannisch–fränkische Gräberfeld
bei Pleidelsheim. Stuttgart.
Tobias, B. 2001. Die awarenzeitlichen Sieblöffel im
Karpatenbecken. – Communicationes Archaeologicae Hun-
gariae, 161-182.
Vida, T. 1999. Die Awarenzeitliche Keramik I (6.-7.
Jh.). Berlin/Budapest.
Zábojník, J. 1991. Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarni-
turen aus dem Gebeit der Slowakei und Österreichs (Bei-
trag zur Chronologie der Zeit des Awarischen Kaganats). In:
K problematike osídlenia Stredodunajskej oblasti vo
vèasnom stredoveku. Nitra. 219-323.
Zanier, W. 1988 Römische dreiflügelige Pfeilspitzen. –
Saalburg Jahrbuch 44, 5-27.
Ivan Bugarski M.A.
Institute of Archaeology
Knez Mihailova 35/IV
SRB-11000 Belgrade
ivan.bugarski@gmail.com
ibmm2004@yubc.net
123
 Review

124