HEREDITAS Corvina Press THE DAWN OF THE "3: DARK AGES ihe Gepids and the Lombards in the Carpathian BasinFollowing the decline of the Roman Empire in the mid-fifth century AD, and the subsequent tise and fall of Hunnish mule, intense darkness descended on both parts of present-day Hungary, the “lost province” of Pannonia, and the Great Plain with its decimated, scat- tered remnants of population, Early in the sixth cenury, however, dawn began to break again, East of the Danube the Gepids established a new state which soon began to flourish. But its prosperity was not to Jast long. A rival to the Gepids? ambition for supreme power suddenly emerged in the form of Lombards, The policy of Byzantium and of the great emperor Justinian himself was to get the two Germanic peoples against each other, thereby to guarantee peace and order in the short term and the territorial aggran- dizement of the Eastern Empire in the Iong term. As it is wont to happen, with two quarreling sides a third party was the real victor—the Asiatic Avars. In this book, Iswvin Bona outlines the exciting history of the first seventy years of the sixth century, based on written sources and archacological evi- dence, A special feature of the book is that the author takes much of the evidence for his assertions about the Lombards and Gepids in Central Europe from the results of his own excavations. A significant part of the finds, especially those of the Lom- bards, are published for the first time in this book.HEREDITAS 3Mr } OF: Istvan Bona THE DAWN OF THE DARK AGES The Gepids and the Lombards in the Carpathian Basin Corvina PressTitle of the original A KOZEPKOR HAJNALA Corvina, 1974 Translated by LASZLO BOROS Revised by PAUL ASTON and ELIZABETH EDMONDSON Photographs by KALMAN KONYA Text figures by JANOS BALATONI i) Ist Béna, 1976 ISBN 963 13.4493 2 Printed in Hungary, 1976 Athenaeum Printing House Budapest ©01089-h-7680Contents pring AD 552 he Gepids 14 Lambards Gupidia” “Lombardia” 3 Lombard Man—Gepid Man 35 Dress and Ornament 39 ‘On the Barbarian Eeonor: 44 The Earliest Remains of the Germanic Animal Style inn the Danube Region 59 66 66 Lombard Socie 3 Orthodox, Arians, Pagans 83 Gepids 83 Lambards 87 ‘The End 93 Hpilogue: Why Did the Lombards Leave Pannonia in 568? 98 106 Bibliograph 108 Abbreviations 110 t of Figures iit List of Plates 114 Plates 121although they spoke different dialects of the ancient Germanic tongue. Inancient Norse mythology the home of the gods was the Asgard, which was situated in the middle of the world. Wotan and Freya were the two chief gods, and their children were the gods who made up the Aisir. They sat on twelve seats in the throne-room of Asgard. The Aisir descended to earth by means of a rainbow bridge which connected heaven and earth, and from there, with the help of their servant maidens, the Valkyries, they carried back the noblest and bravest men, including those who had fallen in knightly battle, to Valhalla, the Hall of the Heroes. Thus in our case Asfeld simply meant battlefield; but at the same time, the word indicates that when these events occurred, the ancient Germanic myth was still familiar to both the Gepids and the Lombards. The battle itself was described by Paul the Deacon (Paulus Diaconus) with almost sombre terseness. The passage quoted above is also by him. Paulus was a Lombard nobleman, 2 mem- ber of the Warnefrid clan (fara); his great-great-grandfather Warnefrid, could well have been present at the event, described above. There is nothing incredible in the story: we know of more than one instance in the Early Middle Ages in which duel between warlords or the death of one of them decided the out- come of a battle—sometimes even the fate of a whole people. A warlord was not merely the commander of his army, but also the symbol and embodiment of their good fortune, mettle and courage. It is difficult to separate what actually happened after the battle from the traditional motifs of a Lombard heroic poem narrating the deeds of Alboin, The setting too changes. We are now somewhere in the region bordered by the rivets Tisza, Maros and Kérds, This is where the wooden palace of the kings * of the Gepids stood, with its feasting hall where the king and his nobles and heroes gatheted—a kind of earthly Valhalla. Audoin, the father of Alboin, had a similar royal hall somewhere in the Kisalféld (Little Plain) of north-western Hungary today; and here the young hero had no right to appear wearing his armour and feast in the company of his father, even after the heroic duel which had decided the outcome of a battle, Alboin’s father, Audoin, was not descended from the ancient dynasty of the Lombards, the Lethings, but according to our eatliest Lombard sources he came from the Gausus fara—fariga- dus. He seized power under suspicious circumstances when the young king Waltari, who had been under his tatelage, died 9unexpectedly, while the real heir apparent, the bold Hildigis, was living in exile among the Gepids. True enough, Audoin himself was related to a royal family, but not the Lombard one he was related to the king of once independent Thuringia (which by that time had disappeared from the stage of history). In actual fact Audoin drew his support from the Emperor Justi- nian I, The basilens of the Eastern Empire not only recognized him as the king of the Lombards and entered into an alliance with him, but also did much to establish the noble rank of his ally. He sent him a new wife in place of Alboin’s mother. She was the daughter of Herminafrid, the last Thuringian king killed by the Franks. The gitl’s mother was Amalaberga, ‘Theoderic the Great’s niece, who after a series of adventures had fled with her children to her Italian homeland, which was ruled by Theodahad, the king of the Ostrogoths, and later, in 540, fell into Byzantine captivity, where she enjoyed the hospi- tality of the capital city of the Eastern Empire—a hospitality part- ly offered from political motives. Audoin’s new bride was not only a relative of Theoderic, but also a younger sister of Amal- afrid, who.was the Thuringian “heir apparent” supported by the Byzantines, This meant that through her Audoin joined the family of “legitimate rulers”. But his real power depended onthe gold he received from the Emperor. The alliance between Justinian and Audoin meant for the Lombard nobility a consider- able amount of gold, plus the Roman lands and towns in central and southern Transdanubia (formerly the provinces of Panno- nia Prima and Valeria and until recent times under Ostrogothic rule); There were also the tempting promises made to them if they could drive out the Gepids from the region around Sirmium. So, with the help of the Imperial alliance and the Imperial gold, ‘Audoin and his party were able to maintain themselves in power. But presumably Audoin would have had a number of rivals and declared or undeclared enemies among the Lombard dukes, These aristocratic members of the opposition did aot approve of the emergence of a new dynasty, and since they themselves wished or even made a bid for royal power they were adherents of “independence” and an elected monarchy. When their wish was fulfilled after twenty years, the young Lombard state in Italy, was plunged into anarchy and almost total ruin. The dukes were in no position to make a stand openly, espe- Gially after Alboin’s outstanding victory. But they intervened on the grounds of the ancient law of custom, and in this they 10could count upon the support of the overwhelming majority of the Lombard people. This majority consisted of free warriors who were equal in rank and possessed equal rights; and as they were well armed too, neither the dukes, nor the king himself could do much against their wishes and without their consent. ‘The law of custom was preserved by the leaders and elders of the clans or farae, and it was later codified on the orders of King Rothari. They guarded it jealously as the pledge of their freedom and independence—primarily against the king. Obviously this law of custom demanded that the king and the heir apparent be valiant warriors who could prove their valour by heroic deeds, and indeed Alboin lived up to expectation. However, it was also demanded by the law of custom that this bravery should be recognized by a neighbouring king as well. ‘This was done by his ceremoniously awarding the young hero with a sword, so that he adopted him asa son who bore arms and at the same time received him among the men. ‘The young prince was not supposed to appear in arms either at an assembly of the people or the king’s table before this was done. Yet this seemingly simple condition, which the chronicler of a later day, completely misunderstanding the situation, attributed to no other than Audoin himself, was disingenuous. Its proponents counted on it being very difficult to fulfil, if not impossible. It was precisely in 552 that the most outstanding Germanic kings, the last two rulers of the Ostrogoths in Italy, Totila and Teia, fell on the battlefield. The toyal house of ‘Thuringia to which Audoin was related had been wiped out by the Franks some twenty years before; the Thuringians had no independent king of their own, nor did the Heruls who had been routed by the Lombards, The only rulers who might do were thus the Frankish kings who lived and ruled in faraway Gaul and were hostile to Audoin and Byzantium, and the Visigothic kings who lived even farther off, at Toledo in Spain, and who had been engaged in a war with Byzantium which had started in the same year of 552, But these calculations were frustrated by Alboin’s bold act. No one had thought of the hated king of the Gepids, the father of the young prince Alboin had killed. After the war of 552 the Lombards and the Gepids concluded a treaty of “eternal” peace. By humiliating the Gepids, Justinian had temporarily achieved his aim, since under the peace treaty the Gepids were obliged to return the territories of the Eastern Empire south of the river Danube which they had occupied in 539. The reason for Justinian’s sincere wish for peace was that 1he needed the support of the Lombard army against the Ostro- goths; and litde later he was compelled to ask for the assistance of both these peoples in the war which broke out again between his country and Persia. ‘The peace ordered by the Emperor could not, therefore, be vio- lated for the time being, This was quite clear to Alboin, who formed his audacious plan accordingly. The remaining details of the hazardous venture are unclear. ‘The possibility cannot be excluded that the obligation for Turis- ind to gird the young Alboin was in fact a secret clause added to the peace treaty. Should this be the case, then the whole story must have been a prearranged comedy and as such be a credit to the political finesse of Alboin’s father, Audoin. Yet it is also possible that on the whole the events occurred almost as they came down to us in the heroic poem about Alboin. Incidentally, from the description it is quite clear that Alboin—obviously because of his father’s position—was already regarded as a genu- ine ruling prince, and had his own military retinue, made up of selected young men. These young men were obliged to de- fend their master even at the cost of their lives. Such an oppor- tunity nearly presented itself in ‘Turisind’s palace and as was seen, the escort was ready to sacrifice itself. It is thus beyond doubt that both Audoin and Alboin had the mil- itary means to make the dukes accept their wishes or to impose them if necessary. In conclusion, the story is like 2 moral tale which emphasizes the sanctity under all circumstances of the right of hospitality and the unique honesty of Turisind, although it is implied that such honesty is rather old-fashioned. In fact, at that time the right of hospitality was sacrosanct only in the eyes of the common people; the monarchs, including both ‘Turisind and Audoin, trampled it under foot in that very year, 552. Fearful of his somewhat insecure power, Audoin let it be specifically stated in the peace treaty that the Gepids were bound to extradite Hildigis, the swashbuckling claimant to the Lom- bard throne, who had earlier fled to the Gepid royal court. Hildigis, who had previously lived in the Byzantine court, parted sides with the Emperor and endeavoured to seize the Lombard throne for himself, Since he had ceased to be Justini- an’s tramp-card, the Emperor was ready to support his protégé ‘Audoin’s request. However, complying with the demand would have been regardedas heinous violation of the laws of hospitality. Turisind, who was as much of a usurper as Audoin, was not 12inclined to take the risk. He therefore called the Gepid aris- tocracy together and submitted the case to them. The answer he received was most astonishing: “It would be better for the people of the Gepids to perish completely at once, women and children included, than to take upon themselves the shame of such an atrocious act.” To free himself from the entanglement ia which he found himself, Turisind put a similar request before Audoin, that the Lombards hand over Ostrogota (Ostrogotha) the claimant to the Gepid throne, who had found asylum in their court, in exchange for Hildigis. But Audoin did not have the nerve even to submit the request to the dukes or to the assembly of the people. What then did the Turisind of ‘unique honesty” actually do? Exactly the same as Audoin, whom the contemporary Anglo- Saxon Widsith poem listed among the historic perpetrators of “treachery and betrayal”. ‘They settled the matter between them- selves, issuing secret orders to dispose of the two unfortunate princes who had been enjoying their nation’s hospitality. The preseat book sets before the reader this exciting period in thehistory of the land which is now Hungary,—a period which is hardly known. This brief introduction has been included to conjure up the period and its atmosphere, this being a task better performed by a man of that period, a Lombard involved in those events, than by anyone living today. 13From the History of the Gepids and Lombards up to AD 552 The Gepids ‘To describe the prehistory of the Gepids is no easy task. Not a single line of source material either of their owa or of any objec- tive authority is available. All we know of them, and it does not amount to much, has had to be unravelled from the chronicles of their deadly enemies, the Goths and the Lombards. As the bulk of the Gepids did not settle in Roman territory, their fate was hardly of interest to the Romans or the Byzantines; and so for the mostpart we lack even the brief but objective informa- tion the historians of antiquity offered regarding the barbarians. According to the denigratory legend of origin for which the Goths are held responsible, the Gepids hail from the island of Scandza and are supposed to have left their ancient homeland in Scandinavia simultaneously with the Goths under King Berig. But as they were “lazy” (gepania in Gothic) even then, their ship was late in reaching the mouth of the river Vistula, There they established themselves on the “Gepedoios”, or the Gepid islands. Apart from the fact that in the original Berig saga describing the origins of the Goths, no mention is made of the ‘Gepids, all the above is no more than a pedantic popular etymology as was customary in the Early Middle Ages. The etymology was based on the common or at least closely related tongues of the Goths and Gepids. ‘The Gepids’ name, like that of the Goths, was highly self laudatory. Whereas the Visigoths were “stout, good and honest” people, the Ostrogoths were downright “glorious and sparkling”; and the Gepids were “open-handed, rich and ready to give” (Anglo-Saxon gifdan, German geben). 14‘The Gepids came into the scene of recorded history in the decade 260-270 when in league with the Goths, they launched attacks against the Roman province of Dacia. Probably it was they who first gained a foothold in the north-eastern parts of the Car- pathian basin about AD 269. At least this is what cin be sur- mised from the fact that an army of the Vandals, who had previ- ously left the frontiers of the Roman empire along the Danube in peace, surged into the province of Pannonia in the area of Aquincum in 270, This must mean that the Vandals were given a “push” from behind. Similar “pushes” will help us in tracing further expansion by the Gepids. Incidentally, the Gepid tribes led by Fastida indeed proved to be “lazy”: the Goths occupied the province known as Dacia Superior (the modern Transylvania) under their very nose. Fastida’s attempts at a peaceful division of the land were rejected by the Goths, and when the Gepids and Vandals, having joined in a temporary alliance moved forward into Dacia, they were repulsed by the allied Goths and Taifales under Ostrogotha. The only territory left open to the Gepids was the lowland area east of the river Tisza and the north-western fringes of Dacia. Pressure exerted by the Gepids is probably the explanation for the fact that around 330 Visumar, a “king” of the Vandals, was compelled to move with his forces to the point where the rivers Maros and Tisza meetand the Gepids might also have had something to do with the extensive wars what were waged be- tween the Romans and the Sarmatians after 350. ‘The Hun invasion left the Gepids unmoved; they were “lazy” enough not to flee from their land, unlike the Vandals and the Visigoths. Nor did the Huns trouble to dispossess them, they left it to their Ostrogoth subjects to subjugate them, And this assignment was successfully catried out after 410 by King Tho- rismud who, however, fell during the campaign. From this time onwards an even more bitter hatred, if that were possible, flared up between the Gepids and the Goths. ‘The position of the Gepids underwent a significant change by the time they re-emerged after 440. At this time they were led by King Ardaric, who because of his “wisdom and loyalty” was esteemed more highly by Attila than any other barbarian vassal prince. In the Balkan campaign of 447 the Gepids were the strongest allies of the Huns, and at Catalaanum in 451 “the innumerable forces of the Gepids” formed the right wing of Attila’s armies which opposed the Romans and Aétius. The next year saw them at the smouldering ruins of Aquileia. ‘After Attila’s sudden death in 453, Ardaric gave the signal for 15the general revolt against Attila’s sons, The Gepids were the backbone of the rebellious army and their allies (primarily Suebians and Rugians, and Sciri and Sarmatians to a lesser de- gree) formed the “Gepid League” which appears in later years as well. This alliance defeated the Huns and allied tribes at the battle of the Nedao river in Pannonia in 454, and drove those who were left from the Carpathian basin. From this date onwards it is customary to speak of a Gepid “great power” or at least a “‘hegemony” of the Gepids in the eastern part of the Carpathian basin. True enough, the Eastern Emperor Marcian recognized Ardaric’s “conquests” (i.e. his capture of Dacia Superior and Inferior, the two provinces lost to the Empire some 180 years earlier), and received the Gepids as “allies” allocating a yearly “grant” of 100 pounds of gold solidi to them. All this, however, was no more than a mere trifle if we consider the fact that after 442\the Eastern Empire paid 2,100 pounds of Byzantine gold, that is 151,200 solidi, to Attila = every year. Thus the difference amounted to 2,000 pounds of gold year; this was how highly the Byzantines, a people of clear vision and highly sensitive in money matters, rated the “great power” status of Ardaric relative to Attila. ‘And to make matters worse, in(456) Marcian settled the Ostro- goths, the ancient enemies of the Gepids, in the two Pannonian provinces (je. truly Roman territory) and adopted them among his “allies”; this meant that the road towards the Empire was blocked to the Gepid alliance. ‘The second appearance of the “Gepid League” ended in fail- ure. The victory the Gepids had won at the battle of the Nedao opened a wound which was never to heal again. At the battle fought by the river Bolia id 469, the League was not only de- feated by the Ostrogoths, but whatis more, was unable to prevent the Goths, who had attacked across the Danube, from over- running one after the other the allies of the Gepids, the Sciri the Suebians and the Sarmatians, in the winter of 469-470. Following the withdrawal of the Ostrogoths, in471 the Gepids ‘occupied the territory of Pannonia Secunda (i.e. today’s Syrmia. and Slavonia), although their military position remained un- stable, In 488 they again suffered defeat at the hands of the Ostro- goths, who under the leadership of Theoderic the Great passed through Pannonia on their way to Italy. The débacle occurred in spite of the fact that the Gepids took up their military posi- tions astride the narrow passage thtough the Ulea marshes be- tween Mursa and Cibalae, a place which had previously been regarded as impregnable. 16After a lapse of a few years, in 504, Theoderic, who by that time had become the King of Italy, succeeded in recapturing “Pan- nonia Sitmiensis, the former homeland of the Goths”. Led by Count Pitzia, the invading Goths, without any particular mili- tary activity to speak of, simply drove Thrasaric and his Gepid forces from the province. The Gepids fled across the Danube to their own homeland, leaving behind some members of their families, such as the mother of Thrasaric. Then in 523 the Goths uprooted the remaining Gepid population of the province, moving them on the orders of Theoderic to Provence to act as a defensive buffer against the hostile Burgundians. Following the death of Theoderic the Greaton 30 August 526, the Gepids thought their hour had come. On this assumption they moved forward into the province of Pannonia Sirmiensis; but disappointment was in store for them. Amalasuntha, the regent, entrusted the task of opposing them to the Gothic Count Vitigis, who was later elected king. Vitigis ousted the Gepids from the province in 528 and, in hot pursuit, even enteted the territory of the Eastern Empire, a fact which nearly created a diplomatic tangle. During the campaign Vitigis took up posi- tions in the southern half of Valeria and Pannonia Prima prov- inces, this threateaing the Lombards, who had previously crossed the Danube and established themselves in northern Pannonia. This series of Gepid failures were related with obvious relish two decades later by the Lombard envoys to Emperor Justinian. However, the great war between Byzantium and the Goths at long last brought about Gepid rule in Sitmium. The Byzantine magister militum of Ulyricam, a man partly of Gepid origin by the name of Mundo, who incidentally was probably the first Gepid general since the time of Ardaric to have achieved some success, had occupied Salona in Dalmatia early in the war (in September 535), and thereby threatened the links between the Goths in Pannonia and Italy. In 537, King Vitigis concentrated his forces for the assault on Rome, and by that time had already withdrawn the Gothic forces earlier stationed in Pannonia. It is not impossible that Vitigis himself handed over Sirmium to the Gepids in order to further weaken the northern frontier of the Empire. ‘The occupation of Sirmium proved to be a fateful error in Gepid policy. There can be no doubt about it that it was made possible only as a result of military successes won by Byzantium; the territories formerly ruled by the now defeated Goths belonged to the Empire not only because they used to be Roman property, but also on account of the laws of war. Justinian and Byzantium 17did not forget the Gepids’ unwarranted interference, and would not rest until they succeeded in ousting them from the region. To make matters worse, the Gepids had also occupied Bassiana, a city and territory which since 509 had belonged to the Empire, thereby openly joining the ranks of the Empire’s enemies. The first counter-measures initiated by Byzantium, i. the with- drawal of the yearly subsidy, the severing of the alliance and finally the conclusion of a “Christian” alliance with the Lombard King Wacho, immediately put the Gepids in a difficult position. To counteract their isolation, they allied themselves against Byzantium with Theudepert, the crazy but inspired king of the Franks, However, the attack launched in 539 simultaneously by the Franks in Italy and the Gepids along the Danube became bogged down after the initial impetus, After a series of battles, whose changing fortunes brought serious losses, the total achievement of the Gepids was that their new conquests along the southern bank of the Danube were, for the time being, granted de facto recognition by the Byzantines, together with the right to the yearly sum of 100 pounds of gold. All this, however, was nothing but a policy of delay on the part of the Byzantines. In actual fact, subsequently stopping the flow of the yearly subsidy once more and offering it to King Audoin of the Lombards (probably increased by a sizable sum) was enough to bring about in 546-547 a political situation that was radically different from the preceding one. In return for joining the alli- ance, Audoin was offered Gothic Pannonia (the southern parts of Pannonia Prima and Valeria as well as Pannonia Secunda except for the area around Sirmium). To take possession of the grant, all Audoin had to do was to oust the Gepids from the region. Moreover, Justinian promised significant military sup- port with which to do the job. In the war that broke out the following spring (in 547), the Lombards, assisted by 10,000 Byzantine mounted warriors and 1,500 Catholic Heruls, under the command of Constantius, “the count of the sacred stables”, dispersed the pride of the Gepid army, the 3,000 Arian Heruls. As a result, Turisind, the king of the Gepids, immediately asked Audoin for a two-year armistice. The appearance of the huge force of Imperial mount- ed archers, i.e. of a force of such size that had not been seen along the Danube for centuries, obviously made such a great impression on both peoples that they quickly did everything in their power to stop the hostilities that might have had fateful results for each. During the renewed hostilities in 549, following 18an unexpected natural phenomenon (according to one opinion, a total eclipse of the moon on the night of 25-26 June), both armies left the battlefield in haste, leaving their embattled rul- ers to conclude a further two-year armistice. It should be men- tioned, however, that the Gepids had made thorough prepa- rations for the war; but the 12,000 Kutrigur horsemen they had engaged arrived only after the hostilities had abruptly ended. ‘Thus the showdown was postponed until the summer of 551 or the early spring of 552, This time, the support promised by the Emperor was delayed in Ulpiana; and it was only the son of Herminafrid, the former king of Thuringia, and a brother-in- law of Audoin, Amalafrid, who was living in Byzantium at the time, and his retinue who took part in the battle. Nonetheless, the Lombard “war machine” scored a total victory at the Asfeld; not only Turismod, the heir apparent, was killed and the Gepid amy dispersed, but the Gepid camp as such also fell into the hands of the Lombards. However, the Emperor refused to allow the exuberant Lombards to exploit their victory, and instead ordered the two peoples to conclude a peace treaty immediately based on the status quo. The weakness of the imperial forces preparing for the final battle against Totila lay behind the un- expectedly peaceful atmosphere. Both peoples were “enrolled”, as it were, in the army of the Byzantine commander Narses. But the Gepids, angry and licking their wounds, were repre- sented only by a selected force of 400 armed warriors, plus the 3,000 Arian Heruls. ‘The peace ordered by Justinian survived the reign of King Turi- sind. His son, Cunimund, took over towards the end of the 550s or during the early 560s. The Lombards ‘The Lombards first made theit appearance in written history at the beginning of our era, It was Tiberius, a general of Augus- tus and later his successor as emperor, who made fleeting con- tact with them, They were characterized by his “field historian”, Velleius Paterculus, as a people even “fercer than the ordinary fietceness of the Germans”. A century later, Tacitus gave a more precise description of them: “The (Lombards) Lango- bards are ennobled by their scarcity in number; though sur- rounded by powerful and great peoples, they safeguard their secu- rity by fighting and risking danger rather than by accepting sub- jugation.” By that time the Lombards might not have been so few 19in number. In the plain west of the estuary and the lower river El- be, now the Liineburger Heide, whose middle part retained the memory of the Lombards up to the Middle Ages in its name of Bardengavi, extensive urnfields dating from the days of Tiberius and Tacitushavecome to light. Undoubtedly Lombard society was martial:a section of their extensive cemeteries holds the remains of well-equipped warriors (single and double-edged swords, lances, shields with iron bosses, arrowheads). The women and childten were put in separate cemeteries. Aa explanation for this peculiar custom may be found in the early and well-developed cult of Wotan, The warriors who fell in battle were brought by Wotan to the Hall of the Heroes, or Valhalla, so that they could con- tinue to live their heroic lives to their hearts’ content. The bur- ial custom of the Lombards not only made the work easier for Wotan, but is also evidence of Lombard military organization. The Lombards’ first contact with the Roman world might be ascribed to their martial way of life and perhaps to a degree of overpopulation. The extensive wars between the Romans, Mar- comanni and Sarmatians over a decade and a half were spear- headed by the attack in AD 166-167 of 6,000 Lombard warriors supported by the federate Obii. This force of audacious warriors started out from the area of modern Hamburg or Bardowick and proceeded south to the Danube, where in the region be- tween Brigetio and Arrabona (now Sz6ny and Gyér in Hungary) it thrust into Pannonia. But this bold invasion soon gave way to a concerted counter-attack by the Roman cavalry whose strength was still unbroken at the time. In later periods, the Lombards themselves had only a rather hazy recollection of their own past history. According to their legend of origin, written down in Italy around 640, they hailed from “Scadanan” or the “island of Scandinavia” as Paul the Deacon put it, and in the beginning were known as the “Win- nil”, This is of course a mere fantasy typical of the Early Middle Ages. The leading strata of the Germanic tribes of the Migra- tion period either put together a legend of origin going back to Troy as was done by the Romans or traced their ancestors back to Scandinavia, the fabulous place of origin of peoples. ‘The Lombard chronicle, written down in the early ninth century after reliable oral tradition, pinpointed the ancient homeland, the “‘Scatenauge”, to the bank of the Elbe, where the Saxons were their neighbours at the time, This tradition tallies with the archaeological facts, since in the Elbe region the Lombard culture can be traced back as far as the Iron Age preceding the beginning of our era, At that time the Lombards lived in 2large villages and did not change their dwelling places for cen- turies. The archacological investigations bring to life the Tibe- rian campaign. Scores of villages were pillaged by the Romans, never to be repopulated again. Others however were rebuilt lat- er, and their cemeteries were continuously used. Many new settlements were also founded. For centuries the Lombards lived in their homeland on the Elbe (Scoringa or Golaida). According to their accepted tradi- tions it was here that they became the chosen people of Wotan and were named by him as Lombards or Langobards, which was taken by themselves and their contemporaries alike to mean “long-bearded”. The Lombards of later date were not inclined to associate themselves closely with Lombard prehistory, with the sole ex- ception of the names of the mythical kings (e.g. Agio-Aio), which as late as in the ninth century still counted among the popular names used by the Lombards in Italy. The Italian Lombards reckoned their own historical traditions from the time the “army” left the ancient homeland. They regarded Agilmund, the leader of the “army”, as their first king. In the preamble to his law-book King Rothari, the seventeenth Lom- bard king (born in 605), listed the names of eleven of his ancestors. If with knowledge of the cicumstances of the period ‘we assume that the first-born sons of each forbear who survived succeeded one another every 18 to 20 years on average, we arrive at the conclusion that Rothari only reckoned his ancestors from the emigration period. (Although “coming of age” was defined in Lombard law as at the age of 12, it was not for several more years that the sons were actually married.) The first ancestor listed, Ustbora, probably left the ancient homeland some time around 385-400, which seems to be corroborated by archaeological evidence, Incidentally, the list tells us that the ancestor of Rothari who took part in the conquest of Pannonia was called Hiltzo, His son, Alaman, participated in the wars against the Gepids. (Alaman’s name may refer to the origin of his mother. It may be mentioned here that there are several Alamannic sets of jewellery which support the evidence of marriage between Alamannic women and Lombard men living in Pannonia,) Alaman’s son, Adhamund, was born in Pannonia about 545, like his own son, Noctzo (about 565). Adhamund. was the male member of the family of military age at the time the war in which Cunimund was defeated took place. Later he and his family moved into Italy. His grandson, Nandinig, was the father of Rothari. 23‘According to Lombard tradition the army, after leaving the ancient homeland, first moved to “Anthaib” and then proceeded to “Bainaib” or “Banhaib”. Many authorities identify this name. with Baihaim, which was the name of Bohemia in antiquity, and this would seem to be right, since the Lombard chronicle dating from between 807 and 810 offers as an explanation the name “Beovinidis”. It is at least certain that the Lombard cul- ture uncovered in Pannonia and Italy is a direct continuation of the culture which emerged in Bohemia and Moravia shortly before AD 500. Moteover, the Lombards reappear not only in archaeological finds but at the same time in recorded history as well. Accord- ing to their traditions, when Odoacer, king of Italy, and his brother Hunyulf in 487-488 defeated the Rugii who lived along the Danube opposite Vienna and destroyed their kingdom, the fifth Lombard king, Godeoc, led them into the depopulated “Rugilanda”. This brought them to the border between the one-time Roman provinces of Noricum and Pannonia. Here, however, an unexpected and unpleasant event befell the Lombards. As they moyed into the adjoining fertile “Feld”, the most valiant of all the Germanic tribes, the Heruls, forced them to accept their overlordship. The Heruls were an unusually martial and puritanical people and on top of everything, they were federates of the leading Germanic power of the period, the Ostrogoths in Italy. Their king, Rodulf, was the adopted “son in arms” of Theoderic the Great himself, According to the Lombard chronicle, all these troubles were crowned by the behaviour of Rometruda, the daughter of King Tato of the Lombards, who made fun of the brother and emissary of Rodulf, a man of short stature. In return the Herul, flushed with rage, offended the female dignity of the glib princess (to put it mildly), whereupon the girl—what else could she have done?—had her guest killed, But nonetheless it proved to be too much. Although the details of the ensuing war were considerably touched up by the Lombards, there is still no room for doubting that they scor- ed an absolute victory. So much so, that the state of the Heruls fell apart, and its people fled in three directions, between 508 and 512, one half returned to the original homeland in the north, while the other half fled to the Gepids, and in part subsequently on to the Eastern Empire. It was then that the Byzantines received their first information of the appearance of anew and frightful power, previously unknown, in the Danube region; all that could be done was to wait and see when and how they could take advantage of the new situation. 24Shortly after this victory, King Tato was killed by his nephew Wacho, whereupon Tato’s son Risiulf fed. And when Risiulf himself died, his son Hildigis, who was, as Tato’s grandson, the heir apparent, again took the wanderer’s road with his retinue of 300 men. He turned up at many places during his adventurous life,among both Slavs and Byzantines, and was eventually to be killed by the hired assassin of his Gepid hosts. Wacho “the usurper”, turned out to be one of the greatest Lombard kings. In accordance with the custom of Germanic rulers at the time, he too sought to legalize and secure his power through advantageous marital connections. He took for his first wife Radegunda (Ranikunda), the daughter of Bisia, the ruler of the once powerful and independent Thuringia, who died in about 505. Following Radeguada’s death he successfully asked for the hand of the daughter of King Elemund of the Gepids. The name of the new queen, Austrigusa, or Ostrogoto in Gepid, indicates the difference between the languages of the two Germanic peoples. With Hildigis out of the way, Wacho exploited this family relationship to subjugate the Sucbians, who had once belonged to the Gepid League and were now living outside the borders of Pannonia. On the basis of his family connections with the Gepids and anticipating their support also because of their anti-Gothic sentiments, Wacho established him- self after the death of Theoderic the Great (30 August 526) south of the Danube (in northern Pannonia). As a result, the Suebians and Heruls who lived there came under Lombard suzerainty. Wacho’s political security was greatly enhanced by the perfect matches he found for the two daughters he had by his Gepid wife. Wisigarda, the elder daughter, married Theudepert, king of Austrasia, Her younger sister, Walderada, was queen to several rulers, Her first husband was the Frankish king Theo- debald, son and successor of Theudepert, who died in 555. Next she became the wife of Chlotar I, king of Soissons and later of the Franks (died in 561), and finally she married Gari- bald, the first Bavarian prince whose name we know. Her daugh- ter by Gatibald, Theudelinda, was to become the wife of two Lombard kings in Italy—Authari and Agilulf. She was more- over the first Catholic queen of the Lombards, and highly esteemed by Pope Gregory the Great. Wacho, however, had no male successor until his third wife, Salinga, the daughter of King Rodulf of the Heruls, who had meanwhile grown into a woman, had a son. Alas, it was too late, and the young boy had no chance to grow up and rule! 2At the outbreak of the war between Byzantium and the Goths, obviously under the impact of the hostile show of force previ- ously put on by Vitigis, Justinian accepted Wacho among his “Christian allies”. What this alliance really meant is not fully known. All that is certain is that in 539, referring to Byzantium, Wacho rejected Vitigis’s request for assistance, the latter by then having become king of the Ostrogoths. Soon after, Wacho died. His minor son, Waltari, was under the tutelage of Audoin of the Gausus fara. In the view of some authorities Audoin was a prince of the Suebians, who had become absorbed by the Lombards. He was indeed related to distinguished royal fami- lies. His mother, Menia, was a former queen of Thuringia, and his first wife—the mother of Alboin—was Rodelinda, probably a Bavarian princess, Later he married the daughter of the last ‘Thuringian king, Herminafrid, and his queen, Amalaberga, who was the niece of Theoderic the Great. It is precisely this royal kinship which suggests that Audoin might have been a member of the Suebian royal family ousted by Wacho. It is also possible that Audoin’s rise to power was helped along by some “Suebian coup”. In fact, to incorporate large, closely- knit bodies of people into the Lombard federation always brought with it the danger of a tribally inspired popular revolt. ‘The uprising of the Gepids in Italy led by Queen Rosamunda on 28 June 572 overturned Alboin and the rule of the Gausus dynas- ty: It is worthy of note in this connection that the “multitade of the Gepids” and the Lombards who joined the Rosamunda- Helmechis party were able to hold their ground in the capital until August and were only forced to flee to the Byzantines in Ravenna by the concerted attack of the Lombard dakes who formed a temporary alliance in the face of mortal danger. The victory and the ascendancy gained by the Lombards was instru- mental in turning their Saxon federates against them, two years later, the Saxons choosing emigration mther than subjugation to the anarchistic rule of the Lombard dukes (574). The death of the youthful King Waltari sometime around 545-546 came most opportunely for Audoin, who was now able to terminate the previous hot and cold Lombard policy. With the gold and other gifts of Justinian doing their bit, the alliance of Byzantium and the Lombards against the Gepids came into being. Justinian granted to Audoin the “Urbs Pannoniae” and the “Norikon Polis”, i.e. southern Pannonia and the adjoining parts of Pannonia and Noricum, which at that time were still inhabited by Romans, Thus the Danube became 26the border of Lombardia in the direction of Gepidia. The alliance which Byzantium had concluded with the Lombards however had its own price in the Gepid wars, Just a few remarks are called for here, regarding these. No sooner had the mortal enemy of Byzantium, the Frankish King Theudepert, died at the very end of 547—perhaps by the agency of the Lombard-born queens—than the Lombards allied themselves with the Franks, thereby robbing the Gepids of their last allies. In 552 the Lombards gave proof of their loyalty towards Justinian, The nucleus of the Lombard army which was vic- totious at the Asfeld, some 5,500 warriors, joined Narses’s cam- paign against the Goths in Italy. In the decisive battle fought early in July of that year at Busta Gallorum, the main force of the Eastern Roman armies was made up of the 5,500 Lom- bard and 3,000 Herul warriors. And these were the men who broke the assault of the legendary Totila and his Ostrogothic death-defying cavalry. Other Lombard forces were dispatched by the Emperor to far-off Persia. Itwas, however, in the end a great blunder to allow the Lombards to enter Italy. They had a grand time there, and saw too much. ‘They behaved in such a disorderly manner there that Narses thought it better to order them home immediately after the victory had been gained. But by then it was too late: the Lom- bards never did forget the towns they had come to know in Italy, nor the orchards and vineyards. 21“Gepidia” and “Lombardia” “Gepidia” ‘The location and extension of the area occupied by the Gepids early on has not been clearly defined, In the middle of the fourth century AD the Gepids lived somewhere in the area of the upper Tisza. It is possible, however, that by the end of the century some groups had moved as far south as the Maros river in the Trans-Tisza region, and there survived the years of Hunnish rule, But their main centre probably remained within their old area of settlement (cf. the Exmihilyfalva burial and the Mojgrad find). ‘The victory in the batile of the Nedao in 454 made the Gepids lords over the eastern half of the Carpathian basin; but this was more a political fact than an indication of settlement. After 471 the Gepids occupied Pannonia Secunda, that is, the territory bounded by the rivers Danube, Drava and Sava, today known as Syrmia and Slavonia in northern Yugoslavia. As a result, not only the important imperial city of Sirmium came under their sway but other notable towns of antiquity as well, such as Mursa (Esz¢k, Osijek), Cibalae (Vinkovei) and Bassiana (Petrovei). It may also be assumed that in this period they extended their military control over a part of the Danube north of the Drava (today’s Baranja district in Yugoslavia). The great march-lands such as, for instance, Oltenia or Wallachia, the one-time Roman province of Dacia Inferior, which for shorter or longer periods had been under Gepid rule, have not so far produced any finds which would provide evidence for a Gepid settlement there. In 504, when with the exception of the territory of Bassiana Theoderic the Great annexed “Pannonia Sirmiensis” to his Italian kingdom, the Gepids lost control over the only “living” 28Roman land. It was at this time that the Gepids established a more lasting area of settlement which, thanks to many decades of thorough archaeological investigations, can be defined today with a significant measure of certainty. From the second half of the fifth century the central part of the Trans-Tisza region formed the main block of the Gepid settle- meat, or “Gepidia” proper. The boundaries of this settlement area remained unclear until very recently when they were able finally to be drawn with the help of information supplied by Jordanes, a contemporary historian active in the 540s. ‘According to Jordanes, the Gepids lived in the area between the rivers Grisia and Marisia (Kéréis and Maros). He also men- tioned two rivers within the territory, the Miliare (White Kors) and Gilpil (Black Kéris). Archaeological finds have provided an even more precise boundary of Gepidia. According to these it was bounded by the Tisza in the west. On the right bank of this meandering river only two “bridgeheads” are known to us. The northern and eastern borders were in fact identical with the enormous strategic earthworks built by the Sarmatians in the 300s. So the tables had been turned: the many hundred miles long walls built with the help and guidance of the Ro- mans as a defence against the threats from Germanic tribes such as the Vandals, Gepids and Visigoths, came by the sixth century to serve as the main bulwark of a former enemy, the Gepids, against attacks from the north and the east. At this time the earthworks must have still been in good repair, as is confirmed by the fact that, after the decline of the Gepid state, the carly (568-670) settlement area of the Avars more or less covered the same area. What might be called “Little Gepidia”, was located in the heart- land of Transylvania, covering part of the former province of Dacia Superior. The area populated by the Gepids only extended over the Mez6féld plain. This meant that in this period the in- habited region of Transylvania shmnk to its smallest size throughout the history of its settlement. ‘After 536 the Gepid areas again included Syrmia. This region had to be reconquered as the former Gepid population had been driven away by Theodetic the Great in523. Repopulation, however, was only partially possible, the Gepids being only able to populate the eastern half of the region, and this too only with the help of the Heruls who had joined them. Connections with Syrmia were secured by a row of loose settlements along the left bank of the Tisza in the Banat region. Centres in the post-454 period are so far known to have existed 292 The Gepid common people had houses sunken up to a metre into the ground. The roof was supported by 6 posts, 3 on each side (1-3: Ma- lomfalva (Moresti); in the case of smaller huts a single centrally placed main supporting column was sufficient (4: Tiszafiired), In general, no fire-place is found in these buildings only in the Transylvanian parts: one was at Mojgrad (Roman Porolissum)and the other at Apshida (in the vicinity of Roman Napoca). Asis testified by the richness of burial finds, the centre of Gepidia in the Tisza region was probably in the area of Szentes and Hédmezévasithely, or near the confluence of the Tisza and Maros tivers. Archaeological work on the settlements has been going on for the last fifteen years. Houses built by the Gepids have been dug up in Transylvania at Malomfalva (Moresti) and Maros- csapé (Cipau), on opposite sides of the Matos. The houses were built separately, scattered here and there, in the first of these places, and in dense proximity to one another in the other, excavations revealing quadrangular pits measuring 4x5 or 5x6 metres, with their comers rounded off. Originally, the houses were sunk to a depth of 0.7 to 1.5 metres into the soil. Their roofs were supported by either three small or one large post, placed in a row on facing sides, at the narrower end of the houses. No fireplaces were discovered in the houses; cooking was done on surface hearths which, however, have not been preserved. In winter “steam heating” was used, produced by stones heated and thrown into cold water. In the centre of Gepidia a house dating from the turn of the sixth century was excavated in 1969 at Tiszafiired and traces of other huts are to be found in the neighbourhood. This type of housing was commonplace among the Germanic tribes in the fourth to sixth centuries. Similar buildings were inhabited by the Goths in Eastern Europe, the Lombards in Bohemia, the Thuringians, the Warni, the Saxons—in other words, the eastern “peripheral tribes” of the Germans. Some of the Gepid settlements in Transylvania, like the one at ‘Moresti already mentioned, were defended by prehistoric earthen ramparts and the cemetery was also found within the ramparts. In the Gepid land proper there was no need for fortified settlements. The country was surrounded in the north, beyond the line of the massive earthworks, and in the west, between the Danube and the Tisza, by a 60-120 miles broad uninhabited zone, whilein the east it was sheltered by mountains and huge forests. In the centre of the country villages followed one another in close succession. In other places, settlements ofthe farmstead or manor type, also, generally characteristic of the Germanic peoples, may be observed. Thus, for instance, in the vicinity of Kétegyhiza, in an area not mach larger than a square mile, we know of four small cemeteries, independent of one another and presumably the burial places of four separate man- 30ors, The same thing can be observed in the neighbourhood of Kardoskiit and other places, for example in the vicinity of Hédmezévasichely and Gyula. The small cemetery of Maros- visirhely (Tirgu Mures) in Transylvania was most probably of the same type; those buried there probably lived among the rains of a former Roman villa which was later inhabited and then abandoned by the Goths. “Lombardia” When they entered Pannonia, the first Lombards encountered a diverse population. The northern part of Transdanubia was occupied by Germanic groups, Heruls inhabited the neigh- bourhood of Lake Ferté (Neusiedlersee) and groups of Sucb- ians lived in the region to the east as far as the plain of modern Fejér county, To the south, the territory between Lake Balaton and the Drava formed the periphery of the Ostrogothic state in Italy. These parts were populated by the remnants of the Roman- ized inhabitants of the province, now under Germanic rule. Most were the subjects of the Ostrogoths, and in that period still formed closed communities, as a kind of town-dweller craftsman-peasant class. The lot of those jiving under Herulic rule was presumably less fortunate. ThUugh subject to the Germans, they had to live together with their overlords in one and the same community both in the towns (e.g. Scarabantia [Sopron], Vindobona [Vienna]) and in the sici (e.g. Hegyk6). Te was in the region occupied by the Suebians that the inhabitants who had lived there in Roman times had been most greatly reduced. The Suebians also used the remains of the former Ro- man towns, castra and villas for settlement. One of their centres was the fortress-like block of the military amphitheatre at Aquin- cum in Budapest. ‘The first wave of Lombards who moved into the area in the autumn of 526 did little else but take over control of the terri- tory, together with its fortified places and fords, along the Danube from Vienna downstream to the southern tip of Csepel Island. The cemeteries of the early invaders were associated with Roman settlements being found in the vicinity of the post- Roman settlement at Vindobona and near the castra of Carnun- tum, Ala-Nova, Brigetio, Castra Constantia and Aquincum. The cemetery at Albertfalva was attached to the local Roman castrum, whereas those at Bezenye and Racalmas were linked to burgi. Obviously the invaders took up their abode in the former 313 Gepid warrior buried ina wooden coffin held together by iron hoops, with his two-edged sword beside him (Hédmezé- vasiirhely-Kishomok) Roman settlements. At Récalmés, for instance, they had found a fully intact serra sigillata vessel and placed it in one of their graves. The main body of Lombards who settled north of the Danube lived at that time in the same type of houses as the Gepids, being sunk in the soil and with their roofs supported by six posts. We now know quite a few examples from Brezno, near Loung in Bohemia. In 546-547 a massive resettlement of population occurred, as a result of which all of modern ‘Transdanubia and Burgenland came under Lombard political rule. In actual fact, however, the Lombards did not occupy the area as a whole even then. So far no Lombard finds have turned up in Vas and Zala counties; no trace of them has been found in Somogy county (except for a small group at the village of Vrs who were entrusted with the task of controlling the route traversing the Little Balaton), or in the western and southern part of Baranya county. The towns of Savaria, the “Castellum”, (j.¢. Keszthely-Fenék- puszta) and Sopianae and the territory to the south of this line remained the settlement area of the indigenous Romanized population. This applied even more in the region along the Drava and Pannonian land to the south of this river. ‘The environs of Lake Fer and the adjoining region up to the eastetn fringes of the Alps formed a small area of Herul settle- ment, which was brought under Lombard rule. (This is the Hegyké archaeological group.) All'the other territories were occupied by the Lombards, who absorbed the scattered groups of Suebians virtually leaving no trace of them. Their policy of settlement was quite different from that of the Gepids, even though one of their enclaves on the Kisalfld or Little Phin does remind one of Gepidia; but this is not a typical Lombard settlement. The Lombards had a liking for the fringes of hilly regions. Although they did not, in fact, move right into the hills to settle—they could not have done so even if they had wanted to because of the extensive woods there—this preference for hill and valley indicates that they lived by animal-breeding. The traces of the Lombard occupation along the Danube in 546 extend actoss the Drava to the south of Mohics. Across the Drava they established themselves in Murse (Eszék, Osijek), and continuing in a south-easterly direction, occupied Vinkovei, the ancient town of Cibalze. Their presence there has now been repeatedly confirmed by finds which include a characteristic S-shaped fibula, Lombard-type pottery with stamped decoration and a hand-made pot. The town of Cibalae was the most impor- 32tant road junction in the Roman province of Pannonia Secunda. ‘The main toute from the imperial town of Sirmium forked off hete in three directions: one road led to the north to Mursa and Aquincum, another to Mursa and Poetovio along the south- etn bank of the Drava, while the third led west, through Siscia, Celeia and Emona, to Italy, The road junction was protected by the extensive marshes known as the Ulea, In view of this, there is nothing surprising in the fact that this place of strategic im- portance was twice the scene of a decisive battle. The first life and death struggle took place in 314 when Constantine the Grest, attacking from the north, defeated his eastern rival, Li- cinius. The second battle was won in the opposite direction, from the south, when in 488 Theoderic the Great, at the head of his Ostrogothic forces, fought his way through the opposing Gepid army of Thrafstila, who had been defending the passage across the marshes. This important town, the birthplace of Va- lentinian I, “the last great emperor of the Pannonians”, in this way came under the control of the Lombards as a result of Ge- pid carelessness, and remained in their possession as a border town throughout their period of rule over the Danube region. Cibalae is a mete 40 miles from Sirmium, the last capital of the Gepids. The plain between the two towns, known to both nations as the Asfeld, was the scene of the early wars between the Gepids and the Lombards. Tt was probably not before 565 that the Lombards established themselves along the upper reaches of the Sava river, in Slovenia and Croatia. After 546 the royal seat of the Lombards was in all probability on the Kisalféld, in the region of the Raba, Répce and Marcal rivets. It was here that the rich ducal burial found at Veszkény, the noblemen’s graves at Mosonszentjinos and two swords with golden mounts were brought to light. Independent Lombard or Lombard-period settlements are as yet unknown south of the Danube; all traces of settlement —sherds and vessels—come without exception from Roman sites, e. g. at Szakony, Sirisip, Intercisa, Annamatia, Herculia (Tac) and Gibalae. This means they are exactly the same as the cemeteries of the first wave of Lombards. The same applies to an overwhelming majority of the burial-grounds of the second wave, which were also unearthed in the vicinity of Roman settlements or villss, e. g. at Dar, Cstkwér (Floriana), Kadérta, Tamisi, Gyénk and Szekszérd. As the Lombard archaeological finds indicate, these former Roman towns no longer had a considerable Romanized popula- 33 4 Grave of a Lombard chieftain at Tamasi. The body was laid ina coffin made of planed boards, with his sword placed next to him; on the coffin was placed the shield with its iron boss, an ornamental comb made of bone, and a pottery vessel containing foodtion; if there had been any previously they must have been chased away by this time. The Lombards did not build houses in the Roman settlements; or if they did, no trace of them are discernible in the Late Roman layer of debris. The same was the case in Italy, In Brexia (Brescia), in the area between the Teatro Romano and the S. Giulia monastery, only sherds with stamped decoration, fragments of combs and similar finds present evi- dence of the Lombard settlement, but traces of individual houses have not been found. Since the Lombard book of laws makes mention of timber houses it is obvious that such structures were built among the Roman rains, partly making use of the ruins themselves. ‘There are, however, a few traces of settlements of the farmstead or manor type similar to those of the Gepids. These were later quite frequently found in Italy where they were known as sala or curtis. Certain cemeteries containing only a few raves, and located at a considerable distance from Roman sites, may indi- cate the presence of such settlements. According to many historians, the Gepids and the Lombards formed only a small ruling class which held away over the local people and lived off the labour of hard-working subjects. This idea, based on an uncritical acceptance of the conditions that prevailed in Italy, Gaul and Spain, is refuted by the archae- ological facts. By the sixth century the Gepid settlement arcas were populated exclusively by Germans, from the king in his palace down to the peasant working the land. Although the situation as regards the Lombards in Pannonia was more com- plex (as is not the case earlier on with the Lombards in Moravia), the areas settled by the Romanized and Germanic inhabitants respectively reveal a pattern which undoubtedly confirms the fact that the Lombards were in the majority in the German set- tlement areas.Lombard Man-— Gepid Man The archaeologist, when ho is excavating a cemetery, comes face to facewith a man—in this case a sixth-century man—who is in much the same position as that in which he was buried. The archaeologist views man of long past ages differently from the physical anthropologist, whose work is based on laboratory examination and measurement of a skeleton already removed from its grave. And, what is more important, from the evidence of burial rites and grave-goods an archaeologist is able to place his discoveries in a particular period, in the correct social stratum and ethnic group; ia other words, he sees individuals and not “population” in the abstract. Having myself unearthed several hundreds of Lombard and Gepid graves, Iwould summarize my own observations as follows:apart from the submerged Romanized element, the Lombards were nearly all remarkably tall, with long legs, well-built and well- proportioned (the average height of those measured in the graves was about 1,80m.). Their women were also tall (about 1.70 m.) on average, once again apart from the small freewomen and slaves of the provinces, and were perhaps rather heavy. In contrast to the males, who had longer faces with prominent features including a firm chin and aquiline nose, the facial—that is cranial—features of the females were plain and unremarkable. On average, the Gepids were a head or so shorter than the Lombards. Even the nobles and the freemen of rank, who were quite distinct from the common people and who inter- married a good deal, were seldom taller than 1.70 m. Their features were regular, and even in the women, quite fine, and members of the ruling stratum were handsomely built. However, the overwhelming majority of the Gepids were people of medium height, some slender, some more stocky. 35(e Bokenymindszeht Kaken Roman or late antique town oe to the archaeological evidence os |||I||||_ settlements of the Gepids in the sixth century (:, mmm Roman-Sarmatian earthworks abe ere 2|), y 5 The Carpathian basin in the mid-sixth century. The Lombards did not populate the whole of Pannonia, ‘The homeland of the Gepids, on the other hand, was bounded by the old earth-works of the Romans and the Sarmatians. Transylvania, Syrmia ‘and modern Croatia were occupied for military reasonsFollowing Lajos Bartucz, Mihaly Malin and Tibor Téth, the anthropologist Istvin Kiszely summarizes: “The Lombards of Pannonia were a tall, Nordic people with well-developed phy- siques of the Nordic-Cro-Magnonoid type; among their women the Gracil-Mediterranean type was quite common. Among the Gepids the Nordic type at one time predominated, but a long series of transitional types evolved through interbreeding with the Huns and Alans (and also local Sarmatians we may add). Sometimes slightly Mongoloid, East Europeanoid and, to a smaller extent, Gracil-Mediterranean and Turanid strains were added to the Nordic.” ‘There is a perceptible difference of opinion between the views of the archaeologist on the one hand and the anthropologist and the demographic expert on the other when it comes to defining average age. In making their calculations, anthropol- ogists take infant mortality into account, and as a result we learn that the average lifespan is an astonishing 22 to 28 years. Compared with this, the average Lombard lifespan of 30 years is conspicuously high. In fact, right until the end of the nine- teenth century it was the death rate of babies and young children that was staggeringly high; the life expectancy of those who survived infancy was much longer, Graves of children more than two years old are only rarely found in Lombard ceme- teties, whereas there are remains of old men and women without teeth, who lived for 60 or 70 years. Yet the true average age is still rather low, probably between 30 and 50 years among those who died young there are mote women than men. These were not heroes, but quite ordinary men. Their bones bear witness to this day of the many diseases they suffered from. Among the Lombards there were many who were afflicted with rheumatism, many children with rickets and people who suffered from osteomyelitis; there were also some with ossified spines and others whose legs or arms had been broken and had then knit in a horribly grotesque form. And there were people with decayed teeth—but not nearly as many as there are now- adays. ‘The artificial deformation of the skull, a custom which origi- nated in the Bast and became widespread with the appearance of the Alans, and the Huns, was quite common among the Gepids in the fifth century, but had disappeared by the sixth century. According to finds so far, this fashion was never taken up by the Lombards in Pannonia.Dress and Ornament The ancient Lombard dress and ornament have been graphically described by Paul the Deacon who based his description on the frescoes of the royal palace at Monza built in the time of Agilulf and Theudelinda carly in the seventh century, and which he himself saw in the second half of the eighth century. ‘The Lombards wore their hair parted in the middle, and combed on either side of the face, to about the mouth. The nape was clipped or shaved. Their loose garments were mostly made of linen interwoven with coloured stripes or bands, as was the fashion among the Anglo-Saxons of the period too. The shoes were open at the big toe and were laced up and knotted with leather thongs. ‘The reader may remember the Lombard’s white ankle cloths which were mentioned earlier in connection with Alboin’s visit to the royal court of the Gepids, which the Gepids com- pared to those of horses. ‘The description of the Lombard hair-style is authenticated by the numerous Lombard masks and face ornaments found on gold crosses, fibulae and coins that have survived in Italy. From these, it is clear that they sported beards trimmed to a point. Earlier pieces show beards worn longer than in the later ones. Other depictions found in Italy show that they rode in close- fitting trousers over which the men wore short tunics reaching to the middle of the thigh. In winter, they also wore long cloaks which reached below the knee. According to the few portrayals of women that have come down to us, they wore long skirts which reached almost to the ankle. Lombard dress in Pannonia can now be reconstructed more or less completely from the objects found in several hundred graves which have been investigated and documented down to the 39 62-63, 65 58. 47-48 44-46, 61 59 60 6,16 6 Gold solidus of King Aistulf of the Lombards. Even though it was minted two hundred years after the Lombard abandonment of Pannonia, it clearly shows the characteristic Lombard hair style and beard and facial features. Only the curling of the hair reflects a style fashionable at the contemporary Byzantine court7 Grave of a Lombard-period noblewoman, excavated at Hegyk. A Byzantine glass cup and a glass mitror were placed by the head of the dead, who lay in a coffin made of wooden boards. The positioning of the fibulae, silver-plated leather pendants and tock crystal ornamental disc suspended from it indicates the way it was worn smallest detail. The clothes of servants show only belt or trouser buckles made of iron to which, in the case of the half-frce class, a knife worn at the waist can be added. Lombard freemen wore belts fixed with an iron or bronze buckle which was occasionally embellished with silver or iron mountings (Szentendre, Tamisi) whereas noblemen’s belts are distinguished by ornamental silver buckles and silver inlays or gilded belt ornaments. A purse 15 to 16 centimetres wide and 10 cm. deep, made of cloth or leather, was carried on the belt, usually on the left side at the back. The purses were fastened by a small bronze, iron or bone buckle and sometimes studded with bronze nails at the edges. The contents of the purse are almost invariably identical: tweezers made of iron or bronze to remove unwanted hair, a striking iron and 2-6 flint stones, 1-4 iron knives, a whetstone, aniroa awl with a wooden handle, and, sometimes, iron scissors. Occasionally the purse held one or two small pieces of glass which were used for polishing or scratching. Some of the Lombards fastened their boots with a small iron, bronze or silver buckle above the ankle, but most tied them up with straps. More is known about women’s fashions of the period. As well as the ordinary bleached linen, Byzantine linen and even cotton are found among the remnants of clothing. All women—small children and servant girls included—wore necklaces made of coloured glass beads. These beads however were quite different as regards material, quantity and beauty. The half-free women wore iron or bronze belt buckles and carried small knives in their belts or in leather holders suspended from the belt, and also cartied spindles (spindle-whorls) in their small purses. Occasionally they decorated their outer garments with simple and cheap fibulae below the neck or on the bodice. ‘Among free women a distinction was made between the clothing of unmarried and married women. The girls’ attire more o less corresponded to that of well-dressed half-free women, except that their beads and fibulae were finer. They often put long bronze pins into their hair. No real difference is evident between the attire of married free women and that of noble women; only the size and quality of their jewels differs. Bronze hair-pins are fairly frequently found and they were used to hold the hair in place, or to fasten a ker- chief on the right-hand side. On the necklaces, the profusion of beads is almost inversely proportional to the quality of the ornament—the more magnificent the jewels, the more simple the necklace; noble women characteristically wore just a few beads of rock crystal, amber or gold. 40‘The outer garments were fastened high on the neck, almost immediately below the chin and between the breasts, by two brooches which were sometimes identical, sometimes different: they could be S-shaped fibulae, or have the shape of birds, discs and so on. The waist was encircled by a belt with an iron or bronze buckle closing on the left, which also served to carry the small purse, which was often decorated with huge coloured beads of, more rarely, with a disc carved in antler. ‘These purses were usually buried without their usual contents, which would have included sewing needles, one or mote spindle- whorls and perhaps a pair of small scissors in a leather holder. In the sixth century fibulae were worn in a rather strange fashion. A wide band of linen cloth or leather hung from the middle of the belt right down to the bottom of the skirt, ending at mid-calf, Two large fibulae were fastened to this over the abdo- men, one above the other. The knives were also attached to this strap, Depending on the wealth of its owner, the band was finished with limestone, glass, chalcedony or rock crystal pend- ants, This system of straps was even more complicated in the case of rich freewomen and noblewomen. From the fibulae hung one or two separate straps, studded with tiny silver plates, and the small knife in its leather holder with a silver hoop was also fastened on a separate strap ot chain. This piece of costume was previously something of an enigma to archaeologists, who were not at first inclined to believe that fibulae could be worn anywhere except on the shoulder, in the old manner. But it has been verified, and it can be safely asserted that this is a new female fashion which, modelled on contempo- sary Byzantine fashion, emerged in the mid-sixth century. On Byzantine mosaics of the sixth century one can see wide bands hanging singly or in pairs from the belt down to the knee or below it. These straps were decorated by the Germanic peoples in their own manner. In several graves unearthed in the cemetery at Tamisi bronze oriron buckles came to light in positions below the knee; they were probably the buckles of antique-type sandals which were strapped on to the leg. ‘The Germans in the Hegyké region dressed differently from the Lombards. Nothing is found in the graves of the servant popu- lation, a fact which testifies to the plainness of their dress. Hegy- ké girls and women quite often wore bronze or iron armlets, bronze rings and even the imitation of earrings with polygonal bronze decoration ornamented with inlaid gems which were much in vogue in the fifth century. These embellishments are 4 8 The attire of the Gepid noblewoman from Szentes- Nagyhegy, reconstructed. In addition to the gilded silver bodkin she fixed her hair with a fine-tooth comb; her dress was fastened with the fibula, whereas her knife, spindle whorl and small box for holding relics were hung from her beltnever found in the clothing of Lombard women. The wearing of bronze pins, necklaces, small fbulze, buckles and purses otherwise conforms largely with Lombard custom. On the bands with large fibulae they would place these brooches in a consid- erably higher position (there was often only one fibula); this they did with the pendants as well; so it is likely that they wore shorter skirts. In the two richest female graves the pendants also had ornamental silver keys. Less is known about the clothing of the Gepids since accurate observations have only been made during more recent excava- tions. The dress of Gepid men resembles that of the Lombards as much as it does the Merovingian fashion of contemporary Europe. Not a single relic of servants’ costume remains, The half-fiee and the less well-to-do freemen wore belts complete with iron or bronze buckles. They carried their knives in their belts, or more often these hung on the left side of the belt. The purse and its contents have already beea noted by Istvan Ko- vacs in the carly twentieth century at Mezdbind. In general, the Gepids wore their purses on the right-hand side, cither in front or at the back, and only on very rare occasions did they carry it the Lombard way—on the left side at the back. The belts of the freemen and nobles were characterized by ornamen- 5,18 tal buckles of bronze or silver; sometimes they were decorated with garnets, at other times they were skilfully cast. Their knives hung from their belts on the left and were carried in leather holders with silver mountings. A buckle found by the knee of a Gepid indicates that the men- folk wore shoes or sandals with the leather straps running up the leg. Gepid women’s clothes, however, differ more from their Lom- bard contemporaries. Beads, for instance, are extremely rare and are only found regularly on little girls and rich noble- 10 women; in the latter case gold beads have also been discovered. The Gepid women used double-layered tooth-combs which 38 they wore in their hair. In general, the attire of the half-free or poor freewomen included comb, a belt and a purse; the purse contained a spindle (with whorl) and a knife; sometimes the knife hung from the belt on the left of the purse. There was much more difference in the jewels worn by the free- women and the nobles among the Gepids than there was among the Lombards, Only the wealthy freewomen and the noble- 13-15 women fastened their belts with the splendid eagle-headed a2buckles, and ornamental hairpins were only found among them ‘The use of the fibula was not uniform. Virtually no small fibulae ot brooches have been found and the appearance of an occa- sional S-shaped Lombard fibula ora disc or bird-shaped Frankish fibula must be reckoned as an exception. The large fibulae were worn diagonally across the breast (which raises the possibility that the Gepids wore an outer garment or veil which was drawn together diagonally) or on the waist in which case they were also worn slantways. There are only a few examples showing that high-ranking freewomen wore jewels attached to pendants; and on the basis of such evidence as there is these differed from the Lombard ones in that they were not fastened on straps. The ornamental plates, which were undoubtedly tied together with coloured straps and ended in small rings, hung from the waist in double rows, placed close to one another; but in this case as well ornamental discs were used to tighten the ends. The case that held some relic carried by the noblewoman of Szentes- Nagyhegy hung from a strap of this kind on the left side. Usually these decorative pendants are complemented by belts studded with ornamented oblong bronze plates, and are the valuable parts of the special attire of the Gepids. However the pendants and the belts have nothing in common with the verti- cally placed fibulae. Women’s purses are rare but if they are found they are charac terized by a small iron chain for closing the purse. The Ger- mans of Hegyké had similar purses. ‘The requisites of Gepid fashion in the fifth century, such as the spoons and knives used as toiletries, the earrings and armlets and so on, ae seldom found in the sixth century, and those that are, mostly turn out to be poor copies. 43 23-29 11On the Barbarian Economy In the flat, lowland country that was once the home of the Gepids an agricultural way of life has existed from the Neolithic ‘Age until the present day—even the nomads of the east who settled here were compelled to take up agriculture after a gener- ation or two. To this topographical factor of economic life was added the socio-geographical pattern of Gepid settlement, with its two types of norm—the large villages and the manors or farmsteads. Although no settlements have been excavated, and there is thus hardly any direct archaeological evidence to prove that the Gepids were engaged in agriculture this fact does not negate the view that the Gepids lived a settled, agri- cultural life. The scanty finds include remains of flax found on iron implements and a single sickle unearthed at Kiszombor. The facts relating to the agricultural activity of the Lombards are also rather vague. Most of their settlements were strategi- cally placed and established mainly on former Roman sites with the remainder situated in hilly country and the swampy areas of the plains, where no permanent traces of them remain, What has been said so far is in itself proof that agriculture was not pursued on a large scale. An examination of timber ftom Lombard graves reveal an almost exclusive dependence on trees of the kind found in marshland. The only domesticated plint which is known with certainty to have been cultivated is flax (Linum) ; Paul the Deacon wrote about the flax-fields of the Heruls in his chronicle. The main Lombard crop in Italy was flax, together with vegetables (beans, millet), onions and, later, fruit. A find which points to the Lombards’ pursuit of agriculture is the sickle which was unearthed from a female grave at Szent- endre; but the sickle is an implement in general use, which is 4equally suitable for cutting hay or flax—this also applies to the Gepid sickle mentioned earlier. Another find is the wheat- straw bedding discovered in grave 30 at Vérs. In contrast to these meagre facts, the chemical examination of the skeletal remains of the non-Lombard local people has pro- vided evidence that their staple food was grain, which shows cleatly that cereals (wheat, barley) were grown by the local population. The livestock commonly associated with people engaged in agriculture is poultry; and indeed the bones of fowls were found in the Lombard graves uncovered at Poysdorf and Kajdacs, and eggs were frequently encountered in the graves of women and girls at Tamisi; these were undoubtedly placed there as part of some magic rite. In marshland areas there is ample opportunity to catch wild fowl or to collect their eggs. On the other hand, we know of “poultry farms” that were run by the Lombards at a later date in Italy. Judging from the archaeological evidence the typical activity of the Lombards in Pannonia was not agriculture, and so they can hardly be termed “peasants”. They did not engage in agri- culture later on in Italy either, as they regarded it as slave’s work. ‘The former orchards of Pannonia had in all probability dis- appeared by the sixth century in the regions settled by the Lombards. One of their legends tells how Narses lured the poor Lombards of Pannonia with the delicious and fragrant fruits of Campania to the fabulously rich Italy. Traces of fishing have so far been uncovered only among the Gepids, in the shape of the large, double-pronged harpoons found in graves at Kékényzug and Kishomok. The Gepids also used to hoard such food as shellfish and turtles. ‘The only evidence for animal husbandry among the Gepids is provided by grave finds. Cattle and pig bones—the remains of food—have been found in graves. The burial of war horses in the graves of noblemen at Kishomok, Széreg, Batajnica and Mez5bind indicates a high level of horse-breeeding. There is much more evidence concerning the Lombards, whose sites testify to aneconomy based of cattle-herding and grazing. A remark by the Byzantine writer Menander is indicative of the high standard of animal husbandry among the Lombards in Pannonia. One of the points of the treaty between the Lom- bards and the Avars was that in return for the help offered by the Avars, the Lombards were to hand over one-tenth of their animal stock, The chief of the Avars, Baian, a clever nomad warlord, was undoubtedly on the ball, he must have had reli- 45able information about Lombard breeding stock. And, even more interestingly, the Lombards could pay the high price without undue strain. Much is known about the importance of animal husbandry to the Lombards from their legal code, known as the “Edictus Rothari”. More than one regulation in it deals with cattle- herding and grazing. From this code we know of “poor” Lombards who owned only “horses, oxen or cows”. For the murder of a native peasant (serous rusticus) a fine of 16 solidi had to be paid. If the victim was a herdsman—a horseherd or a cowherd—the fine was higher, at least 50 solidi; 25 solidi was the punishment for the killing of a swineherd, 20 solidi for a shepherd or a goat-herd, and only the herd-boy’s life was as cheap as that of the peasant. The burial of war horses is not unknown in the Lombard cemeteries of Pannonia (Szentendre, Kajdacs, Vérs, Veszkény), although as with the Gepids, only the nobles could afford such a luxury. The food given to. the deceased for his journey in the other world was primarily mutton and goat meat, a notable difference from the bones of pigs and cattle found in the graves of Gepids. Wool-shears made of iron have been unearthed in several Lombard graves, indicating a high level of sheep- breeding; such shears are not common among Gepid finds. Chemical analysis of the bones of Lombard freemen has shown that their staple food consisted of animal products: milk, butter, meat, fatty substances. The leather remains found among the archaeological material also suggest animal husbandry. So to sum up these facts, it can safely be said that animal hus- bandry was of outstanding importance in the life of the Lom- bards, The pastures formed common property both in Panno- nia and later on in Italy as well, and there was grazing on a large scale both in meadows and woods. As regards agri- culture, it would seem that the Lombards relied primarily on the produce of the indigenous population. Hunting was a privilege of the nobles among both the Gepids and the Lombards. Remains of valuable hunting dogs were found only in the graves of wealthy warriors, but occasionally the dogs were interred in separate graves. Evidence of this was found in Lombard graves at Hegyk6, Récalmas and Kaj- dacs, and in a Gepid grave at Széreg. Although from the Roman period graves and cemeteries of both peoples abound in exquisitely wrought iron implements and weapons, details of the craft of metalworking in the Danube region are not yet available. 4Nor can the sources of raw materials be traced definitely. Although there is as yet no evidence for it, the Gepids presum- ably used the former Roman mines in Transylvania; this is particularly likely since this may be assumed to be the economic reason for their settlement in this part of the Carpathian basin —as well, of course, as their exploitation of the salt mines there. However, there are no iron-ore mines in Pannonia or its imme- diate neighbourhood; and, in the conditions that prevailed in this period, it is hardly credible that the necessary crude iron wis carried to the processing workshops from Inner Noricum, which in the sixth century still formed part of Italy. To produce their own iron, even if in small quantities, only one possibility was open to the Lombards: they had to obtain it by smelting surface iron-ore. This method had already been applied success- fully in their original homeland during the Roman period. At Virpalota, in the immediate vicinity of the Lombard cemetery, the remains of a whole village of smiths dating from the tenth century have come to light, complete with workshop, furnace and some 40 kilograms of iron lumps (i.e. partly molten mal- leable crude iron). Whether the Lombards knew of the existence of these rich sources of surface iron-ore in the neighbourhood of Varpalota is anybody’s guess. On examining the iron relics left by the Gepids, weapons as well as implements, we find that except for a few ornamental weapons, affected by the nobility, the products are all local work, The peculiar lances with either excessively wide or excep- tionally narrow and long blades, the odd-shaped shield bosses (e.g. those found at Berekhat or Malomfalva [Moresti]), the harpoons, plated iron buckles, curved knives and striking itons are all characteristic Gepid types. Tt can thus hardly be ascribed to mere chance that the grave of a Gepid smith or metalworker from the sixth century is known precisely from Transylvania; grave 10 at MezSbind contained one of the most important set of sixth-century tools found in Europe. The implements unearthed included a large pair of tongs (45 cm. in length), which were used to hold the red-hot iron in the fire and later on to the iron anvil; during this activity sometimes the smaller tongs were used in addition. The big heavy hammer and the smaller light hammer were used during processing proper, like the cold-chisel, nail-iron, drilling machine with its balance-wheel, pinking iron, a draw-plate for making wire, the smaller drills, punching chisels and whetstones. The work of the forge was attested to by the various kinds of waste accompanying the production process, such as 4810 Finds from grave 34 of Hegyké. In addition to the large Byzantine bronze bow! decorated with slice ornament (1), the scales and lead weights of a Byzantine money-changer (2), and fragment of a highly ornamented fine-tooth comb with holder (3) are worthy of note. The merchant's weapon was an iron battle-axe (4)11 The ornamental helmet found at Steinbrunn (Burgenland) is quite unique among the grave finds of the Lombard aristocracy. Made in Italy, the band at the bottom is decorated with an engraved cross and animal figures scraps of alloy, defective rivets, and so forth. Incidentally, the grave in question had been looted and presumably it was during this event that the smith’s weapons and moulds for fibulae and other jewels were lost. An iron hammer was also brought up during the excavations at the Moresti site. All this, of course, is nothing new. We know of Gepid smith’s tools from the early fifth century from Csongrid, on the Tisza The Lombards too had their own smiths and metalworkers. The grave of a metalwork craftsman found at Brno (Brinn) originates from the period preceding the move to Pannonia. This grave is less rich than that of its Gepid counterpart, as it contained only an anvil, tongs, light hammers and punches. Otherwise the small bronze scale found among the grave- goods suggest that this master was a maker of smaller objects, perhaps of an ornamental nature. The outstanding metalwork find of the Lombard petiod in Pannonia is grave 6 at Poysdorf, in spite of the fact that it lies north of the Danube, outside the borders of Pannonia, The tools unearthed here are identical with those found at Brno, with the exception that here the bronze casting moulds used in the production of the typical Lombard fibulae and S-shaped fibulae have also survived. To prepare the casting mould, the craftsman first impressed the design onclay, then fired it. No fibula cast from the large fibula mould at Poysdorf has yet been encountered, but castings like the S-shaped Poysdorf fibula type have been met over a wide area stretching from ‘Thuringia and Bohemia, through Moravia and Nikitsch in Pannonia as far as the Lombard cemeteries in Slovenia, Lombard metalworking implements are likewise known from the carly Lombard cemetery at Cividale in Italy (Friuli, The metalwork craftsmen were among the fully equipped warriors, and the Gepid master moreover stood out from the others on account of his helmet. It is thus quite clear that socially the smiths and metalworkers counted among the rich freemen, or even the nobility. The Lombard smiths mentioned in Italian documents were distinguished men of great impor- tance, and were styled viri honesti. Judging by their names, the smiths (ferrarii, magistri ferrarii), or the lurigarii, a specialist in shields, and the metalworkers (aurifici) were of Lombard origin. We are also informed that the craftsmen bought land to give additional emphasis to their noble status. The Lombard armourers of Pannonia produced arrowheads and spearheads of a more simple type and also wrought swords, and quite good ones at that, as Paul the Deacon put it. 5112 Gilded silver fibula, of Ostrogothic origin, from a Gepid grave at Szentes~ Nagyhegy Art Since the relics of the Gepid and Lombard art that have come down to us are jeweller’s work, they fall today into the category of applied art. Incidentally, more or less the same can be said of the art of all the other peoples of the period who lived outside the range of the classical cultures. No permanent architecture of stone, with the concomitant plastic art and painting, could develop among the peasant and nomadic pastor- al peoples. Yet the idea that these peoples had no “monumental“ architecture of their own would be mistaken. The building, structure and ornaments of Attila’s wooden palace were accorded the utmost esteem by the Byzantines, whose eyes were used to the architectural marvels of the imperial city. Similarly, the royal palaces and halls of the Gepids and Lombards and the large wooden houses of their aristocracy must have equally been of fine design and often ornate (on occasion perhaps rather excessively so). The roots of the Germanic art of carving, among whose best known products must be reckoned the Viking Oseberg ship of the ninth century, together with the associated cart, sleighs, ornamental rods, tents and some 18 square metres of artistically carved surface, and, more recently, the marvellous medieval timber churches of Scandinavia and of modern Norway, reach back at least to the Migration period. The fragment of a carved beam discovered in the royal grave of Zura (Moravia) gives us an idea of how sumptuous the wooden palace of the deceased Lombard king must have been, if such a richly ornamented “funerary palace” was placed in his tomb. ‘The woodcarver’s art undoubtedly had a broad popular basis: from the evidence of contemporaneous Alamannic graves that have been preserved intact we know that people covered 52their beds and chairs with decorations; their carved wooden candlesticks and plates rank among the choicest pieces of applied art, with their fine workmanship and subtle proportions, The carved wooden statues of divinities recovered from bog sites offer a glimpse into their sanctuaries and, thereby, into the world of full-sized sculpture. The wooden parts of the shields and lances were painted, occasionally omamented with colour- ful designs. It may not be amiss to suppose that the houses of the nobles were all the cosier for the application of embroidered wall hangings woven with decorative, possibly figurative, motifs. 13 The wooden bucket with bronze hoops is found in the richest graves of the Frankish aristocracy in the sixth century, ‘One of the best of all, the bucket unearthed at Mosonszentjanos and ornamented with plates showing bearded masks, may have found its way to the grave through direct Frankish connections14 An outstanding piece of sixth-century Rhenish glassware, a goblet fluted with glass threads and decorated with dripped “trunks” (claw-beaker), also reached the Lombards settled in the Carpathian basin (Zohor, Slovakia) 15 Bronze hand-bowl from the graves of Lombard aristocrats ‘excavated at Mosonszentjénos Today it is primarily the less perishable pieces of metalwork which survive of this one-time variegated and multicoloured art. These are the items on which we can base our reconstruction of its development, its wealth of motifs and the stage it reached during the period under discussion. The tools and implements of the metalworker and the most frequently produced objects have already been mentioned in our discussion of metalwork in general. Now a few outstanding pieces will be discussed in more detail. Few art objects deriving from the Gepids and Lombards have so far been recovered which enable us to add much to our knowledge of the general development of the art in the Migra- tion period, The idiosyncratic metalwork and decorative art of the Gepids did not have enough time to burst into full bloom, and is therefore perceptible only in its embryonic stage. The real flowering of Lombard art occurred only after the Lombards had settled in Italy, so that the finds unearthed in Pannonia are at most to be regarded as more important links in, or basic elements of, that development. Thus the following discussion, with its analysis of some of the more outstanding pieces, will only be suggestive of the art of these two cultures, and a more thorough and detailed analysis will have to be reserved for a later discussion. Both Gepid and Lombard art developed out of the universal Migration-period art in the fifth century. One of the centres of paramount importance in the final quarter of the fifth century was the Italy of Odoacer, At the turn of the century it was replaced by the “Gothic” art of Italy and Dalmatia. ‘The highly sophisticated jewellery of Odoacer’s time influenced both the contemporary Gepids (¢/: the finds at Giva, Kiskunfélegyhiza, 54Arad, Bicsordas [Karavukovo]) and the later Lombard Panno- nia (f. the finds of Domolospuszta, Szny, Dombévar, Répce- lak). The strength of this influence was more or less the same in both cases. Characteristic of the ornaments were the fibulae with semicircular “heads” and pentagonal “feet” cast in silver and delicately gilded, and the ornamental buckles with pentago- nal plates and oval rings. They were adorned at the edges with red-coloured almandine stones set in small circular cells; but almandine gems were often to be seen on the surface as well. The surface of the fibulae and buckles was covered with engraved spiral and meander patterns of late Roman origin, whereas their terminals, edge buckle-rings and tongues already had many of the elements of the later Germanic animal style: boar’s heads, the heads and necks of birds of prey, monster figures, and so on. Although the majority of these decorative and figur- ative elements were of late Roman origin, they had become so identified with the oriental motifs of the Hun period that they began to emerge as an independent style. Thanks to its common technological and stylistic origin late fifth-century and early sixth-century jewellery is often so alike that it is only the archaeological location that indicates a Frankish, Alamannic, Gepid, pre-Lombard (Herul or Suebian) or Lombard origin for the various fibula types. The Bokény- mindszentfibulae, for example, with their bird’s head decorations have parallels all over the area between the Crimea and the Atlantic. It was only from the 540s that Gepid and Lombard art took their separate ways, at a time when both nations were acquiring parts of the erstwhile province of Pannonia Secunda. But where- as Gepid art became bogged down in its Eastern Germanic traditions, Lombard art began to develop new forms. 55 16 One of the silver-inlaid bronze bridles found in the Lombard ducal grave of Veszkény, with its iron bit. At the time of its discovery this had not yet disintegrated 1, 5-7, 39-4017 Gilded silver ornamental eagle-headed buckle, coloured with inlaid tin at the edges. The most characteristic Gepid jewel. ‘Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 15 The cloisonné jewellery of fifth-century pendants and buckles survived past the turn of the century and in the course of the sixth century blended with the cloisonné jewel art of Odoacer’s time. Above all, it is the ornamental buckles that are represent- ative of the first half of the century. ‘The outstanding pieces from the period are the buckle ftom grave 181 at Berekhit, with its rectangular body and clasp, which is decorated with garnets all over; the splendid rock- crystal buckle from grave 37 at Berekhét, which also has an oval-shaped body with cloisonné work; and similar in shape, the chalcedony buckle from a pre-Lombard or Lombard burial found in a grave at Tic, again with garnets in an oval-shaped body, thus relating it to our first example. The last piece is a purse clasp found at Hegyk6, which has a rectangular body decorated with garnets. In the 540s cloisonné decoration was beginning to be applied to women’s jewellery. Mention should certainly be made here of a gold eagle-fibula covered all over with garnets and of a pair of disc fibula also with gamets, both discovered at Beze- nye. Whereas earlier S-shaped fibulae were not at all cloisonné- decorated or only inasmuch as that the eyes of the bird’s heads were emphasized by the application of small-sized round cloi- sonné cells, from the middle of the sixth century more and more cloisonné was applied; in fact, among the products of the workshops operating in eastern Pannonia fibula types completely covered with cloisonné also made their appearance. Parallel with this, cloisonné decoration was introduced on the larger Lombard fibulae as well (Jutas, Varpalota); yet this legacy of the Odoacer period did not become dominant either in Pannonia or Italy. Eagle-headed Buckles Theories as to the origin and production of these are constantly altering as new finds are made. At first, it was thought that they came from the Crimea, and indeed the extensive burial-grounds on the peninsula, such as Kerch, Artek, Suuk-Su and Chufut Kale, yielded eagle-headed buckles in great number. Their production started in the Crimea in the mid-fifth century, ris- ing to a peak in the last part of the sixth century, ceasing in the early seventh. This was the accepted view at the time the first cagle-headed Gepid buckles excavated at Szentes-Nagyhegy were examined, 56and this is why the burial-ground as a whole was thought to be a Gepid cemetery showing Ostrogothic (?) influence and dating from between 567 and 600. With the publication of eagle- headed buckles found at Szanda, Kovin, in Syrmia, at Maros- csap6 (Cipiu) and Kisjené (Fundatura), these views were simply reinforced. I. M. Rusu succeeded in isolating an inde- pendent Gepid type from the Tisza region but the earlier theories about their origin and folk-art basis remained unchanged: the first appearance of the type was linked to the Avar-Kutrigur movement and all pieces without exception were dated to the period after 568. In the light of a handful of recent finds, how- ever, these ideas have been totally discredited. The buckle found in the Kishomok cemetery and a few fragments, notably those excavated at Berekhit and Aradac, prove conclusively that the “Gepid” variety of the eagle-headed buckles was already widely used and can be found in cemeteries from the period before 568 (details of the Szanda buckle have already been discussed in the light of this evidence by Iona Kovrig). There is therefore no reason for attributing the Gepid ceme- teries containing eagle-headed buckles to the Avar period. The “Gepid” type of eagle-headed buckle from the Tisza region has since been encountered at Knin in Dalmatia (in an Ostrogothic—late Roman environment) and at Valentine in the south of France. It may have reached Valentine as a result of the Ostrogothic forced resettlement of the Syrmian Gepids in Provence in 523. The piece found at the Gepid site of Maros- csapé (Cipau), which was thought until then to have come from the Crimea, is now supposed to be a local Gepid imitation of a Crimean model. At least this is what the technique and orna- mentation indicate (particularly the punched otnamentation on the reverse). The number of original pices from the Crimea have in the meantime been reduced to three (Funditura, Kovin, Syrmia); obviously these and similar ones served as models for the Gepid metalworkers, perhaps as early as the Ostrogothic period. ‘The objects unearthed at Szanda, Szentes-Nagyhegy and Kis- homok wete produced in the homeland of the Gepids along the Tisza river. They are characterized by the strict square- shaped buckles, which are studded with stones in circular cells at the corners. Their surfaces were tectonically decorated with a pattern of smaller and smaller squares. There is a large stone in the ceatre, surrounded by smaller gems, The eagle-head is attached to the buckle proper by a semicircular “neck plate” —another distinguishing characteristic, The ring and tongue of 57 13-1518 Gilded silver Gepid buckle ornamented with figures in Germanic Animal Style I, from Gyula the buckle may be different in shape, but they are always joined directly onto the square part—which is the third characteristic feature. The Masked Fibulae of Hegyké ‘The large pair of fibulae are of unique importance. A small human mask is placed on top of the broad head, girdled with awreath. It is adorned with red garnets and inlaid with rhomboid cells in the middle of the headplate, and in double circular cells at the edge of the quadrangular lower plate. The surface is delicately gilded. Both the animal heads adorning the edge of the headplate and the surface decoration ate a late variation of the art of the OdoacerTheoderic period. Masked fibulae with rectangular plates like these, which were extensively spread in Europe, were labelled the “Cividale type” by Herbert Kiihn. In his opinion they were all made by the Lombards in Italy and from there they spread to the Upper Danube and the Rhine via Switzerland and the Alps. On this assumption, and in consideration of the dispersal of these objects, he dates the eleven “Cividale type” fibulae to the period be- tween 575 and 650. Undoubtedly the Hegyké fibula served as the prototype for the other pieces of the type. Only these show real gems in real cells. All the others are merely cast imitations of the cloisonné adornment and gems. With its finish, the purity of the engrav- ings and the logic of the design, the Hegyk6 fibula stands out from all kindred pieces. When others are compared with it, we can come to only one conclusion: they are imitations. The burial of the Hegyké masked fibula can be dated to shortly before 568 (it ie only slightly worn). It was produced in a local work- shop in Lombard-occupied territory. A precise copy of it is to be found on the pair of fibulae which came to light in the S. Giovanni cemetery at Cividale, but the latter have imitation cells and gems. Obviously they were made with a casting mould in the manner of Hegyké-type fibula. ‘The masked fibula found near Cividale is a still farther relation; it has open-work orna- ments like the Krefeld-Stratum fibula, It is not impossible that similar masked fibulae we know of north of the Alps are indeed the imitations of the Cividale type, but in view of the connections with the Danube region at an earlier date, this is not necessarily so. However, something is invariably missing from them, or some foreign element is always apparent in them. Our latest 58example of the type, the fibula from Kéln-Mingersdorf, is of a distinctly barbarian character and full of local decorative elements. Thus the masked fibulae excavated from grave 18 at Hegyké imply a quite different interpretation of the role of the Danubian Germans in the development of the jeweller’s art of the Mero- vingian period as we have suggested before. The Earliest Remains of the Germanic Animal Style in the Danube Region ‘The fabulous creatures, dragons, griffins, birds of prey and monsters with snake-like bodies are symbols reaching into the remote past. They originated in ancient totemistic notions, which later turned into the heraldic devices of tribes, clans and families. The real animals venerated as ancestors degener- ated into complex mythical monsters as society developed. Animals symbolize or accompany the gods in every mythology: at first they actually embodied the deities; later they became symbols of them, These were the two basic sources for the various “animal styles”; they were the artistic representation of such beliefs, in which the animal patterns, either quite simply or pethaps in a highly complicated way, expressed social, human and religious problems, as well as tales and myths of origin. The Germanic animal style derives from various roots. Its original patterns were of Celtic origin, mixed by the early Migration period with late Roman and Hellenistic animal figures; parallel with this the Eastern Germanic peoples became familiar with the ancient animal style of the steppes, a style which also incorporated older Assyrian and Persian’ motifs. From the amalgamation of these elements, a peculiar German- ic animal style began to take shape during the fifth century, in the background of which the seeds of a Germanic conception of the world and mythology lay already hidden. This style then adapted itself to the society and ideology of the Germans of the period with such success that it was able to preserve its dominant position up to the Romanesque period. The Germanic animal style which thus took on form and individuality was in 1904 divided by Bernhard Salin into three consecutive stages of development: Styles I, II and TIT. As will beshown later, Style I emerged at the beginning of the Gepid— Lombard period in Pannonia, whereas the Lombard art in Italy already belonged to Style. More recently S. Lindquist has. at- 59 19 Ribbon pattern and animal figures characteristic of Germanic Animal Style I on Gepid and Lombard jewels (1: Zura, Moravia, wood carving from a Lombard royal burial; 2-4: Kajdacs, grave 2, fibula; 5: Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 84, fibula)NL O16) OOO) ONS ON NS OOOtempted to refine further Salin’s division on the basis of the excavations performed at Vendel and Valsgirde in Sweden. ‘Thus he differentiates between Phases A to E of the Vendel style; in his division Style 1 corresponds to Phase A. The antecedents of Style I include the sword of Gyirmét. The fine interlaced ribbon pattern of gold filigree (twisted wire) decorating the pommel is frequently encountered on Norwegian and Swedish ornamental swords, but invariably with motifs belonging, or at least pointing to, Style I. The interlaced ribbon of Gyirmét does not contain the slightest trace of an animal style—not that this is, of course, an indispendable element of the Lombard sword. The decoration on the upper end of the scabbard found at Felpéc, in the same county as Gyirmét, could easily be a late ffth-century work in the Odoacer style; at least the deeply engraved spirals and the niello decoration of the border would not contradict this view. However, the bird figures on the lower rim of the sword decoration, which are drawn up in a row, in heraldic order, and attached to each other by their beaks, seem already to represent a partial transition towards the art of the early Lombard S-shaped fibulae, and at the same time anticipate the style embodied in the Veszkény find. If the scabbard did not form part of a Lombard sword, it nonethe- less represents a motif which influenced the local development of the art of the Lombard period. Since the site of the Veszkény find lies in the area of the Hegyké group, it is not impossible that the find was the property of a duke of the Hegyké group; were this the case, then it would represent the high point of pre-Lombard art. Its pendant constitutes an ancient form whose prototypes are the pendants of the Germanic horse trappings from Jakuszowice dating from the Hunnish period, the chape to the scabbard of Veien (Norway) and the pendant from the horse trappings in the Sos- 75 41 47 * 16 21 The bone combs of the Lombards, decorated at each end with the beaked heads of birds of prey, were first made in Pannonia, but the majority were found only in Italian graves. ‘The most beautiful so far encountered is the one excavated at Veszprém-Jutas i iil Hl i MMU WAN nN22 Three-piece toilet-set, a regular appendage of aristocratic women in the Migration period. It consisted of ‘a mail-picker and two small ‘spoons, one of them for cleaning the ears. This silver example is from a Gepid female grave at Srentes-Nagyhegy 23 The Gepid bone purse suspender from Kiszombor. Decorated with mirror-image bird heads as on Lombard bone combs dala treasure (southern Sweden). Morphologically, the prot type of the Sésdala piece is the trapping pendant from Roasj also in Sweden. Another contemporaneous parallel as far as the method of decoration and intended purpose, if not the shape, are concerned, is the pendant from the horse trappings at Warengen (north-eastern Poland). Of all these, undoubtedly the most mature one is the Veszkény pendant. Here we see 2 human mask, encircled by two finely shaped large niello eagle- heads, while the surface is ornamented with double-form heraldic pairs of monsters and ribbing sharply brought into relief, suggestive of the Style I type. ‘The cross-shaped strap distributor made in such a way because of practical requirements can easily be linked to the art of the Lombard fibulae in Pannonia. To say the same of the strap distributors cast using the “lost wax” (cire perdue) technique, and adorned with a hemispherical decoration on the base of the short-hafted cross, is much more difficult. The form itself again indicates northern influence, and occurs, though without the hemispherical ornament, in the Sésdala treasure. On the Vesz- kény piece, the dividing or framing ribs with their snake-head terminals which characterize it are found on a whole series of jewellery work from the Lombard fibula of Jutas to Scandina- vian objects of a later period. The long-haired figures forming a grotesque composition of monsters, men and birds (valky- ries?) which fill two facing fields make their appearance in the Viking and oriental art of a much later date (hence the former attribution to the ninth century). The decoration discernible in the other two diagonally opposite fields has been a matter of dispute. Joachim Werner thought them to be a composition of human heads joined at the back and provided acceptable parallels to prove his thesis. After the object had been cleaned Gyula Laszl6é reconstructed an artistic representation of two birds with long beaks made up of ribbon-like forms—but without masks. So once more these birds represent types which show parallels with Style I without actually belonging to it. ‘They are the not too distant relatives of the bird figures with snakes’ bodies plaited into ribbons, which appear on late fifth-century and early sixth-century bracteates, i.e. barbarian imitations of Roman coins (including those found at Varpalota). This unique object is linked to the art of the Lombard fibulae by the rim ornaments with punch decoration at the terminals of the cross- pieces of the strap distributors. Previously these were not discernible. ‘The first appearance of Style Tin the Danube region canbeassoci- 62ated with the fragment of a carved beam unearthed as part of the royal grave of Zura, near Brno, Although only intertwined ribbons are visible on the detail that has remained extant, their internal stripes are reminiscent of the neck and hind quarters of the animal figures in Style A. Thus it can be presumed that some of the ribbons terminated in animal heads. Style I proper made its appearance in the middle of the sixth century among both the Lombards and the Gepids and finds are growing in numbers with every new excavation undertaken, ‘This was the style the Lombards took with them and introduced into Italy, but there they switched over to Style II with astonish- ing rapidity. Although it is a widely accepted view in the liter- ature on the subject, no trustworthy trace has yet been found of Style I in the art of the Gepids and Lombards in Hungary. The only object which shows elements of Style I is the gold ting found in grave 39 of Mezébind, but on the evidence of the other objects found with it, it probably originated in the Avar period. On the other hand, Style II became fairly wide- spread in early Avar art as a result of the influence exerted by the neighbouring Germanic peoples. It is customary to consider the rim ornament of the equal- armed fibula found in grave 84 at Szentes-Nagyhegy as a specimen of Style II, In fact, however, the motifs on ita row of grotesque animals with elongated bodies—can easily be linked with Style I at its best, Incidentally, the Szentes Gbula points directly to the area from where this style reached the Gepids: parallels to the equal-armed fibula complete with similar animal figures are known from Svennevad and Ekeby in Sweden, and it is most probable that the Szentes-Nagyhegy fibula also is a genuine Scandinavian product. Assuming the location is not a false one, the northern connections of the Gepids can be directly supported by the gold bracteate of the early sixth century found in the environs of Debrecen (?), which depict men riding fabulous horses. The fibula of grave 124 at Szanda has @ rectangular plate showing pairs of Style I animal figures surrounding a mask, It is a locally made copy of a northern prototype, An outstanding piece of Gepid art, the silver buckle of Gyula, represents on the other hand a peculiar mixture of local and northern elements, In this instance the form and structure of the Odoacer period is fringed with Style I animal figures, reminding one of the pieces of grave 84 at Szentes-Nagyhegy. Style I developed in a different way among the Lombards, in their case direct northern influence not being discernible. The 6324 The only Gepid bracteates discovered so far found their way to the Debrecen area from a metalworker’s shop operating about AD 500 in southern Sweden. The male heads are distorted imitations of emperors’ portraits with pearl- decorated diadems from Roman coins, whereas the representations of horses with bull’s heads are features a5 peculiar to the northern Germans as the runic inscriptions 53 51 54-55 49 57 25 The Lombard gold bracteate of Varpalota (1) in all probability depicis the enthroned chief god of the Germans, Wotan, surrounded by symbolic heads of birds of prey and other animals. The other gold bracteates excavated from the same burial offer excellent examples of how the Germanic artof the sixth century dissolved the animal figures into ornamental ribbons (2) animal heads of the Odoacer period still hold their dominant position on the fibulae of Jutas, yet on the splendid fibula found in grave 56 at Szentendre the same elements already appear side by side with the haunch common to the predatory long-clawed animals of Style I. The same motif prevails during the long period of popularity of that type of Lombard fibula which is represented by the fibula from grave 29 at Szentendre. The full or half-length “mirror-image” animal figures—which represent the purest form of Style I—only make their first appearance in the art of the late Pannonian Lombard fibulae, at Bezenye and Kajdacs. ‘A poor and inconsistent realization of this style is noticeable on the fibulae of Gyénk and Tamési: it is precisely the heads of the animals that have been omitted from the picture. In sum, such firlmy datable pieces of Gepid and Lombard art have not modified Salin’s classical establishment; up to AD 568, only the elements of Style I are discernible in what has been found of these two peoples in the Danube region.However, the gilt and niello-decorated strap ornament of grave 34 at Szentendre is a major surprise from the point of view of the chronology of the art of the Migration period in Europe. Here we see “walrus-like” human masks, the top of their heads inclined towards one another: this is known so far only from Italian Lombard and Bavarian graves dating from the post-568 period. Accordingly the development of the masked strap orna- ments must be pushed back 2 generation, an assumption which is not contradicted by the art of Pannonia in the Lombard pe- riod. On the other hand the emergence of the oblong-shaped iron strap with silver-inlaid ornaments in the period preceding 568 is no surprise at all. The first renaissance after the Roman period of this technique of decoration, that is the ornamentation of iron objects with silver inlay, already started at the end of the ffth century as is shown by the bridle-bits of Stissen and of Veszkény in Pannonia, (The second renaissance of that tech- nique followed in the Viking period.) The fact that traces of iron inlay are visible on one or two iron strap ornaments (which incidentally are rather frequently found, e.g. in grave 30 at Szentendre and in grave 13 of the Marosveresmart Gepid cemetery), does not imply that we must change our chronology by dating it to the seventh century, It is highly probable that among the hundreds of uncleaned Gepid iton objects recovered and now kept in stores there are quite a few which will later on reveal traces of inlay. 65 26 With its north Germanic decorative motifs-animal heads arranged in the shape of a cross-and the animal-headed ornament of its “foot” the Lombard ornamental fibula of Veszprém-Jutas is so far a unique pieceSociety, Law and Justice Gepid Society There are only a few archaeological finds available which shed light on the structure of early Gepid society. From those we do have it can be deduced that their material culture and society are akin to contemporary Gothic society and consequently we can rely to a certain extent on the more numerous finds of Gothic archaeology. ‘The cemeteries of the Marosszentanna-Chernyakhov people, which reveal the material culture of the Goths, contain the tombs of freemen of the latter half of the third century and first half of the fourth century living on a mote or less equal economic and social level. A more tigid social stratification is observable only from the middle of the fourth century. In the last thirty years of the third century the free Gepid warriors were led by Fastida, the first of their great military chiefs to be known by name, He was presumably elected leader by the tribal chiefs with the support of the armed warriors, deriving his power no doubt from his abilities as a warlord and a leader. After he died there was no outstanding Gepid leader for more than 150 years. In these comparatively peaceful times there was no need of a strong ruler. Some glimpse into the internal power structure of this period is offered by the Sziligysomlyd treasure, This “royal” treasure, which was presumably hidden at the time of the Hunnish- Ostrogothic attack launched after 410 and never recovered by the Gepids, was added to over several generations. Find 1 consists mainly of the 15 large-sized Roman gold medallions which emperors sent as new-year gifts to the chiefs of barbarian tribes with whom they wanted to be on peaceful terms or have 66as allies. Similar large gold medals were also awarded for out- standing political and military achievements. The first medals, the gold coins of Maximianus Herculius (286-305), were ob- viously presented to Fastida in recognition of the war he waged in about 290 against the Visigoths and Taifales, who were ene- mies of the Romans. After a gap in the chronology, the next three medals are a coin of Constantine the Great and two of Constantius Caesar (324-337). From our knowledge of the political situation then, these might have been awarded to the Gepid leaders either for their neutrality in the Gothic-Sarmatian war of 332 or for the threatening stand they took against the Goths. Then follows another break of several decades in the presentation of new-year gifts, The next series contains a nucleus of eight gold medals of Valens in the period between 364 and 368. These medallions probably have some connection with Valens’s war with the Goths in 367-369, since at that time the Gepids were again potential confederates, or at least neutrals. In addition to these, and apparently given at the same time, there is a medal of Valentinian I (364-375) and one of Gratian (367- 383), presented as an expression of the political understanding between the western co-emperors. Thus, sometime between 367 and 375, the Gepids received a total of ten gold medallions in one batch. Chronologically this period exactly coincides with the victorious war which the Romans fought with the Goths and with the internal anti-Roman and anti-Christian movements which broke out among the Goths. The barbarian border decoration on some of the coins was the product of the same workshop and there can be no doubt whatsoever that they were made at the same time. The differences in size between the various medals were almost obliterated by this bordering. (At present the set consists of three large and seven small coins.) Were these ten medals given to the same “king” over a suc- cession of years or were they presented to the tribal heads of the Gepids at one time? The same question may be posed in connec- tion with the objects intended for women from the Szilagy- somly6 treasure 2, As well as the three female gold fibulae there are at least six or seven pairs of fibulae of poorer workmanship which are adorned with gems on a silver base and which have much the same social and artistic value. Were these similar fibula from the same workshop worn by the same woman? ‘This possibility is definitely ruled out by archaeological evidence. A single Roman gold medal was invariably found in the graves of the Germanic military leaders and tribal chiefs (Hammersdorf, 67Wienernendorf, Galati, Borozhitse, etc.) and theit wives only wore a single pair of gem-adorned fibulac of the “Szilagysom- ly type” (Vole, Regély, Rébapordiny, Untersiebenbrunn, Airan, etc.). Before answering this question, therefore, let us investigate the structure of early Visigothic society as it is known from written sources. Several contemporary sources written in Latin or Greek contain information regarding the society of the Visigoths in Wallachia in the 360s. The most important of these is the arta of the Gothic martyr Sabba, since it offers some insight into the condi- tions prevailing in the land of the Goths. In the period under discussion the Visigoths lived in villages - where they apparently formed peasant communities. These were headed by a village council composed mainly of the elders, but with no leader as such. The council seems to have been an inde- pendent body which participated in the election of the members of the council of clans. The village council also represented the community before the tribal council, which exercised supreme power and, through the institution of the village assembly, could count on the support of all the freemen living in the village. The villages formed clans, which made up the tribes, for the tribal organization of the Visigoths (phylai) still existed. The tribes were headed by chieftains (kings) who on occasion pursued independent policics of peace or war. Their power was fairly secure as early as the beginning of the second century. It was only occasionally that the tribes entered into firm alli- ances.The first confederacy of tribes to last for some time emerg- ed in 364, and was headed by Athanatic, its elected chief or “consecrated judge”. The chieftains, who were also known as Kings (regulus, rex, judex, archon), still held their places at the head of the tribes; it was only later, on Roman soil, that the tribal organization disintegrated, giving way to a militarized structure ruled by a single person—the king. In the 360s the Visigoths were still under the authority of a coun- cil of tribal confederates, Its members were called magistanes (“the powerful”), From as carly as the second century the tribal leaders (arch) had their permanent retinue (formed of war- riors who were dependents of the leader), yet these retinues only gained real importance in Roman lands, during the wars of the fourth and fifth centuries, They were then called bwellarii or saiones. ‘The wide territorial expansion made an assembly of the people 68in the fourth century possible only in wartime, when it was a warriors’ assembly. Following an ad hoc popular assembly convened after the Hunnish incursion, the majority of the Visigoths parted from King Athanaric, who was followed only by his own tribe and military retinue. Such traces of the clan and tribal system were more characteristic of the Gepids who settled ina region further away from the Roman empire in the fourth century. It is not possible to determine what effect the wars with the Romans and the thou- sands of prisoners taken then may have had on society—nor the effect of commercial and spiritual contact with the Romans and Christianity. Itis unlikely that the Sziligysomlyé treasure formed the hidden wealth of some unknown, powerful Gepid king. It was more - probably the hoard of jewellery which would have been the common property of all the tribes and chieftains, and which was in the charge of the ten-member council of the tribal confederacy. There were probably three tribes and three chief- tains and it is likely that each tribe had three representatives in the council. This supposition seems to be supported by the fact thet the three large gold medals were presented to the Gepids on two separate occasions, and also the three gold cups made in the second half of the fourth century which were the due of the chieftain. And it was the wives of these men who wore the three gold fibulae. The fourth century witnessed the emergence of the tenth and senior member of the council, who was the leader of the tribal confederacy. He wore the onyx Imperial fibula presented by the Roman emperor and the great gold necklace which represented the Gepids. Hunnish rule brought about a decisive change in Gepid society. On the order of the supreme kings of the Huns a leader enjoying absolute authority was selected from their own ranks, and this leader simultaneously became a member of the Hunnish aris- tocracy (logades). Although Ardaric carried out Attila’s orders and saw to it that they were executed by his people, it was the authority he received from the Huns and his reliance on them that made him an almost absolute ruler over his own people. When, after the death of Attila, Ardaric gave the word, the Gepids as a whole took up arms unhesitatingly against their former lords. Continuous royal rule was thus established among the Gepids, but it never again produced a leader comparable to Ardaric, ‘The battle on the Nedao and the victory won there contrib- uted to the further disintegration of Gepid society. While the 69majority of the people remained in their home country, bounded by the Maros and Kérés rivers, small groups of occupation forces were dispatched to Transylvania, to the region along the Lower Danube and, after 471, to Pannonia Secunda, This furthered the development of a military aristocracy and a new group of warlords emerged. The central power itself was di- vided into three parts,and each duke had his own military retinue. This triple division is noticeable at the end of the 480s, when ‘Trafstila, the “king” of Sirmium, came to power, to be fol- lowed after his death by his son, Thrasaric. During their rule both held command over the occupying armies of hand-picked warriors which represented the most important military force of the Gepids. Following his defeat in 504, Thrasatic fled to Gun- derith, the supreme king of the Gepids in the Tisza region. It was in these decades that the duke of the Gepids in Transylva- nia, Ombarus, and one of his successors were buried. It is hardly surprising that, under such circumstances, rivalry for the coveted position of the central ruler degenerated into a strife between ducal clans and families. For example, Elemund, the king of the Gepids in the first thirty years of the sixth century, failed to secure the throne for his son Ostrogotha, his dynasty being overthrown and ousted by Turisind. In turn Turisind, in order to keep the throne for his own son, appointed him the commander of the Gepid forces stationed in Sirmium. The posi- tion of the “duke of Sirmium”—the heir apparent—was occu- pied in succession by Turisind’s sons, first by Turismod, then, after the latter's death, by Cunimund. After Cunimund, who prob- ably had no male offspring, the supremacy in Sirmium passed to his nephew, Reptila, who was the son of his brother, ‘Turis- mod. The practice initiated by Turisind proved successful and the third Gepid dix, Hasbad or Usdibad, was obliged to accept the situation, ‘The power of the Gepid rulers was limited by the “council of the nobles” as was seen in the case of the extradition of Hildigis. ‘The second Sirmium period was too short and bloody to bring about substantial changes inthe structure of the Gepid state. Only Cunimund moved his royal seat to Sirmium early in the 560s, but it is highly unlikely that he himself spent much of his time there. But the new royal seat with its Roman population, industry and trade, its public buildings and massive fortifications was bound to bring about radical changes in the Gepid state sooner of later. ‘The court apparatus moved to Sirmium together with part of the Gepid military aristocracy and the bishop of the established 70religion of Arianism, Silver coins bearing the monogram of Cunimund were minted in the city following Byzantine and Ostrogothic examples; despite the brevity of its existence, the fame of the court at Sirmium reached even as fat as England. Yet the effect of the social and economic changes was only felt in the immediate neighbourhood of Sirmium. While some information is available on the royal, ducal and aristocratic graves of the Gepids dating from the fifth century (Exmihilyfalva, Mojgrad, graves I and II of Apahida, Mezé- berény), those of the sixth-century leaders are as yet completely unknown. ‘The cemeteries and graves give some idea of the Gepid social structure in the fifth and sixth centuries, even though some of the burial-grounds can be analysed only with difficulty because of previous excavations, It is not clear, for instance, to what extent the Berekhat and Kiszombor cemeteries were plundered; (the amateur excavations of the past ages failed to record evidence of looting even when this was unmistakable, e.g. in the case of the Berekhét helmet, of which only fragments have been found). It would seem that some cemeteries were not looted at all, for instance the one at Kékényzug. This cemetery is counted today among the “rich” sites, but in fact the exact opposite seems to be the truth, In the recently excavated Kisho- mok cemetery it has been established beyond doubt that every important grave was looted. We may presume that the solitary (2) man buried at Batajnica in Syrmia with his helmet, horse and complete armament was a member of the nobility or the royal retinue at the Sirmium court. Of equivalent rank was the noble buried with his helmet at Berekh4t, who was the master of the people put to rest in the local cemetery. Although this burial-ground was heavily plundered it was possible to salvage the graves containing the swords and shields of the retinue, Among more than a hundred graves excavated at Kishomok only two contained the remains of noblemen buried together with their horses and gilt ornamental weapons, and only three members of their retinues—one warrior with a sword and two with lances. The Gepid nobles might have been wealthier, better armed and more given to display than their contemporary Lombard counterparts, but their power and wealth was based on social suppression. In all the published or unpublished (Kishomok, Szolnok) Gepid cemeteries the proportion of the armed warriors among the burials is 10-12 per cent, or half of what is established n 17, 19, 20-21among the Lombards of the same period. In addition to the three nobles, only three other Gepid freemen were found buried with armament as complete as that of the Lombard freemen (sword, lance, shield with iron boss); the corresponding Lombard number is 21. The number of freemen and members of the retinue whose armament was more or less complete (Shield and sword, shield and lance, sword and lance, a single sword ot a bossed shield) is 50. The nucleus of the Gepid army was formed by the poor freemen, armed with a lance (and presumably a wooden shield), and 52 of them were excavated. In contrast to these the number of those of the half-free in a dependant position and who had to do military service as archers was surprisingly high: 55. What this survey shows is that the Gepid army was numerically supetior to the Lombard forces (there are 163 Gepid warriors to 85 Lombard ones); butit also indicates the weakness of the Gepid army. For the Lombards had more fully armed free warriors than the Gepids. And if one also takes into account the fact that the Gepid figures are based on twice as many cem- eteries which were used over a period two or three times as long, then the comparison is even less to the Gepids’ ad- vantage. By the sixth century the majority of the Gepids had lost their clan rights as poverty forced most of them into a state of slavery or half-freedom. Most of the freemen had little wealth, and power was concentrated in the hands of the small group of nobles, who relied on their comparatively smallarmed retinues. It is thought that the nobles of the Kishomok region exercised almost feudal rights over the people who were buried in the cemetery. The legal framework of Gepid society is not known, and the various barbarian collections of customs compiled in formerly Roman territories provide little information. More guidance can be expected from the Lombard and Northern Germanic law, and juridical practice with the Gepids must have been similar, The main purpose of their legal system would have been the discussion and determination of the wergeld (were- geld) for the blood feud and any bodily harm or injuries (Gothic andabaubts). The language of the Gepids was similar to that of the Goths—a fact verified by the Gothic historian Jordanes as well as other contemporary sources. Its closest affinity might have been with the language of the Visigothic Bible translated by Wulfila. The names of the Goths and Gepids (like those of the Germans in the Early Middle Ages in general) were attributive n2of a person or personal traits; some names are reminiscent of the names of red Indians. For instance, a king ofthe Her- uls was called Rodulf, i.e, Red Wolf. The kings of the Goths were not given their names in infancy: the fairly common name of Theoderic, which means “the king of the people”, or Alaric, i.e. “the king of all of us,” are appellations or modes of add- tess rather than names as such. The great king of the Gepids, Ardaric, was “the king of the earths ploughlands)”, Thrasaric “the king of the warriors” (and justly so, as he was the leader of the forces stationed in Sirmium), while Cunimund’s name means “the defender of the clans”, Although the Lombards, for some reason, are counted in sev- eral works of history among the “Eastern Germanic peoples”, they in fact never lived in the east and never did belong to the Eastern Germans. No ancient text of any length has preserved their language, which is extant only in the form of legal terms, glosses, lists and personal names, as well as place-names and loan-words incorporated in the Italian language. However, the little which has come down to us is sufficient to make it clear that they did not speak an Eastern Germanic yemaculat, Consequently, they could only communicate with the Gepids with difficulty—if at all. Most of the Lombard words known today show affinity to the languages of the peoples with whom they lived closest geographically in their ancient homeland, i. e. primarily to Old Saxon and Old English, and also to a lesser extent, to Old Frisian, Tn fact, Lombardic was an Old High German dialect. There are a handful of Northern Germanic words in their language but too few to indicate a considerable presence of Scandinavian elements. Lombard Society In King Rothari’s Edict the Lombard people are collectively teferred to as exercitus, or army; “Lombard” signified the whole body of armed conquerors in Italy. This peculiar society of warriors was not a natural one, but a result of their wanderings and conquests. The basic unit of Lombard society was the fara. Originally it meant a “clan”, a community based on blood relationship, but a migratory existence caused these natural ties to disintegrate, According to Marius Aventicensis, a contemporary, King Alboin launched his Italian expeditio, or campaign, in fara, In this instance the Pannonian fara meant the military units and Btheir family members, and not a people organized into troops of tens or hundreds in the Gothic way. This interpretation of the fara as a trekking and migratory armed group is also found in inter periods. Another meaning of the word refers to the original idea of kindred as it denotes a line with common off- spring and ties of kindred. The individual fara got its name from the person acting as the head of the extended family or from one of its ancestors: Fara Aldemari, Fara Authereni, Fara Warnefrid (the fara of Paul the Deacon); in other words it was 4 group of nobles or freemen held together by the bonds of family relationship. The fara had its own well-defined area of settlement or landed property. It was headed by the “pater- familias”, who ruled over the members of his immediate fami ly, dependent relatives and free members of the household. The third meaning of the word, and the latest one, is connected with this, denoting the estate of an immigrant family, or a village. ‘The internal stratification of Lombard society is known from their legal edicts, documents and place-names which preserve the names of settlements populated by freemen or nobles. The basic social unit was formed by the arms-bearing freemen, known as arimanni (bari-manni) ox “armed men”, who were the members of the army (exercitales). Another name for them, bare—meaning a man born free—gradually came to be widely used. The baro's residence was known as the baronica or arimannia. His wife, 2 free woman, was the frea, who was “worthily born” (sirdibora) ‘Their son too was “born with full rights”, that is he was a fulboran. Under the community of the freemen were the half-free, the aldii or haldii (or aldiones). In actual fact they were members of one or another fara, Their wives were the aldia or haldia. This group whose origin reaches back into Germanic prehistory, has already been shown to be a separate stratum in the urnfields of the Elbe region. Beneath them came the servant class com- posed of prisoners of war, people of subjugated nations, or those who sold their status as freemen of their own free will or forfeited it; under the conditions of the undeveloped Lombard economy a serfdom of the type familiar in antiquity could not emerge. ‘These people of the half-free class were freed by their masters at the assembly known as the gaire/binx by paying—or by under- taking the payment—of a certain amount of ransom (/aunegild). In times of danger to the Lombards the gairethinx declared such people freed “by the arrow” ot per sagitfam, and compelled them to serve as archers. Their freedom was not, however, 4complete, since they were still economically and legally depen- dent on their masters, so they became dependants or half-free persons, who had to undertake military service and court duty. A servant (skalk) had no legal rights, and his children were born slaves and remained so unless they were freed, In that case they were filefree until they came of age and enjoyed a legal status similar to that of the aldiis, Before the Lombards’ con- quest of Italy servants did not play a significant role; the laws promulgated in Itily invariably referred to them as serous, ancille, mancipius; in fact a section of the Roman stratum of coloni and the poor of the towns became part of the servant class. On the estate of a Lombard gentleman by the name of Gisulf, for example, a diploma refers to two houses, one of which belonged to a free (but economically dependent) man known by the Lombard name of Gaidoald, and the other which was used by the slave by the Latin name of Ursus. Other diplomas also make mention of freemen and slaves belonging to the same household community. The remaining people of the province of Pannonia probably suffered the same fate, since the roots of the antique-type slavery practised by the Lombards stretch back to Pannonia, In theory power rested with the assembly called the shing, literally “the assembly of the lancers”, gairesbine. Signs of such an assembly are also found in the law-book of the Lombards in Italy. One cannot say how large an area or population was covered by each ¢hing in Pannonia, but it is certain that its territorial dispersion doomed it to extinction. Decisions of peace or war, on the liberation of slaves or bonding of freemen as servants was the assembly’s right, and it also judged capital matters. The guardians of the customary law were the body of the seuldabis, originally a. clan institution which functioned side by side with the popular assembly. It still existed in Italy, although it had been pushed into the background by the dukes and royal officials, the gastaldi. Already in Pannonia actual power was in the hands of two other groups. One was the group of nobles—the adalingi—presumably the leaders and heads of family of the great and wealthy furae, the lords of their estates. The military leaders or “dukes” (dices) had emerged from this group. The Italian cam the king and thirty duces who were no doubt military leaders of Pannonian origin. The large-scale campaign probably played an important part in their increasing position of power; the first duc< of Italy was Gisulf, Alboin’s nephew. Each dux held separate 7Stown and district, and ruled over the ferae; the duchy of Friuli of Gisulf, for example, was made up of the foremost fara, (Dur- ing the later conquests 16 more new duchies were formed, but these were established for political and military reasons.) Of the original thirty dwes, ten stood out as having real power, and of these there were three including the king himself that really mat- tered. The ten more important dies were Cleph, of the Beleos clan, founder of the Italian dynasty; Agilulf, the duke (duc) of Turin, Alichis of Brescia, Zotto of Beneventum, Euin of Trident, Faroald of Spoleto, Gisulf of Forum Julii, Zangrulf of Verona, Wallari of Bergamo and Zaban of Pavia (Ticinum). It would seem easy enough to trace the origin of these duchies back to ancient clans or families and so deduce the number of Lombard clans; but in fact itis likely that already in Pannonia these were attifi- cially created territorial and political units. The kings and the dukes alike were certainly proud of their aristocratic clans, As has been mentioned, the duke of Brescia (Brexia), of the clan of Harod (ex genere harodos), Rothari, who was to become the king of the Lombards, counted cleven of his ancestors by name. But all we can say is that in the beginning the military leaders came from the aristocratic and wealthy clans. The authority of the Lombard people, the clans and their chiefs was sometimes vested in an elected leader known as the Auning from as early as the Roman period. He was called rex by the Romans and in the Migration period his position was closer to that of a king than of a chieftain, At Marwedel in the Elbe region the second century AD graves of two princes buried with their horses were uncovered. Presumably they are the first Lombard kings known to archaeology who wete clearly members of the same clan, From the carly fifth century the migratory Lombards were always ruled by a king; the first was Agilmund of the Guging fara, Royal power was the ambition of the foremost clans, and King Rothari, seventeenth in the line of Lombard monarchs, represented the rule of the seventh successive clan, the Harod fara, The preceding six clans—Gu- ging, Lething, Gaus, Beleos, Anawa and Kaup—were undoubt- edly the most important ducal families. All these clans and farae moved from Pannonia to Italy; and the social structure as we know it there, even if not in its most de- veloped form, must have already been shaped in the Pannonian period. Unfortunately the Pannonian grave of King Audoin has so far eluded the archaeologists, but the burial of one of his predeces- sors, the Lombard tuler interred in the mound uncovered at 16Zutai near Brno, already suggests a high level of royal power and wealth. The next stage in development is represented by the tumulus of Veszkény: the splendid trappings that have been recovered point to the burial of two horses, connecting the burial with one of the Lombard dukes. Separate graves of nobles are known from Mosonszentjanos, but the adaling and adalinga buried at Szentendre with their horses in a stone chamber filled with stone to a depth of 4 or 5 metres, were obviously buried in an honorary grave in the centre of the cemetery used by their own fara. ‘The ordinary people's cemeteries which have been unearthed were probably to be connected with one fara or another, but the freemen, who had lived in separate manor-houses called the sala, were often interred elsewhere. Some internal mobility is observable within the farce in Pannonia and in Italy, where this supposition is supported by written data; further proof of this is provided by cemeteries in which burials were made but which for some reason were discontinued after a period of one or two years (c.g. Kadarta). ‘The best sources of information on other social groups are primarily the weapon burials, which make up about 20 per cent of burials on average (twice the amount in Gepid cemeteties), for individual cemeteries do not offer a clear pattern. They were in use for too short a period to give a natural projection of society, and they have also been plundered to a different extent; methods of excavation also differ. All the Lombard graves taken together offer a more reliable cross-section, as the various con- tingencies (death encountered at faraway battlefields, the looting of graves, etc.) are more or less equally divided. ‘The result is quite surprising. Predominant among the groups represented in the cemeteries are the warriors equipped with swords, lances and iron-shod shields; there are 21 of them (1). Certain differences as to wealth have been observed even among these: some had expensive damascened swords or shield bosses with silver bolt-heads, or had their war horses with them in their graves. On this basis it is probable that some of them were leaders of their fara. Another group is formed by those buried with their arrows, quivers and bowsiw—a total of 19 persons (III). They can easily beidentified as aldiones. Above them in rank is the group of 20 men buried with a single lance (II); they were obviously the poor or youthful freemen—faramans or faramanni. The position of other armed warriors is more complicated, because in relation to the first group they were incompletely 7 76-79, 81 72-14armed (they had a sword, or a sword and a lance, umbo and lance, umbo and sword, umbo only); although in most cases the reason for their being incompletely armed is not clear. The weapons of some, particularly their swords, may have been taken away when the graves were looted, but it is also possible that, in the case of the less well-to-do people, the sons inherited swords from their fathers. In any case, in this group there are 15 men armed with a sword each and 10 with a shield complete with iron boss; these were the owners of the most costly ‘weapons, On this basis this group of 25 may be placed in the cat- egory of the armed freemen—the first group—as is the case with the Gepids. These 46 persons then were arimanni or barones, i.e, free waxtiors enjoying full rights. To sum up, the following picture emerges: we have 1 dux(?), 3-4 nobles including two “courtly” nobles buried separately (plus horses and ornamental weapons of gold), 46 free war- iors, 20 poor freemen or youths and 19 half-free persons. It was a well-equipped society organized on a military basis, in which the arimanni played the decisive role, The same picture emerges from an evaluation of the female burials. The number of women buried with aset of four fibulae more or less corresponds to the figure of the men interred fully armed, and the num- ber of women buried with fibulae corresponds to the number of arimanni among the men, and so on. This social and economic distribution of the armed people recalls the regulation issued by the Lombard king Aistulf at a much later date, which laid down that the Lombards had to have weapons befitting their wealth. For us, part three of the regulations, which deals with financial status, is the most inter- esting. According to this, those belonging to category 1 were obliged to possess armout, horses, shield and lance, those in category 2 horse, shield and lance, and in category 3 quiver, bow and arrows. Although no mention is made of swords (and by armour the regulation probably meant leather), the social tanking of weapons is very like that in Pannonia, The cemeteries in Pannonia are most varied. Their majority (Varpalota, Vrs, Ricalmis, Mohics, Kadirta, Kapolnisnyék) contain the remains of freemen, with a few aldii. At Kajdacs, in a place at a considerable distance from the main part of the cemetery the graves of two foreigners were uncovered; these might have been pre-Lombard Germans. On the other hand, at Szentendre, Hegyké and Tamisi the native population and pre-Lombard Germans—the servants of the Lombard fare— are found on the periphery of the cemetery. 78has been applied arbitrarily to Baian’s time, on the other hand, the information supplied by Frankish annalists on late Avar tactics, which dates only from the end of the eighth century. The principal error is misconceived view of “nomads” which tries to explain the tactics of the early Avars by analogy with other eastern peoples, such as the Huns, Magyars and Cumans, in earlier or later periods. Yet sixth-century Turkic and Heftalite grave-finds, the wall-paintings of Kocho, Tun-Huang and Pendjikent describing the life of the Turks and Uigurs—which still survive in the old Avar homeland—and above all the finds encountered in the early Avar graves themselves are evidence of something quite different. ‘The core of the Avar army was formed by a corps, the like of which was never again witnessed in Europe after the Roman period: cavalry equipped with heavy armour. Their defensive weapons were the helmet, mainly of leather, although others coated with metal were also found and a Persian-type armour which was made up of iron plates fastened together and covering the whole body. The attacking weapons included the lance with its blade hardened to the temper of steel and so strong that it could pierce armour, the “East Asian”-type, single-edged cavalry sword, which was straight and longer than was customary in Europe, and the bone-stiffened reflex bow. To all these weapons were added two frightful novelties: the saddle with its high front and rear guard, and—artiving for the first time in Bu- rope—the iron stirrup. Thanks to this new device, in contrast to all his adversaries, including the mounted archers of Byzan- tium, the mounted Avar warrior was set secure in his saddle, and if the situation so demanded, could even stand up and turn in every direction. His mount was a type of horse reared on the steppes and accustomed to hardship, who could find food under the snow and, unlike its European counterparts (e.g. the Lom- bard horses), had incredible endurance so that, for instance, even after galloping all day it was strong enough to swim across a river that formed an insurmountable barrier to European cavalry. No estimates, not even rough ones, exist of the size of the Avars’ armoured “cavalry” division. Full armour has been encountered only in a handful of graves so far—fragments ate more often met with; on the other hand, armour-piercing lances and iron stirrups are almost daily occurrences in the “cremation pits” found near the earliest (sixth-century) Avar graves. As this section of society did not lead a sedentary way of life, living in “auls” as it did, it is very difficult to gather data on 100what the aristocrats of the steppes were like; their only surviving traces are the small burial-grounds containing a few graves. Incidentally, it is impossible to deduce from finds any accurate population figures for any peoples during the Migration period. It seems nonetheless that the military élite of the early Avars, who later suffered serious depletion in the wars against Byzan- tium (up to 626), numbered several thousand persons. In contemporary Europe not a single army—the Byzantine army included—could successfully oppose the Avat cavalry on open of undulating terrain. Consequently, in the undulating country of Transdanubia, the Lombard forces were doomed to failure from the outset. But in narrow valleys and hilly regions such as are found in the Alps, where they could deploy their heavy defensive weapons and foot soldiers in close combat, they could put up successful resistance. ‘The animal-keeper Avars were organized into light units of horsemen; these also included the auxiliaries of subject peoples snch as the Kutrigurs. They were armed with the bow and arrow and wore at most leather armour. The many archaeological finds extant prove that their three-edged iron arrowheads were about twice as heavy as those used in contemporary Europe. These they discharged from their bone-stiffened reflex bows with great precision, at about double the distance their enemies could manage (ie. some 500 to 800 metres). ‘They learned archery from their early childhood and practised it as adults especially at great annual hunts. Sitting or standing in the saddle of their speedy horses they handled their bows with frightening dexterity in every direction, including backwards. ‘Their archers, who were armed with the same type of bows as their armoured cavalry, were able to frighten, pursue, disperse or by feinting withdrawal, confuse their adversaries long before the latter could harm them, Although the Byzantine army deployed similar mounted archers against them, at the beginning they had no stirrups, and the movements of their horses and the precision of their archers was limited. On open terrain an enemy such as the Lombards was quite helpless against the rain of arrows swooping down on them from every direction. The Avar army of mounted warriors, which was estimated to be of two tumers, i.e. 20,000 strong, was accompanied by masses of Slav foot warriors whose ranks later, during the Byzan- tine wars, were swelled by Gepids as well. The Slavs were armed with lances, simple bows, less often with swords and shields, and if in a military sense they were of less value, in audacity and in number they suspassed their enemies. 10132 The first Avars to appear might have been similar to the contemporary portrayals of mounted armoured lancers (1) and the light mounted archers of Central Asia (2) These three forces together, under expert leadership—and the exceptional abilities of Baian in organization and in the att of warfare can only be compared to Attila’s—constituted a force, which, as has been shown, was matchless in open country. The only military force which had once stood up to them, the heavy infantry of the Romans, no longer existed. Refuge against them was only offered by hilly country, where the Avars, and for that matter the Slavs too, could not exploit their tactical advantages; or the fortresses and fortified castles, where they did not un- derstand the business of mounting a methodical siege—nor did they ever learn. In what is today Syrmia, all of a sudden Alboin came face to face with this disciplined army operating on precise orders; at that time they did not show any sign of the confusion that was to hinder their actions later on, They could not be subdued, only bought off, a weakness which remained with them all along. The country of the Lombards lay open towards the south. The 102Drava river represented no obstacle whatsoever for the mounted Avar armies. To oppose them in Pannonia was equally hope- less. Thus the Lombards’ existence depended solely on Baian’s goodwill, that is, whether he would honour the treaty of federa- tion or not. But Baian’s onslaught on Sirmium did not augur well. Thistime Alboin weighed the chances of the only route open to him with greater care than he had done a couple of months before, at the time of his political blunder. There were some bright points on the otherwise black horizon for the Awars became embroiled in war with the Empire at exactly the same time as the hapless policy of Justin II entangled his country in a twenty-year war with the great power of Persia. (Thus a sizable part of the Byzantine forces, including the armies stationed in Italy, were dispatched to the east.) The war between the Avars and Byzantium promised to be a long-drawn-out affair. As a first step Baian submitted demands which were impossible to fulfil: he not only pressed for the handing over of Sirmium—‘“which belonged to the country of the Gepid’—but also demanded the extradition of Usdibad and his army, as well as the Gepid royal treasures. It was that “most famous and great” Sirmium of which Emperor Tiberius II had declared only a few years later (579) that “I would rather present one of my two daughters as a hostage to the khagan than hand over Sirmium voluntarily”. It was quite clear that Bajan and his Avars were to tie down for years, perhaps for decades, the forces of the Empire in the Balkans, which as a 103result would find it impossible to defend its more distant posses- sions. Thus the Lombard attack on Byzantium was just one of the ways of “buying of” Baian. In Hispania the Visigothic King Athanagild, who came to the throne in 565, launched a vigorous campaign against the invad- ing Byzantine troops, whom the Empire was totally unable to supply with reinforcements. Although Alboin obviously could not know at the time that Leovigild, the energetic Visigothic king who assumed power in the autumn of 568, would turn into a mortal enemy of the Romans and during his reign would not suspend, even for a minute, his military operations against the Byzantines, still he must have had some inkling of a tara in this direction. In Italy, which was the goal of all the peoples in the Migration period, the population of the towns suffered badly from merci- less East Roman tax collectors who sucked them dry, from abuses of foreign military forces, recruited from among the barbarians and from the unrestrained economic and political power of the great landowners restored by the pragmatic sanction. Some big towns in Northern Italy, with Frankish suppott, resisted for some ten years following the fall of the Goths; it was only a few years earlier that the imperial forces had been able to take Brexia (Brescia) and Verona. The Lombards undoubtedly had been informed of the fact that in place of the energetic and powerful Narses, whom they knew personally and well, the non- entity Longinus had been appointed by Justin II as the new prefect of Italy (567)—upon the foolish intervention of Sophia. All in all, the situation scemed muddled enough to undertake an Italian adventure. Besides, this was the only escape route left to the Lombards. In themselves the Lombards were too weak to carry through this ambitious plan; with the frightening Avar power in their flank they did not dare as much as stir. With his peerless ability to organize, Alboin surmounted all obstacles in a few months. He applied for and was granted help from their Saxon kinsmen, who were on friendly terms with him. By the winter they had arrived, bringing supposedly 20,000 warriors and their families. ‘Thus reinforced Alboin again turned to Baian, this time with another no less tempting proposition. In return for an “eternal peace” he promised to hand over the Avars the land inhabited by the Lombards—Pannonia, This identity of interests dictated that the Lombards telinquish Pannonia, which was to become Baian’s future strategic base, and themselves mount an attack against the Empire. The surprising offer was well received by 104Baian, and he let the Lombards leave in peace. His reason for doing so might have been either that he had not succeeded in concluding an armistice with Byzantium in time, or perhaps that he himself was pleased with the opportunity of conquest achiev- ed at a low price and without shedding a drop of blood. On 1 April 568 the Lombards celebrated Easter in Pannonia for the last time. Next morning, having put everything to the flames they were leaving behind, they started out on their journey, never to return. They were joined in their trek, not only by the Saxons and Gepids, but also by the Suebians of Transdanubia, the Bulgars and Sarmatians from the district between the Drava and the Sava, and the remnants of the Roman population of Pannoniaand Noricum. And so the almost 600 years” rule by successive Germanic tribes in the Carpathian basin came to an end, 105Chronology East Roman Empire Gepidia Pannonia (Lombards) ‘Thuringia Italy (Ostrogoths) Gaul (Franks) Spain (Visigoths) (Byzantium) Anastasius I ‘Theasasic Lathings Gudeoe Bisin (-505) en otis) Garde Tato Theoderic the Great Chlodovee Alasic II 500 (510) Baderich (491-526) (Clovis) (484-507) (505-508) (482-511) ‘Theoderic the Great 510 (regent) 510 Wacho Bertachar Athalaric Clotachar (Chiotar) (607-526) (510-540) (508-529) (Amalasuntha, (511-561) regent) Chilperic I 520 Jonna Herminafrid (526-534) (561-584) Amalaric 520 18-527) (529-534) (511/26-531) ‘Theodahad Austrasia Amalaftid (534-536) ‘Theuderie 1 ow Justina, (in Byzantium) Witigis (Thierry 1) Theudis 530 27365) (534-561) (534-540) (511-534) (531-548) Rane Waltari Hildibad Theudebert io ae (540-546) + (840-541) (534-547) Theudigisel 540 (548-549) Frankish kings Torila Calan fee: Audeis of Austrasia (541-552) Theudebald Agila (546-+.560) (34) (548-555) (549-555) 550 ‘Thurisind Athanagild 550 (548-c.560) Tein (552) (555-568) . Justinian 1 (535-565) 560 Cunimund Alboin 560 (560-367) (€.560-572) Justin IT Sigebert I Liuva I Justin IL (665-578) (561-575) (568-572) (565-578) Badan Baian Alboin Leovigild 570 (667-) (568-) (568-572) (568-586) 570 107 106Bibliography Historical Sources Gepid prehistory and early history: Jordanes: Geviea. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, uctores Antiquissimi V. x (ed. T, Mommsen). ‘The Lombard chronicles and laws: Origo gentis langobar- dorum, Monumenta Germanice Historica, Seriptores rerum Langobardivarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX (ed. G. Waitz) 1-6; Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, Seriptores rerum Langohardicarum et Italicarum saee. NI-UX (ed. G. Waitz) 7-11, Pauli Historia Langobardorum. Seriptores rerun Germa- nicarum (ed. G. Waita); Leges Langobardorum 643-866 (ed. F. Beyerle). General Works Discussing the Historical Events of the Period under Review Schmidt, L.: Geschichte der deutschen Stamme, Die Ost- germanen. Minclen, 1941. VIL. Die Gepiden; VILL. Die ‘Langobardes; Stein, E.: Histoire du Bas-Empire Ul. Am- sterdam, 1968; Bury, J. B.: History of the Later Roman Enpire Il. London, 1927; Musset, L.: “Les invasions. Les vagues germaniques”. Nowelle Clio 12 Paris (1969). The Arian Religion Giesecke, H. E.: Die Ostgermanen und der Arianismus. Leipzig-Berlin, 1939, 199-208. Chapter entitled “Der Atianismus im Langobardenreich”, Thompson, E. A..: The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila. Oxford, 1966 108 fe of the Lombards Bernaresggi, E.: I! sistema economico ¢ la monetazione dei longovardi nell’ Italia Superiore, Milano, 1960. The Economic Archaeology A standard work concerning the archaeological berit- age of both the Gepids and Lombards for the period up to the early twentieth century: Hampel, J-: Ab terthiimer des fritben Mittelalters in Ungarn 1X1, Braun- schweig, 1905. The first archaeological and historical compendium of the Gipids has been written by a non-professional enthusiast, Sevin, H.: Die Gebiden. Minchen, 1955. A summary comprising all the archacological finds of the Gepids up to the end of the 1950s, with a complete bibliography compiled carlicr; Csalliny, D.: Archio- logische Denkmaler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken. 454-568 n.Z. Arch. Hung. XX XVIII. (1961), Major works published since then: Rusu, M.: “Pontische Gartelschnallen mit Adlerkopf.” Dacia II (1959), 485-523; Vinski, Z.: “Arheoloski spomenici velike seobe naroda u Srijemu” Situla 2 (1957); Dimitrijevie, D.: “Gepidska nekropola ‘Kormandin’ kod Jakova". Rai vojvodanski) muzeja 9 (1950), 5-50; Dimitrijevié, D. = Kovaéevié, J. — Vinski, Z.: Seoba Narada. Zemun, 1962, ‘A summary of the history and archaeological relics of the Lombards in Hungaty, with the bibliography of all previous works: Béna, I: “Di¢ Langobarden in Ungarn, Die Griberfelder von Viirpalota und Beze-nye.” Acta Arch, Hung. 7 (1956), 183-244, Plates XXVII-LYL In relation to Pannonia as a whole, complete with the finds unearthed in Austria, Moravia and Slovenia; Werner, J.: Die Langobarden in Panne- wien. Manchen, 1962. On major Hungarian researches in the 1960s: Sagi, K.: “Das langobardische Graber- feld von Vor”. Acta Arch, Hung. 16 (1964), 359-408, Plates XXI-XXXVII; Fazes, M.: “Die Pflanzenfunde des langobardischen Graberfeldes von Vérs.” Aca Arch, Hing. 16 (1964), 409-422; Kiss, A.: “Das lan- gobardische Graberfeld von Mobies.” Janus Pan- nonius Mitzenm Evkonyve 1964, 95-127, Plates 1-V. A summary of Lombard résearch conducted in the ter- ritory of one-time Pannonia and which now forms part of Austria: Mitscha-Marheim, H.: Dankler Jabr- bunderte ~ Galdene Sparen. Die Vilkermandersagsseit in Osterreich, Wien, 1963, 92-132. On the highly impor- tant Austrian researches and publications following the excavations previously mentioned: Mitscha- Mirhcim, H.: “Das langobardische Geaberfeld yon Steinbrunn.” Festschrift fir Alfons A. Barb, Eisenstadt, 1966, 102-114; Beninger, E. — Mitscha-Macheim, H. “Der Langobardenfriedhof von Poysdorf.” Archae- olegica Austriaca 40 (1966), 167-187; Beninger, E.- Mitscha-Marheim, H.: Dar lengobardische Graberfeld von Nikitscb, Burgenland. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 43. Eisenstadt, 1970; Mossler, /: “Bin frhgeschichtliches Grab mit Spangenhelm aus Steinbruna, Burgenland.” Mitteilingen der Anthro- pologischen Gesellschaft in Wien (1970), 207-210. On the excavations and research carried out by the present author over fifteen years: “VI. szizadi german temet6 Hegykén "I [Sixth-century Germanic Cemetery at Hegyk6, I]. Soproni Seemle 14 (1960) 233-241, 11. 15 (1961), 131-140, TI. 17 (1963), 136-144; “Neue Beitriige zur Archiologic und Geschichte der Lan- gobarden in Pannonien'*. Aus Ur-und Friibgesehiebte. U1. Berlin, 1964, 104-109; “Die pannonischen Grundlagen der langobardischen Kultur im Licht der neuesten Forschungen.” Problemi della civilta ¢ dell'sconomia lon- geberda, Milano, 1964, 71-99; “AbriB der Siedlungs- geschichte Ungarns im 5-7. Jahrhundert.” Archeolo- githé rozbledy XX (1968), 605-616; "Langobarden in Ungarn. Aus den Ergebnissen von 12 Forschungs- jahien,” Arbeolotki Vesmnit XXI-XXII (1970-71) 45-74; A nipndndorlis hora Fejér mpében. Fejéx megye trténete az Sskort6l a honfoglalisig 5 [Fejér County in the Migration Period. The History of Fejér County from Prehistory to the Magyar Conquest, 5]. Székes- fehérvir, 1971; “I longobardi ¢ la Pannonia”, La ci longobardi in Europa. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1974, 241-255, Plates I-IX. On the results of anthropolegical reseereb: Kiszely, 1. Lengyel, I, — Seagnioli, A.: “Note antropologiche sul sepolereto longobardo di ‘Testona.” La Calambaria XXXIV (1969), 247-249; Kiszely, ‘A szentendrei longobérd temeté embertani vizsgilata” [Anthropo- logical Investigation of the Lombard Cemetery at Szentendre]. Anthropologiai Kizlemények (1966), 57-90. A summary of the art of the Migration period in Hungary in relation to Eurasia: Laszlé, Gy.: The Art of the Migration Period. Buéapest-Coral Gables, Flo., 1974. 109Abbreviations Auta, Arch. Hing. = Acta Archaeologica Acade- miae Seientinrum Hungaricae (Budapest) Arch. Ert. tchacologiai Ertesité Arch. Hung. Archaeologia Hungarica Béina, Langobardn = Béna, 1.: “Die Langobarden in Ungara,” Acta Arch, Hung. 7 (1956), 183-244, Bona, Fejér mege = Bona, Li A népadndorliskor Fejér mesytben, Fejér mesye az dskortél a bonfog- Suékesfchérvar,1971. Bona 1971 = “Langobarden in Ungar.” Arheolstki Vestnik XXE-XXIL (1970-71), 45- A Csalliny, Gepiden — =Csalliny, D.: “Archaologi- sche Denkmaler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken.” Arch, Hung, XXXVI (1961). Hampel, Altertbiimer = Hampel, J.: Aliertbiimer des frilhon Mittelalters. in Ungarn HII, Braunschweig, 1905, MAG = Mitteilungen der Anthropo- ogischen Gesellschaft in Wien MNM = Magyar Nemzeti Mézeum (dungarian National Mu- scum) Budapest PZ = Pritbistorische Zeitsebrift, Berlin SeIVv = Stubit qi carcetiri de Istorie Vache Bucureyti S5z = Soproni Szemle, Sopron 1101 The distribution of Gepid eagle-headed buckles in the Carpathian basin Compiled by the author after the data furnished by M, Rusu and Z. Vinski. 2 Ground-plans of Gepid timber-framed sunk- en houses 1-3: Malomfalva (Moresti), 4: ‘Tiszafired, After Horedt, K.: “Santierul arheologic Moresti.” SCI” VI (1955), 648, Plate V. Tiseaflired (Szolnok County). Unpublished excavation by the author. 3Gepid warrior buried in an iron-hooped coffin, with his sword HédmezGvisirhely-Kishomok, grave 64. ‘Unpublished excavation by the author. 4 Grave of a Lombard clanchief ‘The dead body was laid in a coffin of planed boards, with his sword next to him; on the coffin was placed his shield with its iron boss, his ornamental comb made of bone, a vessel containing food. A long-shafted lance was stuck in the right hand corner of the grave. ‘Tamisi (Tolna County), grave 42, Unpublished excavation by the author, 5 The Carpathian basin in the middle of the sixth century After the map on Plate I in Béna, I: Arebeologické rozbledy XX (1968), 609-611, with improvements 6 Characteristic face of a Lombard male A gold solidus of King Aistulf of the Lombards. After Bernareggi, E.: Il sistema economico ¢ la monctagi- one dei longobardi... Plate VILL. 7 Grave of a Lombard noblewoman A glass cup and gliss mirror were placed next to the List of Figures dead woman's head in the wooden coffin, The way the fibula and leather pendants with their silver plates and rock crystal ornamental disc were worn is clearly visible. Hegyké (Gy6r-Sopron County), grave 18, Unpublished excavation by the author, 8 The attire of a Gepid noblewoman Sventes-Nagyhegy, grave 84, Reconstruction by the author after Csalliny, D.: Areb, Ert, 1941, 139 ff, igs. 1-3 and Csalliny, Gepiden 59 f., fig. 10. 9 Tools and implements from the grave of a Gepid metalworker Mez6bind (Band), gtave 10. After Kovics, Istvin: A mexihindi dsatisok—Les fouillages de Mexibénd. Dolgozaiok (Kolozsvir) TV (1913), 289, fig. 16. 10 Finds from grave 34 of Hegyké In addition to the Byzantine bronze bow! with slice omament worthy of note are a set of Byzantine money- changer’s scales complete with lead weights and the fragment of an ornamental fine-tooth comb with its holder. ‘The merchant's weapon was a battle-axe made of iron. Unpublished excavation by the author. 11 Lombatd ornamental helmet from Stein- brunn, Burgenland ‘The band at the bottom is decorated with an engraved cross and animal figures. Dmiwing after Mossler, G.: MAG C (1970), 209, fig, 2and Plate 11, 12 Gilded silver fibula with five knobs, decora~ ted at the edges with inlaid red almandines 114Length: 10,5 cm. Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 7. Lost during the Second World War After Csalliny, Gepiden 57-58, Plate XXXIII/2, 13 Wooden bucket with bronze hoops Diameter at the brim: 23 em. Mosonszentjinos, grave A. Mosonmagyardvir, Hansigi Mizeum, Unpublished exeavation by Rezsé Pusztai, Reconstruc- tion by the present writer from untestored fragments and data kindly supplied by the excavator, 14 Frankish claw-beakerfrom a Lombard grave Height: 225 cm,, diameter at the brim: 13.5 em, Zobor (Slovakia), Bratislava, Slovak National Museum, After Kraskovski, L,: Arcbeologické rozbledy XV (1963), 693-695, fig, 228, with slight improvements. 15 Stemmed bronze bowl Diameter: 37 cm,, height: 16 cm. Mosonszentjiuos, grave B, Mosonmagyarévar, Hansigi Mizcum. Unpublished excavation by Rezs Pusztai, Measured in its untestored state and reconstructed by the present writer, with the permission of the excavator. 16 One of the Veszkény bridles At the time of finding (¢j, Plate 77) the iron bit was still in one piece, After Hampel, Alterdhamer Ml, Plate 539/1. 17 Eagle-headed buckle Length: 12.6 cm, Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 15. Lost during the Second World War. After Csallény, Gepiden, Plate XXX/2, 18 Gilded silver buckle decorated with figures in Germanic Animal Style 1 Length: 7.6 cm. Gyula. Lost during the Second World War, After Csalliny, Gepiden 113., Plate CXCT1/2. 19 Ribbon pattern and animal figures charac- teristic of the Germanic Animal Style T on Gepid and Lombard jewellery 1, Zura (Czechoslovakia), wood carving from Lom- bard royal burial; 2-4. Kajdacs, grave 2, fibula; 5. Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 84, equal-armed fibula. After Poulik, J.: Archeologiché roghledy 1 (1949), 10-15, fig. 6. Csalliny, D.: Arch. rt, 1941, 129,Plate XXXIV/3, Fettich, N.:Arch, Hig, XXXI, (1951), 48 ff, Plates XXVIEXXVII and Csalliny, Gepiden 59, fig, 12.- Kajdacs, unpublished excavation by the author, 112 20 Decoration of a “relief” fibula Szolnok-Szanda, grave 124 (éf. Plate 26). After an unpublished analytical drawing by G. Hascloff. 21 Lombard bone comb decorated with bird’s heads in Germanic Animal Style I Revised reconstruction after Bona, Langeharden, fig, 13 and Fettich, N.: A Vesgprém Megei Mizeunok Kégleményei 2 (1964), 89-91, fig. 16, 22 Gepid female silver toilet-set Length: 7.4-7.7 cm Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 64. Szentes, Koszta Jozsef Mizeum, After Csalliny, Gepiden 54, Plate XXXVI/3-5. 23 Carved bone purse suspender ornamented with bird heads Diameter: 7,1 cm, Kiszombor, grave 247, Lost during the Second World War. After Csalliny, Gepiden 186, Plate XCLII/18, 24 Scandinavian gold bracteates with runic inscription Debrecen (or Szatmir County ?) After Schetelig, H.: PZ VII (1915), 79. 25 Pressed gold-foil bracteates with gold loops for attachment Diameter: 2-1.8 cm, Varpalota, grave 21. Veszprém, Bakonyi Miizeum, After Bona, Langobarden 190 and 212, figs. 18 and 20, also Plate XXXII/6-9, 26 Lombard fibula with animal-headed de- coration Jutas, grave 196, Veszprém, Bakonyi Mzeum, After Rhé, Gy.-Fettich, N.t Jutar and Orkii Prag, 1931. Plate X/1-2 and Bona, Langobarden, Plate LI/1-2. 27 Carved bone pendants with engraved zig- zag motif and dots in circles Length: 1.8-2.5 em. Kiszombor, grave 279, Szeged, Méra Ferene Mazeum, After Csalliny, Gepiden 187, Plate CXXXVI/6-9, 28 Silver skimming-spoon with its handle coated with gold foil. It was found ina leather purse in a Lombard female grave Length: 14,2 cm, Vors, grave 23. Keszthely, Balatoni Mizeum, After Sagi, K.; Acta Arch. Hing. 16 (1964), 378-79, fig. 24 and Plate XXX, with additions.29 Gepid buckles in Ostrogothic style, made ores. and gilded silver, decorated with garnets Length: 4.5,, 84 and 9.1 cm, a-b; Szentes~Berekhit graves 37 and 181; c: Nagyvérad, a-b were lost during the Second World War, while ¢ is in Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, After Csallény, Gepiden, Plates LXXIV/4 and LXXXIV/3. 30 Box with bronze hoops carved in beech- wood Frankish amulet-holder or reliquary Diameter: 6.2 em, Mez6bind (Band), grave XXXIV, Reconstructed after fragments published in Kovics, Istvin: “A mezdbindi asatisok-Les fouillages de Mez6bind.”” Dolgozatok (Kolozsvit) IV (1913), 316 317, fg. 35. 31 (1) Bronze figure of Lombard mounted warrior. Shield ornament Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. After Brozzi, M.~Tagliaferri, A.: Arie longobarda. Cividale, 1961, Plate XIX/b. Q) Bronze figure of Lombard foot warrior. Shield ornament Lucca, Museo Nazionale, After Feletti Maj, B, M.: “Rendicotti Accademia Romana di Archeologi: (1961-62), 196, fig. 5. 32 Chinese portrayal of (1) 2 Central Asian armoured mounted warrior equipped with lance and of (2) a light mounted archer After Liu Han: “The Northem Dynasties Pottery Tomb Figurines of Armoured Horse and Rider.” Kaagu 2 (1959), 98-99, figs, 7 and 18. lla Pontificia XXXIV 113List of Plates 1 Ornamental fibula in the style of the Odo- acer-Theoderic period Gilded silver, inlaid with red garnets. A precur- sor of Gth-century Gepid jewellery. Length: 15.7 cm, Allegedly found in Transylvania. MINM. Inv. No.: 1.1874. 32. Hampel, Alterthimer, TIL. XXX Plate 54/1. jepid ornamental fibula from the second fleet the Al century Gilded silver. With its animal-headed knobs, chip-carved spiral ornament, pentagonal form, marginal cells set with red’ gems and ani head terminal it is a direct precursor of the Gepid fibulae of the sixth century. Lengtn: 16 cm, Beregvidek (Tisenvid), MNM. Inv. No. 69.1906. 1 Csallény, Gipiden, Plate CCIV/14, 3 Eagle-shaped fibula OF gold, inlaid with red garnets. Common symbolic ornament of the period which in the sixth century was also copied in less valuable material. Length: 3.5 cm. Beregvidék (Tisz vid). MNM. Inv. No.: 69. 1906. 5. Csalhiny, Gepiden, Plate CCIV/13. 4 Fibula ornamented with a semicircle of bird heads Gilded silver. An internationally used form, whose popularity in the fifth and sixth ecaturies spread from the Crimea as far as Spain. Length: 13.5 cm. Békénymindszent (now Magyartés). MNM. Inv. No.: 75.1881. 1, Csalliny, Gepiden 42-43, Plate CVIIL/2. 114 5 Silver ornamental buckle with animal- headed terminals Gepid imitation of late Roman buckles. Width: 5,7 cm. Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 64. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Muzeum. Inv. No.: 55.15.67. Csalliny, Gepiden 54, Plate XXXVI/15. 6 Buckle Gilded silver, with chip-carved decoration characteristic of the second half of the fifth century. The animal-head tongue and eagle- headed ring of the buckle, the latter with the eyes set with almandines, are worthy of note. Length: 8.6 cm, Szentes-Nagyhegy. Seentes, ore Jozsef Mizeum. Inv. No. Csalliny, Gepiden 227, Phare CXCV/10. 7 Late fifth century fibula Gilded silver. Central European type. Length: 13.6 cm. Sz6reg. grave 19 Szeged, ‘Méra Ferenc Muzeum. Inv. No.: Csalliny, Gepiden 154, =. ean. 8) Byzantine buckle decorated with an open- work cross Bronze. A frequent find in Gepid and Lom- bard graves. Length: 5.2 cm. Hédmez6vasir- hely-Kishomok, grave 65. Hédmezévisirhely, ‘Tornyai Jinos Muizeum, Inv, No.: 68.12.125. ‘Unpublished excavation by the author, 9 Byzantine belt ornament Bronze, decorated with an 0 Diameter of the cross-shap cm. Szentes-Berekhat, grave 145. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Muzeum. Inv, No.: 54.1.341. Coallény, Gepiden 85, Plate LXXII/12-13.10 Necklace OF amber and glass beads, interspersed with late antique gold beads. Length of the gold beads: 1.7 cm. Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 84. Szeged, “Mora Ferenc Miizeum. ‘Inv. No.i 53.55.5. Csalliny, Gepiden 59, Plate XL/1, 11 Reliquary in capsule form with punched cross motif Gilded silver, Diameter: 5.6 by 4.3 cm. Szen- tes-Nagyhegy, grave 84. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Mizeum. Inv, No.: 53.55. Csalliny, Gepiden 63, Plate XXXIX/4, 12 Amber bead necklace with a Byzantine bronze cross pendant One of the rare tokens of Christianity among the Gepids. Length of the cross: 3 cm. Kis: zombor, grave 350. Szeged, Mora Ferenc Mizeum. Inv. No.: (of ctoss) 53.5.719, (of beads) 53.5.720. Gsalliny, Gepiden 190, Plate CXXIV/12 and 14, 13 Eagle-headed buckle Gilded silver. Most of the red gems in it have fallen out. Length: 14.5 cm. Szolnok-Szanda, grave 154. Szolnok, Damjanich Jinos Mizeum. Inv. No.: 74.1.1, Unearthed during the excavation by Gyula Kaposvaei and Iona Kovrig, Unpublished, Advance publication: Csalliny, Gepiden, Plate CCXL-VI/2. 14 Bronze eagle-headed buckle A worn piece indicating long use. The oval- shaped iron ting later fastened to it had disintegrated. The simplest variety of the Tiseaegion Gepid buckle type encountered so far. Length: 7.8 cm. Hédmezévisirhely- Kishomok, grave 77. Hédmez6vasithely, Tor- nyai Janos Muizeum. Inv, No: 68.12.159. Unpublished excavation by the author, 15 Eagle-headed buckle Gilded silver. The ring was lost during the Second World War. A worn piece indicating long use; most of the stones have fallen out, The body of the buckle was repaired several times, Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 77. Length (at present): 9.7 cm. Width: 5.3 cm. Szentes, Koszta Jozsef Mizeum. Inv. N 5. Gsalliny, Gepiden 57, Plate XXXVII/1. 16 Ornamental buckle OF white meerschaum, with a bronze tongue. Diameter: 4.5 cm. Sévényhiza. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Miizeum. Inv. No.: 13/1904. d. Csalliny, Gepiden 227, Plate CCXV/12, 17 and 19 Buckle and pyramid-shaped belt ornament Gilded bronze. Diameter of the belt ornament 4x4 cm; of the buckle: 5.9 cm. Hédmezé- vasithely-Kishomok, graves 7 and 23. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Muzeum. Inv. Nos.: (buckle) 53.48.64, (mount) 53.48.32. Csalliny, Gepiden 134 and 136, Plate CCXXII1/28 and 33, 18 Gepid buckle Bronze, with punched decoration and an additional plate to hold the belt tight; the latter is similarly decorated. Length of the plate: 3.8 cm. Szdreg, grave 68, Szeged, Mora Ferenc Miizeum, Inv. No.: 53.29.167, Csalliny, Gepidin 162, Plate CLXXI/8 and 15, 20 Stamped decoration of the circular button in the centre of a shield boss, enlarged Diameter of the original: 2.6 cm. 21 Shield boss Iron, with hemispherical gilt boltheads and a gilt bronze disc at the centre, the latter with stamped ornament. Diameter: 21.5 om, Héd- mez6visirhely-Kishomok, grave 1. The shield belonged to a Gepid nobleman. Hédmezé- yasirhely, Tornyai Janos Muzeum, Inv. N 62.24.41 Csalliny, Gepiden 132, Plate CCXXI/1. 22 Helmet of a Gepid nobleman From fragments found dispersed in graves 13, 15 and 40 of the Szentes-Berekhit cemetery (subsequently jumbled up?) and reconstructed under the guidance of the author by Jézsef Toth, restorer of the Damjanich Jinos Mi zeum, Szolnok. Szentes, Koszta Jozsef Ma- zeum, Csalliny, Gepidew 72, fig. 16. 23 Gepid fibula with five knobs and termi- nating in a broad animal-head Gilded silver. Highly worn. Length: 10 em. Szentes-Nagyhegy, grave 64. Szentes, Koszta Jozsef Muzeum. Inv, No.: 55.15.66. Csalliny, Gepiden 54, Plate X vI/2. 11524 Pair of gilded silver fibula Simpler, less expensive copies of Gepid orna- mental fibulae. Length: 8.6 cm. Szentes- Kokényang, grave 81. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Mizeum. Inv. Nos.: 55.16.44. and 55.16.45. Gsalliny, Gepiden 38, Plate XVIII/4-5. 25 Pair of gilded silver fibula Simpler examples, of less expensive Gepid jewellery, obviously imitating the more ex- pensive jewellery made of precious metals. Length: 8.6 cm. Szentes-Kokényzug, grave 50. Szentes, Koszta Jozsef Muzeum. Inv. Nos.: 55.16.18. and 55.16.19. Csalliny, Gepiden 31, Plate VIM/3-4. 26 “Relief” fibula of the Scandinavian type Gilded silver. Its rectangular plate is decorated with Germanic Animal Style I motifs. Length: 13 em. Szolnok-Szanda, grave 124. Szolnok, Damjanich Janos Muzeum. Inv. No.: 74.1.2. Unearthed during excavations by Gyula Kaposviri and ona Kovrig. Advance publication: Csalkiny, G- piden, Plate CCXLV1/1, 27 Unindented Gepid fibula Inlaid with red glass on a base of gold plate. Gilded silver. Length: 3.8 cm. Szarvas. MNM. Inv. No.: 94.1903.21. Unpublished, 28 Fibula with a “foot” of equal width Bronze, set with gems; its seven ornamental bosses fell off during use. South German type. Length: 7.6 cm. Kiszombor, grave 247. Szeged, Mora Ferene Miizeum, Inv. No.: 53.5551. Csalliny, Gepiden 185, Plate CX L.11/10. 29 “Equalarmed” fibula of Scandinavian origin Gilded silver. One of its ends was broken off at burial for ritual reasons. Round the edge are figures in Germanic Animal Style 1 (cf. fig. 19). Length (at present): 13.5 cm. Szentes- Nagyhegy, grave 84. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Muzeum. Inv, No.: 53.55. Csalhiny, Gepiden 59, Plate X 5. 30. Part of the equal-armed fibula excavated from grave 84 of the Szentes-Nagyhegy cemetery, greatly enlarged. The boar’s head decoration and figures of the Germanic Animal le I covering its surface are clearly visible. (7. fig. 19). 116 31 Whecl-turned bowl, gemnouies a decoration A popular form of Gepid pottery in the late Beth and cay aisih cenledies fieiut: 12 con diameter at the brim: 12. 3 cm. Szentes— Berekhét, from an unnumbered grave. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Miizeum. Inv. No.: 54.1.574. Caallany, Gepiden 102, Plate CH1/2, black, with rich 32Pear-shaped vessel, dark grey, wheel-turned With peculiar impressed “ear of corn deco- ration”, Height: 16 cm. Sz6teg, grave 69. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Muzeum. Inv. No.: 53,29.292. Csalkiny, Gepiden 163, Plate CLXXXV/1. 33. Gepid pot with spout Dark grey, wheel-turned, with irregular stamp- ed pattern. Height: 18:8 cm. Széreg, grave 23. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Mizeum. Csalliny, Gepiden 155, Plate CLXXXV/4. 34. Spherical Gepid vessel Dark grey, wheel-turned. Both the form and the stamped and wart decoration are quite unique, Height: 11.3 cm. Keétegyhiza, grave 2, Szeged, Mora Ferenc Muzeum. Inv. No.: 53.27.2. Csallany, Gipiden 115, Plate CLXXXIX/12, 35 Gepid vessel ‘The surface is completely covered with stamp- ed decoration. Wheel-turned, grey. Height: 10.6 cm. Kétegyhaza, grave 7. Szeged, Méra Ferenc Mézeum. Inv. No.: 53.28.17. Csallany, Gepiden 118, Plate CLXX /14, 36 Spouted jug with stamped decoration ‘The finest and largest piece of Gepid pottery, from the middle of the sixth century. Height: 22.2 cm. Békésszentandras. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Miizeum. Inv. No. 55.9.1. Csallany, Gepiden 106, Plate CII1/9. 37 Pear-shaped Gepid vessel Brownish-grey, wheel-turned, with stamped decoration. Height: 12.7 cm. Szaryas, MNM. Inv. No.: 75.1893.112. Caalliny, Gipiden 107, Plate CXCIII/13. 38 Typical Gepid fine-tooth comb To be found in almost every female grave. Length: 10 cm, Szentes-Kokényzug, graveVila. Szentes, Koszta Jézsef Muzeum, Inv. No.: 72.73.1. Goalliny, Gepiden 26, Plate 1/10. 39-40 Buckle This gilded silver buckle from an unknown Pannonian site is a masterpiece of metalwork of the Odoacer period, The cells are set with red gems. A direct precursor of the style of both the fibula found in grave 18 of Hegyké and the masked pendant of Veszkény. Length: 17.2 cm. MNM. Inv. No.: 61.95,1. Hampel, Alterthiimer IIL, Plate 53/1. 41 Scabbard mount Gilded silver. Diameter: 5.3. cm. Felpéc (Gy6r-Sopron County). MNM. Inv. No.: 42.1902.25a. Fettich, N.: Gytr tirténete « mépuindorléskorban (The History of Gyér in the Migration Period). Gyér, 1943, 7, Plate IT/2-2/a. 42. Pair of fibulaedecorated with human masks Gilded silver, inlaid with red garnets in cells on the surface, decorated with bird’s heads at the edges. Length: 12.8 cm. Hegyké, grave 18. Sopron, Liszt Ferenc Mizeum. Unpublished excavation by the author. Preliminary notice: Béna, L.: SSZ 14 (1960), 238-41, fig. 4; Bona, Lt Ans Ur- wad Fritgeschichte WW. Berlin, 1964, Plate XV; Bona 1971, fig. 15/7-8. 43, Detail of the fibula above (42) Characteristic are the larva-like human mask the engraved spiral decoration and ora. mentation of red gems all of which are typical of local metalwork before the Lombards’ settlement in Pannonia, 44, Eagle-shaped fibula Of gold foil. Red garnet inlaid over a base of punched gold foil in gold cell. Length: 3.6 cm. Bezenye, grave 17. Mosonmagyardvir, Hansigi Miizeum. Inv. No.: 58.2941. Bona, Langobarden 192, Plate X LU/12. 45-46. A pair of disc fibula Gilded silver foil. The surface is decorated with red and green glass inlays arranged like flower petals. "Diameter: 3.1 cm. Bezenye, grave 8. Mosonmagyarévis, Hansigi Mézeum, v. No. 58.291.3-4, Bona, Langebarden 192, Plate XLIV/S~6, 47 “S-shaped” fibulae Characteristic Lombard fibulae composed of the heads of two birds of prey fitted together inversely. Usually the eyes and necks of the birds are emphasized by red glass inlays, A variation of this type of jewel in geometrical form is the fibula in this shape of a section mark (§), which is especially frequently met with among the Lombards in Italy. Average length: 2.5 cm. Szentendre, Kapolnisnyék, ‘Tamisi, Kajdacs, MNM and Szekszird, Balogh Adam Muzeum. All are unpublished; from excavations by the author. 48 “S-shaped” fibulac The surfaces are decorated with red glass inlays set in cells which have silver plate as base. “Italian” type previously unknown in Pannonia. Length: 2.2-2.3 and 3.8 cm. Ric- almis, graves 2, 16 and 20. Székesfehérvar, Istvin Kirdly Mazeum. Inv. Nos.: 57.48.1., 58.131.2, and 58.1321. Unpublished excavations by the author. Advance publication: Bona, Fejer mege, fig. 12. 49 Pair of fibulae Silver, carefully gilded. A simpler and smaller variation of the fibula unearthed in grave 2 of Kajdacs. Length: 8.5 cm, Tamisi, grave 6. Szekszird, Balogh Adim Mizeum. Unpublished excavation by the author. 50 Pair of fibulae Gilded silver, with the boss ornamentation cast in one piece with the semicircular plate, Exact parallels are known from Lombard cemeteries in Italy. Length: 7.7 om. Szentendre, grave 54. MNM. Inv. No.: 65.1.213, Unpublished excavation by the author. 51 Detail of the fibula excavated from grave 2 of Kajdacs The symmetrical arrangement of the complex animal figures is here easily picked out (cf. Plates 54-55.) 52 Fibule The gilded silver fibulae of the “Podbaba- Schwechat” type which spread from Bohemia through Austria and Hungary to Italy, and which are encountered with growing frequency in Pannonian graves too (e.g. Tamisi), tracing out the pattern of Lombard migration, Length: 1178.7 cm, Fertdszentmiklds, grave 9. Gyér, Xan- thus Janos Mizeum. Inv. No.; 71.9.16-17. Unpublished. Excayated by Péter Tomka, whom I would like to thank for his kind permission to publish them here, 53 Lombard silver fibula with seven bosses, slightly gilded ‘The semicircular plate is decorated with the motifs of Germanic Animal Style I. Full 9 em, Szeatendre, 65.1.90. Unpublished excavation by the author, 5455 Gilded silver fibula decorated with elements of Germanic Animal Style I ‘The bosses are shaped in “Italian style” animal-heads. Length: 10.5 cm. Kajdacs, grave 2. Szckszird, Balogh Adim Muzeum. Unpublished excavation by the author. 56 Lombard silver fibula with eight bosses, tichly gilded Almost all the decorative elements of the period appear in the surface decoration. ‘The semicircular plate carries the motifs of Germanic Animal Style I, the oval plate has interlaced ribbon ornament, while on the edge of the large animal-head punched and stamped motifs are seen. Length: 8.8 cm. Szentendre, grave 56. MNM. Inv. No.: 65.1.228, Unpublished excavation by the author. Advance publication: Béna 1971, fig, 8/12-13. 57 Detail of a fibula with punched edges, decorated in Germanic Animal Style I Length of the whole fibula: 7 cm. Gyénk, grave 1. MNM. Inv. No.: 8.1887.89. Bona, Langobarden 197-98, Plate LVI/6. (After Hampel, whete the site is erroneously given as Regily.) 58 Necklace Coloured glass beads with gold pendant decorated with red glass inlays. Length of the pendant: 23 cm, Fertdszentmiklds, grave 9. Gyét, Xanthus Jinos Muzeum. Inv. No.: 71.9,25-29. Unpublished, Excavated by Péter Tomka, who has kindly given permission for publication here. 59 Crystal spheres hung from the ribbons on Lombard fibulae Diameter: 3-3.5 cm. Szentendre, graves 40, 118 43 and 56 as well as Szdny (Brigetio), MNM. Inv. Nos: 651.154, 65.1.233 and 64.2.1. Unpublished excavations by the author. 60 Ornamental silver keys ‘They were not intended to open anything, but denoted rank. Length: 10.9 cm. Hegyké, grave 18. Sopron, Liset Ferenc Mizeum. Unpublished excavation by the author, Advance publication: Bona 1971, fig. 15/14. 61 Frankish disc fibulae Frankish disc fibulae are especially charac- teristic of Lombard graves in Pannonia. They were made of silver, and their surfaces were decorated with red or purple glass inlays ar- ranged in the form of flower petals. Diameter: 2,5-3 cm. Szentendre, graves 2, 28 and 29, Kajdacs, grave 2 and Tatabinya. MNM and Szekszird, Balogh Adim Muzeum. Inv. Nos.: 65.1.1., 65.1.84., 65.1.91, and 65.10.2. Unpublished excavations by the author. 62-63 Gilded silver belt ornament ‘The surface is decorated with the mirror-image moustached faces of two men wearing horned helmets (+). Engraved decoration with niello. In the case of the latter, tin was used to fill in the incised lines. Diameter: 4.7 cm, Szent- endre, grave 34. MNM. Inv. No.: 65.1.136. Unpublished excavation by the author. 64 “Frankish” fibulae In fact they are good-quality silver fibulae from South Germany. Length: 8.3 cm. and 8.7 cm. Hegyké, grave 4 and grave 72 respec- tively. Sopron, | Liszt Ferenc Muzeum. Inv. Nos.: 65.36.2 and 65.78.1. Unpublished excavations by the author. Advance publication: Bina I: SSZ 14 (1960), 235, fig. 1 and SSZ 17 (1963), 140, fig. 2. 65 Damascened iron belt ornament with silver inlaid decoration Diameter:2.8 cm. Szentendre, grave 30. MNM. Iny. No.: 65.1.108. Unpublished excavation by the author, 66 Lombard ornamental vessel from the first half of the sixth century Hand-made. Height: 8.7 cm. Szentendre, grave 29, MNM. Iny. No.: 65.1.85, Unpublished excavation by the author.