Sonderdruck aus Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt Jahrgang 51 · 2021 · Heft 2 Herausgegeben vom Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie REDAKTORINNEN UND REDAKTOREN Paläolithikum, Mesolithikum: Martina Barth · Harald Floss Neolithikum: Doris Mischka · Johannes Müller Bronzezeit: Christoph Huth · Stefan Wirth Hallstattzeit: Markus Egg · Dirk Krausse Latènezeit: Rupert Gebhard · Sabine Hornung · Martin Schönfelder Römische Kaiserzeit im Barbaricum: Matthias Becker · Claus von Carnap-Bornheim Provinzialrömische Archäologie: Peter Henrich · Gabriele Seitz Frühmittelalter: Brigitte Haas-Gebhard · Dieter Quast Wikingerzeit, Hochmittelalter: Hauke Jöns · Bernd Päffgen Archäologie und Naturwissenschaften: Felix Bittmann · Corina Knipper · Thomas Stöllner Die Redaktorinnen und Redaktoren begutachten als Fachredaktion die Beiträge (peer review). Das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt wird im Arts & Humanities Citation Index® sowie im Current Contents® / Arts & Humanities von Clarivate Analytics aufgeführt. Beiträge werden erbeten an den Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, [email protected] Die mit Abbildungen, einer kurzen Zusammenfassung und der Anschrift der Autorinnen und Autoren versehenen Manuskripte dürfen im Druck 20 Seiten nicht überschreiten. Die Redaktion bittet um eine allgemein verständliche Zitierweise (naturwissenschaftlich oder in Endnoten) und verweist dazu auf folgende Richtlinien: http://web.rgzm.de/publikationen/verlagsprogramm/zeitschriften/archaeologischeskorrespondenzblatt.html Preis je Jahrgang (4 Hefte) für Direktbezieher ab Jahrgang 2021 € 24,00 netto, zzgl. MwSt.: € 25,68 + Versandkosten (z. Z. Inland € 6,00 zzgl. MwSt.: € 6,42, Ausland € 20,00 netto, zzgl. MwSt.: € 21,40). Die Beiträge des Archäologischen Korrespondenzblatts stehen ein Jahr nach Erscheinen der Printausgabe auch Open Access zur Verfügung und sind dank einer Kooperation mit der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg unter folgendem Link abrufbar: http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/ak/issue/archive ISSN 0342-734X Nachdruck, auch auszugsweise, nur mit Genehmigung des Verlages © 2021 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Redaktion und Satz: Michael Braun, Claudia Nickel, Marie Reiter, Gabriele Scriba Englisch- bzw. französischsprachige Korrekturen: Clive Bridger, Xanten; Yves Gautier, Brüssel Herstellung: AC medienhaus GmbH, Wiesbaden Das für diese Publikation verwendete Papier ist alterungsbeständig im Sinne der ISO 9706. ANDREI D. SOFICARU · JOANNA SOFAER REGIONAL PATTERNS IN MORTUARY PRACTICE IN THE LOWER DANUBE REGION IN THE 4TH-6TH CENTURIES The 4th-6th centuries AD is a complex period in the Lower Danube region. Episodes of war alternated with times of peace, cooperation, and commercial contacts. Tribes from north of the River Danube, including the Sarmatians, Goths, Vandals, Huns, Gepids, Slavs and Avars, launched large-scale incursions into the Roman Empire, eventually settling in various regions south of the border 1. They also crossed the border as slaves, mercenaries, or merchants. Likewise, the Romans had enclaves to the north of the Danube in the bridgehead cities of Sucidava and Drobeta, which lay within barbarian territory and were used mostly for military campaigns 2. This complexity is reflected in the distribution of material culture such that brooches found in the provinces of Pannonia Secunda, Moesia Prima and Secunda have been used as evidence for barbarian presence in the Roman provinces 3, while numerous objects imported from Roman provinces to the south have been discovered in Barbaricum, including coins, amphorae, lamps, brooches, buckles, jewellery, ceramics and glass 4. Recent work on foodways has revealed interaction and mutual sharing in this area of practice 5. Despite this political and social volatility and the porous nature of the Danubian border of the Roman Empire, it has long been observed that there are significant differences in the nature of the archaeological record on either side of the river. Given the large-scale population movements of the so-called Barbarians 6, the radical changes to the landscape caused by this in the 4th century 7, and the political, economic, and religious changes experienced by the Empire 8, a relative absence of evidence for tribal »signatures« south of the Danube is perplexing. Here, as elsewhere in the Roman Empire, a long-standing concern has been to »find« the missing Barbarians 9. For example, Andrew Poulter 10 tried to identify the presence of Goths in the city of Nicopolis ad Istrum based on architectural features but concluded that there was »very little difference« between the Goths and the Romans in this context. When Barbarians cannot be »found«, it has been concluded that they underwent a rapid process of assimilation 11. Attempts to identify Barbarians have frequently relied on mortuary data, this being the context in which it has been assumed that they are most archaeologically accessible. Not only are graves where the physical remains of Barbarians might be found, but it has been suggested that mortuary traditions are conservative and less likely to change, thereby allowing archaeological access to social identity 12. In other words, that Romans and Barbarians express a contrasting »habitus« in the mortuary arena 13. The underlying assumption of such work is that ethnic identity takes primacy over other forms of identity construction (such as age, gender, status, or religion), is immutable and binary (either Roman or Barbarian), and will be maintained in the mortuary domain, even when in a different cultural setting. This line of thought has led scholars to attempt the identification of Barbarians based on single graves or unique finds 14. Thus, individuals have been categorised as belonging to a »barbarian elite« or »military aristocracy« based on clothes, burial customs, and grave goods 15. However, the number of graves that have been convincingly identified as Barbarian in this way is tiny compared to the overall number of Barbarians thought to have entered the Roman Empire 16. One reason for this may be that identity is complex. Its configuration is not limited to ethnicity and it may be subtle and multi-dimensional. Given the complicated social and political milieu, and the nature of cross-border relations in this part of the late Roman Empire, definitions Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 263 Fig. 1 Map of the sites discussed in the study area. – Sites within the Roman Empire: 1 Abritus, Moesia Secunda = Razgrad (Razgrad Region / BG). – 2 Aegyssus, Scythia = Tulcea (Tulcea County / RO). – 3 Argamum, Scythia = Jurilovca (Tulcea County / RO). – 4 Bassianae, Pannonia Secunda = Donji Petrovci (Srem District / SRB). – 5 Batajnica, Pannonia Secunda (Zemun Municipality / SRB). – 6 Belegiš, Pannonia Secunda (Srem District / SRB). – 7 Beroe, Scythia = Piatra-Ostrov (Tulcea County / RO). – 8 Bizone, Scythia = Kavarna (Dobrich Region / BG). – 9 Callatis, Scythia = Mangalia (Constanța County / RO). – 10 Contra Margum, Moesia Prima = Kovin (South Banat District / SRB). – 11 Dinogetia, Scythia = Jijila (Tulcea County / RO). – 12 Durostorum, Moesia Secunda = Silistra (Silistra Region / BG). – 13 Enisala, Scythia (Constanța County / RO). – 14 Halmyris, Scythia = Murighiol (Tulcea County / RO). – 15 Histria, Scythia = Istria (Constanța County / RO). – 16 Hrtkovci, Pannonia Secunda (Ruma Municipality / SRB). – 17 Ibida, Scythia = Slava Rusă (Tulcea County / RO). – 18 Jakovo, Moesia Prima (Zemun Municipality / SRB). – 19 Korbovo, Dacia Ripensis (Kladovo Municipality / SRB). – 20 Kozloduy, Dacia Ripensis (Vratsa Region / BG). – 21 Marcianopolis, Moesia Secunda = Devnea (Varna Region / BG). – 22 Margum, Moesia Prima = Dubravica (Branicevo District / SRB). – 23 Nicopolis ad Istrum, Moesia Secunda = Nykiup (Veliko Tarnovo Region / BG). – 24 Novae, Moesia Secunda (Veliko Tarnovo Region / BG). – 25 Noviodunum, Scythia = Isaccea (Tulcea County / RO). – 26 Odessos, Moesia Secunda = Varna (Varna Province / BG). – 27 Rakovac, Moesia Prima (Beočin Municipality / SRB). – 28 Romuliana, Dacia Ripensis = Gamzigrad (Zaječar District / SRB). – 29 Singidunum, Moesia Prima = Belgrade (Belgrade District / SRB). – 30 Sirmium, Pannonia Secunda = Sremska Mitrovica (Srem District / SRB). – 31 Storogosia, Moesia Secunda = Pleven (Pleven Region / BG). – 32 Tomis, Scythia = Constanța (Constanța County / RO). – 33 Tropaeum Traiani, Scythia = Adamclisi (Constanța County / RO). – 34 Ulmetum, Scythia = Pantelimonul de Sus (Constanța County / RO). – 35 Viminacium, Moesia Prima = Selo Kostolac (Braničevo District / SRB). – Sites within Barbaricum: 36 Arad (Arad County / RO). – 37 Balta Verde (Mehedinți County / RO). – 38 Bistreț (Dolj County / RO). – 39 Bočar (Central Banat District / SRB). – 40 Bőkény (Csongrád County / H). – 41 Boldești-Grădiștea (Prahova County / RO). – 42 Ceptura (Prahova County / RO). – 43 Chiojdu (Prahova County / RO). – 44 Ciorani (Prahova County / RO). – 45 Cioroiu Nou (Dolj County / RO). – 46 Drăgănești-Olt (Olt County / RO). – 47 Drobeta = Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Mehedinți County / RO). – 48 Dudeștii Vechi (Timiș County / RO). – 49 Dulceanca (Teleorman County / RO). – 50 Gherăseni (Buzău County / RO). – 51 Kiszombor (Csongrád County / H). – 52 Pietroasele (Buzău County / RO). – 53 Pruneni (Buzău County / RO). – 54 Sărata Monteoru (Buzău County / RO). – 55 Spanțov (Călărași County / RO). – 56 Sucidava = Celei-Corabia (Dolj County / RO). – 57 Sultana Malu-Roșu (Călărași County / RO). – 58 Târgșor (Prahova County / RO). – 59 Vădastra (Olt County / RO). – (Map A. D. Soficaru). of »Roman« and »Barbarian« are not straightforward. Even if assimilation took place, this notion need not imply that all elements of a host culture’s material world were adopted by incomers 17. It is therefore possible that different forms and degrees of integration took place 18. Thus, mortuary practices may have been more flexible, varied, and responsive than hitherto considered, particularly in border zones where there was extensive mobility and prolonged contact between different traditions. Elsewhere, the archaeological challenges of inferring ethnicity as a dynamic and complex phenomenon have long been recognised 19. In this paper, rather than categorising identity in a binary fashion from mortuary data, we focus on the articulation of practice in the mortuary domain. In other words, we are concerned with what people did 264 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region rather than assuming who they were. We aim to explore the range and variability of mortuary practices on both sides of the frontier in order to understand whether interaction took place in mortuary traditions and the nature of that interaction, without simplistic categorisation of specific individuals. Despite a substantial data set in the form of site reports, to date, no synthetic comparison of mortuary data between Roman and Barbarian worlds has been carried out. In part, this is due to a traditional disciplinary divide between archaeologists studying the Migration Period and those who study Roman material. This lack of synthesis has been further accentuated by contemporary history and national borders in the Lower Danube region: in the north, Barbarian finds have been made in Romania, Hungary and northern Serbia; in the south, Roman finds have been found in eastern Romania, Bulgaria and central Serbia. Thus while there are several local catalogues of Roman mortuary data 20, these have never been properly contextualised or integrated into a larger comparative framework with data from the north 21. In this paper, we address this gap in present knowledge through a comparison of mortuary data from both sides of the Roman border in the Lower Danube from the reigns of Emperor Diocletianus to Emperor Heraclius (broadly the 4th-6th centuries). This period started with the reforms of Diocletianus and ended with the fall of the Danubian Roman frontier at the beginning of the 7th century. Our study area encompasses the region from the shore of the Black Sea in the east, to the Balkan Mountains in the south, the Tisa River in the west, and the Mureș River and the Carpathian Mountains in the north (fig. 1). This area was the gateway to the Balkans and thus geographically important to both Romans and Barbarians. The border between the Roman Empire and the Barbarians lay along the Danube River. To cross it, the Barbarians used passages through Scythia in the east, but in the west, they tried to control Sirmium (the area of modern Belgrade) because of its key role in accessing the central Balkans, and from there the Pannonian Plain. The region was thus more or less split in two corresponding to Barbaricum (the historical provinces of Wallachia, Lesser Wallachia, and Banat) and the Roman provinces of Scythia, Moesia Secunda, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Prima, and Pannonia Secunda. We begin by reviewing current broad understandings of mortuary traditions in the region, including contexts and locations of burial. We then move to a comparative analysis of mortuary practices based on multivariate correspondence analysis of 1780 single adult graves, these being the most common form of burial in the region. CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF MORTUARY TRADITIONS IN THE LOWER DANUBE Current understandings of mortuary traditions in the region are related to four geo-ethnic contexts: Roman burials within the area controlled by the Roman Empire south of the River Danube, Barbarian burials in the Barbarian-controlled area north of the Danube, burials in the Roman bridgehead north of the Danube, and Barbarian burials within the Roman Empire south of the Danube. Below we consider each of these in turn. Roman Mortuary Traditions South of the Danube Mortuary traditions in the Roman Empire had deep roots, which were strengthened by the Christian Church during the 4th-6th centuries 22. Previous studies identify extramural and intramural contexts as the two primary locations for burials. Located along routes that linked various cities throughout the Empire, extramural cemeteries are common in Scythia 23, Moesia Secunda 24, Moesia Prima 25 and Dacia Ripensis 26. Single graves are the most common form of burial, sometimes located around a basilica built outside the city walls as at Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 265 Novae, Histria and Tropaeum Traiani 27. Hypogaea (family vaults) were also used, such as at Ibida, Callatis, Tomis, Marcianopolis, Abritus, Durostorum and Odessos 28. A single example of a mass grave is known from Ibida. Situated between a defence tower and the cemetery’s basilica, the remains of 28 people of all ages and both sexes were scattered in the grave along with animal bones and a very small number of objects. Recent bioarchaeological and radiocarbon analysis of the skeletal material suggests the likely massacre of the interred individuals in the mid-4th century 29. The size of extramural cemeteries was variable, but some contain large numbers of single inhumation graves, for example, Callatis had more than 900 graves and Beroe over 1000 30. In construction, they were most frequently simple rectangular graves orientated west-east, but cists built with stone slabs or bricks, and graves with stones or tiles placed around the skeleton are also known 31. Graves with tiles on either side of the body, suggesting the construction of a niche for the body within a pit, have been recorded, as have spectacular but rare sarcophagi made from tiles: the body was laid on three or four tiles with other tiles placed as if to form the apex of a roof over the body 32. A very small number of early cremations are also known. The latter are dated to the beginning of the 4th century at the sites of Romuliana and Abritus 33. Thus, at Romuliana a cremation grave is thought to be that of a Roman officer based on its inventory, which consists of a gold brooch, iron weapons and other objects of military equipment, along with dog bones. The grave was elaborately constructed with a stone square structure around a central grave mound 34. Nonetheless, under the influence of Eastern mystery religions, inhumation became a common practice in the Roman Empire from the 2nd century. With the adoption of Christianity, it had become the predominant form of burial by the 4th century 35. From 439 the Codex Theodosianus, and subsequently in 512 the Codex Justinianus, regulated mortuary practices within the Empire 36. Intramural interment became more frequent at the end of the 6th century as a result of the frequent attacks of Avars and Slavs and concomitant reduction in attention paid to earlier prohibitions on inhumation within city limits 37. Intramural burials include graves in or around churches located within city walls, such as 16 graves dated to the end of the 6th to the beginning of the 7th century known from the episcopal basilica at Histria 38. Martyrs’ crypts constitute a particular category of intramural burial. Constructed under churches as places for the relics of saints to be deposited and venerated, they belong to Christians executed during the imperial persecutions, whose remains were recovered after the legalisation of the religion 39. Examples are known from Halmyris, Noviodunum, Tropaeum Traiani and Durostorum 40. Another type of intramural burial is the graves of infants who died before their first birthday. Called suggrundaria by the ancient writer Fulgentius, infants were buried in amphorae or under ceramic fragments in domestic contexts next to houses. This was a common custom in the Roman world because children of this age were not yet considered to have been accepted into a social group 41. The inventory of grave goods identified in both extramural and intramural cemeteries includes personal objects deposited with the deceased such as bracelets made from bronze, silver, animal bone and iron; bronze and gilded brooches together with beads made from glass, amber, coral, and carnelian; rings made of bronze, silver and gold; hairpins from bronze or iron; combs made from animal bone with iron rivets. Other objects include vessels made from ceramic or glass, lamps, and spindle whorls. Weapons are very rare, although found in the 4th-century cremation graves from Romuliana and Abritus 42. Barbarian Mortuary Traditions North of the Danube In contrast to graves from the Roman Empire, where there are a variety of different contexts for burial, those north of the Danube are consistent in the use of flat grave cemeteries. Most are small, reflecting the highly 266 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region mobile nature of different tribal groups during this time 43, although the size and number of cemeteries fluctuate. Both inhumation and cremation were used, the former being more frequent. The Sântana de Mureș-Chernyakhov culture dates from the 2nd - mid-5th century and covers the region between the Dnieper River and east Transylvania, and the River Olt to the Danube. Conventionally assigned to the Goths, it should be regarded as mixed from the ethnic point of view 44. Several thousand graves have been recorded in this region, most in relatively small cemeteries. The bodies were buried in simple flat graves. The majority are inhumations buried in an extended supine position, in rectangular graves orientated north-south. They contain a variety of objects including ceramic vessels, bronze buckles and brooches, combs made from animal bone, beads of glass or amber, and animal offerings. Cremated remains were deposited in ceramic urns in roughly circular pits, with a more restricted number of objects including brooches, buckles, pendants and beads 45. Later 5th-century sites in this area consist of small necropoles containing a maximum of 20 graves, such as the sites of Boldești-Grădiștea, Chiojdu, Ciorani, Cioroiu-Nou, Drăgănești-Olt and Pietroasele, as well as isolated single, mostly inhumation graves. Burial traditions are a continuation of the Sântana de MureșChernyakhov group 46. A number of single graves dated to the 5th century assigned to the Huns contain individuals with artificially deformed skulls, sometimes with a sumptuous inventory (e. g. Dudeștii Vechi, Dulceanca, Gherăseni, Bistreț, Arad, Bočar, Bőkény, Hrtkovci, Kiszombor), with similar finds in Moldavia 47. In the Banat region, while graves have rich inventories and the mode of burial is similar, the number of individuals with deformed skulls is much lower 48. The number of known mortuary sites is lower for the 6th century. For example, two rectangular inhumation graves at Nădlac 49 and three at Sultana-Malu Roșu 50 were orientated in an east-west or west-north-west – east-south-east direction, with the body placed in a supine position. One of the graves at Nădlac contained several objects: a pair of bronze tweezers, 14 bronze rivets, a bronze buckle, a bronze applique, and a comb. The other contained a bronze buckle and a comb. At Sultana-Malu Roșu a ceramic vessel was found in one of the graves. Further inhumation graves are known from Ceptura and Pruneni, these with west-east orientation 51. At Sărata Monteoru in northeast Wallachia, 1536 graves were excavated belonging to a large cremation cemetery. Dated to 550-620, the bones were placed directly in grave pits or an urn in the grave. 348 of the graves contained grave goods 52. Elsewhere, however, cremation graves are isolated finds. Two cremation graves of non-adults are known from Dulceanca 53, while cremation graves dating to the end of the 6th century were found at Balta Verde, Korbovo and Kozloduy 54. Mortuary Practice at Roman Sites North of the Danube Roman forts built as bridgeheads in the Barbarian hinterland were enclaves in a different cultural environment 55. Of these, Sucidava is the best known and the only bridgehead site with excavated mortuary contexts. Occupied from the 4th to the beginning of the 5th century, investigations have revealed 109 inhumation and 3 cremation graves. An exceptional burial at this site has been identified as that of a Barbarian warrior 56. The individual was placed in the grave in an extended supine position, orientated south-southeast – north-north-west, with an inventory consisting of two coins, a gilded bronze buckle, two bronze ornaments, an iron sword, and a dagger. Analogies with similar finds from Bistreț, Cioroiu Nou, and Vădastra indicate a date of 450-500 57. The Roman presence returned to Sucidava in the second half of the 6th century, from which seven graves were found around the church; five in cists and two in flat graves. They have west-east orientation and are without grave goods 58. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 267 Barbarian Mortuary Practice in the Roman Empire South of the Danube Although historical sources indicate many Barbarian crossings of the Danube – the mass movement of the Goths at the end of the 4th century, the attacks of the Huns in the first half of the 5th century, and almost permanent incursions of Avars and Slavs in the second half of the 6th century – to date no Barbarian cemeteries are known from the Roman-controlled area. This seems somewhat surprising given, for example, the scale of the Goths’ migration to the south. Barbarian graves that have so far been identified south of the Danube are isolated cases, typically classified on the basis of grave goods rather than broader aspects of mortuary practice or isotopic analysis that might indicate migration. For example, eight Barbarian graves have been identified in the settlement of Ulmetum. Along with Roman objects, typical Sântana de MureșChernyakhov ceramics were interred with the deceased and one male skeleton had a knife. Two of the skeletons were orientated north-south and were therefore assigned to the Goths 59. 50 km to the northeast, in the Argamum necropolis a grave was identified as that of a Goth from the first half of the 5th century. This categorisation was based on the two bronze brooches placed on each shoulder of the deceased and a silver earring, although the individual had been buried in an extended supine position in west-east orientation typical of Roman practice 60. On the opposite side of Scythia province and situated on the Danube bank, the necropolis of Beroe contained 1139 graves dating from the 4th to the beginning of the 7th century. Unfortunately, only 228 graves with inventory have been published making a proper analysis of the material challenging but several of these, in particular those with a rich inventory, artificially deformed skulls, and animal offerings, have been connected with Barbarians 61. The mortuary discoveries from Singidunum, Sirmium, Viminacium I and II are located in areas that belonged to the Roman Empire, but which were conquered by Barbarians. Linked to the Gepids, several graves from these sites contained a rich inventory including objects such as brooches, combs, buckles, beads (also as strings), spindle whorls, earrings, weaving batons, flints and weapons (swords, arrows, shield boss, scabbards, spears, javelins, and knives), as well as a small number of animal bone offerings 62. Similar burials have been found at Rakovac, Bassianae, Jakovo, Batajnica and Belegiš dating from the mid-5th to the end of the 6th century. Graves at the relatively small settlements of Margum and Contra Margum contain weapons and ceramics indicating the presence of Germanic foederati within the Roman population 63. In addition to graves assigned to Germanic people, those of Huns have also been identified in Roman or former Roman territories on the basis of grave goods, such as two 5th-century graves from Hrtkovci and one from Singidunum 64. A grave from Enisala, in Scythia province, contained the extended supine burial of a female with west-north-west – east-south-east orientation with two bronze brooches on each shoulder and two bronze bracelets at each wrist. Dated to the 6th to the start of the 7th century, bioarchaeological analysis suggests a person with possible ancestry on the northern side of the Danube 65. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MORTUARY PRACTICES IN THE LOWER DANUBE REGION Data was collected for 1780 individual adult graves from 19 sites with sufficient detail available to examine mortuary practices; despite the large number of sites in the region, relatively few have well-published data. The selected sites represent all four geo-ethnic contexts described above. Eight sites can be associated with the Roman Empire south of the Danube: Aegyssus, 14 graves 66; Bizone, 48 graves 67; Callatis, 584 graves 68; Dinogetia, 22 graves 69; Histria, 100 graves 70; Ibida, 99 graves 71; Storogosia, 46 graves 72; Tomis, 188 graves 73. Five sites can be associated with the Barbarian population north of the Danube: 268 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Boldești, 17 graves 74; Drăgănești-Olt, 13 graves 75; Pietroasele, 19 graves 76; Spanțov, 54 graves 77; Târgșor, 199 graves 78. The Roman bridgehead site of Sucidava north of the Danube contains 112 excavated graves 79. Five sites are situated within the Roman Empire but have previously been identified as containing Barbarian graves: Beroe, 49 graves 80; Singidunum, 31 graves 81; Sirmium, 71 graves 82; Viminacium I, 38 graves 83; Viminacium II, 79 graves 84. These sites include Roman towns conquered by Barbarians, as well as settlements which are likely to have been Barbarian in origin and where the Roman presence was secondary. The quality of published data can vary within a single site. Thus, where full data were not reported, large sites could not be analysed in their entirety and the number of graves analysed here is smaller than the total number of excavated graves. For example, of 1139 graves excavated at Beroe, just 228 graves (those with grave goods) have been published 85, while the number of graves from the site included in our analysis (49 graves) is still smaller as descriptions of mortuary practices were not available for all. Only 463 graves from six sites have reliable anthropological data and could be sexed, with particular gaps in the anthropological analysis of cremations (tab. 1). The chronological distribution and precision of dating of sites and individual graves are uneven. Dating is largely based on grave goods and is thus affected by individual objects and their associations in the grave, some offering greater chronological precision than others. A total of 701 graves can be dated to the 4th century, 24 to the 5th century, and 118 to the 6th century. The remainder have a wide date range: 91 are placed between the 4th-5th century, 155 in the 5th-6th century and 694 in the 4th-6th century. This uneven chronological distribution and use of broad chronological categories in the literature means that it is difficult to address change in practice over time with enough resolution. We therefore consider our data as a single set. Recent anthropological work has highlighted how reflections on the relationship between mortuary processes (including preparation of the corpse and its decomposition) and archaeological outcomes are vital to understanding the nature of mortuary practice 86. Skeletons were once corpses and the study of the skeleton can be used to shed light on attitudes towards death and the management and treatment of the corpse 87. With this in mind, mortuary practices were considered across five variables for each site that reflect key aspects of mortuary practice: rite (inhumation / cremation), orientation of grave, grave construction, skeletal position, and presence / absence of grave goods. These variables were selected based on a review of the available data for each site and current understandings of mortuary traditions in the region described above. Where possible, variables were also considered in relation to sex. The lack of systematic publication of material presents a serious challenge to synthesis, but it is nonetheless possible to explore differences and similarities between Roman and Barbarian burial practices by comparing trends between sites and across the region. This approach allows us to examine variability in mortuary practices and whether they may have been affected by mutual interaction. Site Callatis Histria Ibida Singidunum Viminacium II Târgșor Location South South South South South North Number of males 48 22 49 16 45 19 Number of females 85 34 46 15 24 27 Sex not determined 0 0 4 0 10 19 Total number of skeletons 133 56 99 31 79 65 Tab. 1 Sex distribution of adult graves at sites with reliable anthropological data. – (A. D. Soficaru). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 269 Site Location Aegyssus Beroe Bizone Callatis Dinogetia Histria Ibida Singidunum Sirmium Storogosia Tomis Viminacium I Viminacium II Boldești Drăgănești-Olt Pietroasele Spanțov Sucidava Târgșor South South South South South South South South South South South South South North North North North North North Cremationfrequency (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 (41.18) 0 1 (5.26) 10 (18.52) 3 (2.68) 86 (43.22) Inhumationfrequency (%) 14 (100) 49 (100) 48 (100) 584 (100) 22 (100) 100 (100) 99 (100) 31 (100) 71 (100) 46 (100) 188 (100) 38 (100) 79 (100) 10 (58.82) 13 (100) 18 (94.74) 44 (81.48) 109 (97.32) 113 (56.78) Tab. 2 Frequency and percentage of cremation and inhumation north and south of the River Danube. – (A. D. Soficaru). Rite Inhumation is the dominant rite on both sides of the Danube. Thus, although inhumation is typical for Christian burial, it is not an exclusively Roman trait (tab. 2). Conversely, all cremations in the sample are found north of the river indicating a clear geographical distribution for the latter form of practice. Orientation Grave orientation also contrasts on either side of the Danube (tab. 3). In the Barbarian area, there is a clear preference for the orientation of inhumation graves along a north-south axis, suggesting that this is a Barbarian practice. There is, however, site-specific variation in whether heads are placed to the north or south. At Târgșor, Spanțov, Drăgănești-Olt and Boldești, heads are predominantly orientated towards the north. At Pietroasele heads are orientated primarily to the south. The exception north of the Danube is the Roman bridgehead site of Sucidava where the orientation of the graves bears similarity with sites south of the river. At Sucidava the majority of graves are west-east, although just over 20 % of graves follow Barbarian alignment; this mix of practices may reflect social interaction between different groups at the edge of the frontier. In line with Christian tradition, graves at sites within the area of the Roman Empire show a clear trend in orientation to the west 88, but this is not consistent at all sites. In particular, Sirmium and Ibida stand out for the proportion of graves (more than 50 %) with a north or south orientation, while at Aegyssus, Histria and Viminacium II more than 25 % of graves at each site have north or south orientation. Multivariate correspondence analysis of the relationship between rite and orientation places Sirmium and Ibida together with sites that have cremations north of the Danube and can be considered Barbarian (fig. 2), even though 270 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Site Aegyssus Beroe Bizone Callatis Dinogetia Histria Ibida Singidunum Sirmium Storogosia Tomis Viminacium I Viminacium II Boldești Drăgănești-Olt Pietroasele Spanțov Sucidava Târgșor Location South South South South South South South South South South South South South North North North North North North Orientation North 1 (11.11) 0 1 (2.08) 28 (5.27) 2 (9.52) 11 (13.41) 22 (26.83) 1 (3.70) 23 (46.00) 3 (6.52) 7 (4.17) 2 (6.06) 6 (8.00) 8 (100) 13 (100) 1 (5.56) 31 (93.94) 12 (11.65) 101 (97.12) South 2 (22.22) 0 1 (2.08) 6 (1.13) 1 (4.76) 13 (15.85) 23 (28.05) 6 (22.22) 6 (12.00) 0 13 (7.74) 2 (6.06) 21 (28.00) 0 0 17 (94.44) 0 12 (11.65) 1 (0.96) West 6 (66.67) 47 (100) 43 (89.58) 497 (93.60) 18 (85.71) 55 (67.07) 36 (43.90) 20 (74.07) 20 (40.00) 43 (93.48) 143 (85.12) 29 (87.88) 47 (62.67) 0 0 0 2 (6.06) 59 (57.28) 2 (1.92) East 0 0 3 (6.25) 0 0 3 (3.66) 1 (1.22) 0 1 (2.00) 0 5 (2.98) 0 1 (1.33) 0 0 0 0 20 (19.42) 0 Tab. 3 Frequency and percentage of graves with known orientation north and south of the River Danube. – (A. D. Soficaru). Fig. 2 Multivariate correspondence analysis of the relationship between rite and grave orientation. – (Graph A. D. Soficaru). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 271 Sex Males Females North 18 (41.86 %) 4 (10.81 %) South 14 (32.56 %) 9 (24.32 %) West 11 (25.58 %) 23 (62.16 %) East 0 1 (2.70 %) Χ2 14.86 p 0.002 Tab. 4 Χ2 test for difference in grave orientation between males and females at Ibida. – (A. D. Soficaru). inhumation is the only rite south of the Danube in our sample. Barbarian burials have previously been associated with Sirmium but the relatively high proportion of graves with this orientation at Ibida may suggest greater Barbarian influence at this site than has hitherto been recognised. Furthermore, Ibida is the only site at which burial orientation is related to sex; the application of a Χ2 test shows that Ibida male burials are significantly more likely to be orientated along a north-south axis, and female burials west-east (tab. 4). This may suggest that males more closely retain aspects of Barbarian or pagan identity at this site. Given the relative absence of cremation south of the Danube, it appears that orientation as an aspect of burial practice may have been more culturally conservative and persistent in its link to Barbarian practice than rites associated with body disposal. Furthermore, orientation as an element of mortuary practice suggests that Barbarian burials may be more widespread in the Roman Empire than hitherto recognised. Grave Construction Grave construction presents great variety with seven different broad types in the data (tab. 5): Ic) body likely wrapped in a shroud and placed directly in the grave pit. This was identified on the basis of the lack of surrounding structure and the archaeothanatology of the skeleton 89. It is the most common type of grave being found in almost half (48.45 %) of all graves on both sides of the Danube; IIc) wooden coffin in a grave pit. This was identified on the basis of the presence of coffin nails and / or wood remains and indications of a void around the skeleton 90; IIIc) cist made from stone slabs or bricks; IVc) sarcophagus made from tiles; Vc) grave pit with a niche and tiles covering it; VIc) tiles or stones placed directly on or around the skeleton; VIIc) tiles or stones at the head or feet only. Most of this variability is found in sites south of the Danube while in the north, burial construction is relatively consistent. To the north, Pietroasele is distinctive among Barbarian sites in our sample for its strong tradition of placing bodies in wooden coffins, rather than placing the body directly into the grave; multivariate analysis of the relationship between grave orientation and grave construction separates it from other sites for use of coffins and south orientation (fig. 3). Although coffins are not present in the other Barbarian sites studied in this paper, they have been documented elsewhere as part of the Sarmatian tradition of the Alans 91. The use of coffins at Pietroasele may thus reflect choices drawn from a particular cultural repertoire of practice that overlaps with Roman tradition but is not linked to it. Mixed traditions are, however, likely at Sucidava where a distinctly Roman regional tradition of cist burial is found. Figure 3 shows it clustering with most of the sites south of the Danube around the origin of the graph, which display a range of different forms of construction, suggesting that orientation and construction are not related to each other. However, the neighbouring sites of Callatis and Bizone appear as a distinct group due to the consistent use of cists at these sites and their tendency to west-east orientation. Here and at Histria, tiles or stones were placed directly on or around the skeleton. At Callatis and Histria graves with a niche and tile covering were also used. This variation in the practice of grave construction is not related to sex. Rather, at these former Greek colonies in the province of Scythia on the Black Sea, there seems to be a regional tradition of building and elaborating the grave beyond that found elsewhere, although this is not found in all sites in the province and is thus a local practice. 272 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Site Aegyssus Beroe Bizone Callatis Dinogetia Histria Ibida Singidunum Sirmium Storogosia Tomis Viminacium I Viminacium II Boldești Drăgănești-Olt Pietroasele Spanțov Sucidava Târgșor Grave construction Location Ic (%) IIc (%) IIIc (%) IVc (%) Vc (%) South 5 (62.50) 3 (37.50) 0 0 0 South 37 (75.51) 11 (22.45) 0 0 0 South 3 (6.25) 2 (4.17) 35 (72.92) 0 1 (2.08) South 99 (18.75) 5 (0.94) 239 (45.27) 1 (0.19) 23 (4.36) South 21 (95.45) 1 (4.55) 0 0 0 South 32 (35.16) 1 (1.10) 8 (8.79) 2 (2.20) 21 (23.08) South 39 (41.05) 20 (21.05) 1 (1.05) 3 (3.16) 14 (14.74) 19 (70.37) 1 (3.70) 5 (18.52) 0 0 South South 0 35 (50.00) 31 (44.29) 3 (4.29) 0 South 29 (63.04) 3 (6.52) 6 (13.04) 2 (4.35) 0 South 113 (67.66) 51 (30.54) 1 (0.60) 0 1 (0.60) South 32 (84.21) 2 (5.26) 2 (5.26) 0 0 South 67 (84.81) 10 (12.66) 1 (1.27) 0 0 North 14 (100) 0 0 0 0 North 13 (100) 0 0 0 0 North 0 18 (100) 0 0 0 North 51 (100) 0 0 0 0 North 91 (84.26) 0 7 (6.48) 0 0 North 103 (91.15) 0 0 0 0 VIIc (%) VIc (%) 0 0 1 (2.04) 0 7 (14.58) 0 161 (30.49) 0 0 0 24 (26.37) 3 (3.30) 6 (6.32) 12 (12.53) 2 (7.41) 0 1 (1.43) 0 6 (13.04) 0 1 (0.60) 0 2 (5.26) 0 1 (1.27) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (3.70) 6 (5.56) 9 (7.96) 1 (0.88) Tab. 5 Frequency and percentage of grave construction for inhumation graves north and south of the River Danube: Ic body likely wrapped in a shroud and placed directly in a grave pit. – IIc wooden coffin in a grave pit. – IIIc cist made from stone slabs or bricks. – IVc sarcophagus made from tiles. – Vc grave pit with a niche and tiles covering it. – VIc tiles or stones placed directly on or around the skeleton. – VIIc tiles or stones at the head or feet only. – (A. D. Soficaru). Fig. 3 Multivariate correspondence analysis of the relationship between grave orientation and grave construction. – (Graph A. D. Soficaru). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 273 Site Aegyssus Beroe Bizone Callatis Dinogetia Histria Ibida Singidunum Sirmium Storogosia Tomis Viminacium I Viminacium II Boldești Drăgănești-Olt Pietroasele Spanțov Sucidava Târgșor Location Ip (%) South 1 (33.33) South 41 (87.23) South 25 (86.21) South 163 (43.70) South 6 (30.00) South 46 (62.16) South 51 (61.45) South 10 (30.30) South 21 (72.41) South 25 (54.35) South 87 (64.93) South 27 (81.82) South 53 (72.60) North 6 (85.71) North 1 (33.33) North 17 (100) North 18 (66.67) North 36 (34.62) North 58 (61.70) IIp (%) 2 (66.67) 0 1 (3.45) 44 (11.80) 0 1 (1.35) 10 (12.05) 1 (3.03) 6 (20.69) 0 3 (2.24) 1 (3.03) 4 (5.48) 1 (14.29) 2 (66.67) 0 0 16 (15.38) 14 (14.89) Body position IIIp (%) IVp (%) 0 0 0 6 (12.77) 1 (3.45) 2 (6.90) 23 (6.17) 143 (38.34) 1 (5.00) 13 (65.00) 3 (4.05) 16 (21.62) 3 (3.61) 12 (14.46) 3 (9.09) 12 (36.36) 2 (6.90) 0 4 (8.70) 17 (36.96) 2 (1.49) 41 (30.60) 2 (6.06) 3 (9.09) 9 (12.33) 6 (8.22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (14.81) 2 (7.41) 16 (15.38) 35 (33.65) 6 (6.38) 10 (10.64) Vp (%) 0 0 0 0 0 6 (8.11) 1 (1.20) 1 (3.03) 0 0 0 0 1 (1.37) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1.06) VIp (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (2.41) 2 (6.06) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (11.11) 0 4 (4.26) VIIp (%) 0 0 0 0 0 2 (2.70) 4 (4.82) 4 (12.12) 0 0 1 (0.75) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (0.96) 1 (1.06) Tab. 6 Frequency and percentage of position of inhumed skeletons north and south of the River Danube: Ip extended supine. – IIp extended supine with the right upper arm on the torso and the left along the body. – IIIp extended supine with the left upper limb on the torso and the right along the body. – IVp extended supine with both upper limbs on the torso. – Vp extended supine with crossed legs. – VIp flexed on either right or left sides. – VIIp extended prone. – (A. D. Soficaru). Body Position The position of inhumed skeletons was defined in terms of the relationship between the upper and lower limbs with the body, leading to the identification of seven primary categories: Ip) extended supine; IIp) extended supine with the right upper arm on the torso and the left along the body; IIIp) extended supine with the left upper limb on the torso and the right along the body; IVp) extended supine with both upper limbs on the torso; Vp) extended supine with crossed legs; VIp) flexed on either right or left sides; VIIp) extended prone (tab. 6). A total of 692 burials were in an extended supine position, a practice found on both sides of the River Danube (56.91 % of burials in the south and 53.97 % in the north). This practice cannot therefore be associated exclusively with either Roman or Barbarian practice. On both sides of the border, extended supine burial was common practice rather than a rule. Rather than a north-south divide in burial positions, some sites stand out for greater variability than others. At Ibida, Singidunum and Târgșor burials were found in all seven positions, including four extended prone individuals at Ibida and Singidunum. At Callatis most inhumations were placed in an extended supine position (43.70 %) or in an extended supine position with both upper limbs on the torso (38.34 %), while a total of 17.97 % were placed in an extended supine position with either the right or the left upper limb placed on the torso. At Sucidava burial position was almost equally divided into three categories: 34.62 % of burials were in an extended supine position, 33.65 % extended supine with both upper limbs on the torso, and 30.76 % extended supine with either right or left upper limb placed on the torso. Multivariate analysis of the relationship between orientation, construction and position confirms that position plays a relatively little role in distinguishing between sites, with clustering due primarily to the influence of orientation and construction (fig. 4). Nor does sex play a significant 274 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Fig. 4 Multivariate correspondence analysis of the relationship between grave orientation, grave construction, and body position. – (Graph A. D. Soficaru). Tab. 7 Χ2 test for difference in body position between males and females. – (A. D. Soficaru). Sex Ibida F Ibida M Histria F Histria M Callatis F Callatis M Singidunum F Singidunum M Viminacium II F Viminacium II M Târgșor F Târgșor M Ip 12 14 9 7 10 3 5 4 15 22 17 13 IIp 5 2 0 1 8 5 1 0 1 8 2 3 IIIp 2 4 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 IVp 6 12 10 4 35 16 0 5 1 4 3 3 Position Vp VIp VIIp Χ2 0 2 1 7.75 1 0 0 4 0 2 2.47 2 0 1 0 0 0 1.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.73 1 3 1 p 0.26 0.65 0.72 0.10 0.30 0.26 role in decisions regarding burial position (tab. 7). This dispersed variability between north and south reveals substantial overlap in practice between sites on both sides of the border. The lack of geographical coherence suggests that local customs may have taken precedence over tribal or religious rules in the arrangement of the body in the grave. Grave Goods In sites north of the Danube a total of 68.84 % of graves contain objects deposited with the deceased. By contrast, south of the Danube only 39.96 % of graves in the sample contained grave goods (tab. 8). These Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 275 Site Location Aegyssus Beroe Bizone Callatis Dinogetia Histria Ibida Singidunum Sirmium Storogosia Tomis Viminacium I Viminacium II Boldești Drăgănești-Olt Pietroasele Spanțov Sucidava Târgșor South South South South South South South South South South South South South North North North North North North With grave goods (%) 3 (21.43) 49 (100) 9 (18.75) 209 (35.79) 2 (9.09) 27 (27.00) 18 (18.18) 21 (67.74) 27 (38.03) 40 (86.96) 104 (55.32) 27 (71.05) 11 (13.92) 11 (64.71) 10 (76.92) 15 (78.95) 45 (83.33) 100 (89.29) 104 (52.26) Without grave goods (%) 11 (78.57) 0 39 (81.25) 375 (64.21) 20 (90.91) 73 (73.00) 81 (81.82) 10 (32.26) 44 (61.97) 6 (13.04) 95 (44.68) 11 (28.95) 68 (86.08) 6 (35.29) 3 (23.08) 4 (21.05) 9 (16.67) 12 (10.71) 95 (47.74) Tab. 8 Frequency and percentage of burials with and without grave goods north and south of the River Danube. – (A. D. Soficaru). figures may be affected by an archaeological bias to report rich graves in large Roman cemeteries, suggesting that the actual discrepancy between north and south may be greater than these figures suggest; to the north of the Danube between 52.26 % and 89.29 % of graves contain objects, while to the south there is much greater variability in the sample with objects reported in 9.09 % to 100 % of graves. Although some sites in the Roman Empire (Beroe, Singidunum, Storogosia, Tomis, Viminacium I) and the Roman bridgehead site of Sucidava have a similar prevalence of objects to sites in the Barbarian region, others have a much lower prevalence (Aegyssus, Bizone, Callatis, Dinogetia, Histria, Ibida, Sirmium, Viminacium II). Of the former, Beroe, Singidunum, and Viminacium I are sites where Barbarian graves have previously been identified. However, the deposition of grave goods at Storogosia and Tomis where burial practice is predominantly inhumation with west orientation suggests that in addition to considerations of status, the Barbarian practice of depositing grave goods may have been more widespread than previously considered, even if the objects deposited were Roman in nature. Thus, it is possible that at sites south of the Danube where the use of grave goods was a pronounced aspect of burial practice, individual choices may reflect the retention of this element of Barbarian tradition. At sites with infrequent use of grave goods, Roman burial in the Christian tradition may have been practised more firmly. Multivariate correspondence analysis for the relationship between all variables addressed in this study separates the sites into four groups and confirms the role of grave goods in distinguishing burial practices between them (fig. 5). Thus, the Barbarian sites of Boldești, Drăgănești-Olt, Spanțov and Târgșor form a group with north orientation and grave goods; Histria, Dinogetia, Callatis, and Bizone form a group without grave goods and west orientation, with elaborate forms of grave construction particularly at the latter two sites; Pietroasele sits on its own as a site with south orientation, coffin burial and tendency to use grave goods. The remainder of the sites (Sirmium, Sucidava, Beroe, Viminacium I and II, Aegyssus, Ibida, Storogosia, Tomis and Singidunum) form a group around the origin of the graph, revealing the complexity of burial traditions at these sites. 276 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Fig. 5 Multivariate correspondence analysis for the relationship between rite, grave orientation, grave construction, body position and presence / absence of grave goods. – (Graph A. D. Soficaru). Tab. 9 Χ² test for difference in presence and absence of grave goods for males and females. – (A. D. Soficaru). Ibida F Ibida M Histria F Histria M Callatis F Callatis M Singidunum F Singidunum M Viminacium II F Viminacium II M Târgșor F Târgșor M Frequency with grave goods (%) 11 (23.91) 17 (34.69) 9 (40.91) 9 (26.47) 23 (26.14) 8 (16.00) 14 (93.33) 7 (43.75) 19 (79.17) 40 (88.89) 24 (88.89) 19 (67.86) Frequency without grave goods (%) 35 (76.09) 32 (65.31) 13 (59.09) 25 (73.53) 65 (73.86) 42 (84.00) 1 (6.67) 9 (56.25) 5 (20.83) 5 (11.11) 3 (11.11) 9 (32.14) Χ2 p 1.33 0.25 1.28 0.26 1.88 0.17 8.71 0.003 1.19 0.27 3.56 0.06 This complexity of burial practice is further revealed in the site-specific relationship between sex and the deposition of grave goods with the deceased (tab. 9). At Ibida, Histria and Callatis both males and females are equally unlikely to have grave goods, while at Viminacium II the reverse is true; both sexes are equally likely to have objects. However, at Singidunum, and to a lesser extent at Târgșor, females are significantly more likely to receive objects than males. Although women at Singidunum are most often buried with a west orientation in an extended supine position typical of Christian burial, the inclusion of objects (whether Roman or Barbarian) may be a reference to a Barbarian influence at the site beyond those graves previously identified as such; at this site, burial practice took on gender-specific influences that were not in use elsewhere. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 277 CONCLUSION Our data indicate that in many instances mortuary practices may have been more complex and multidimensional than hitherto understood. Whilst it is possible to identify differences north and south of the border that can be understood in broad terms as »Roman« or »Barbarian«, these are not absolute and act as stereotypes of traditions rather than typical mortuary practices. Thus, a stereotype Barbarian grave can be defined primarily through north-south orientation and the deposition of grave goods, with cremation a further signifier where present. A stereotype Roman burial can be defined through west orientation, variable grave construction including regionally specific complex elaboration, and lack of grave goods, although the latter is a weaker signifier. There are also several overlaps between elements of practice that were familiar to both, including inhumation, placement of the body directly in the grave, and extended supine position (tab. 10). Thus, the burial of Barbarians absorbed within the Roman Empire did not necessarily always require a complete breach of existing habitus. Instead, the existence of areas of overlap in practice may have facilitated the modification of existing traditions in the Lower Danube region. Burial practice often played out as a mixture of characteristics from north and south of the Danube. This is particularly evident at the Roman bridgehead site of Sucidava where the interaction between Romans and Barbarians might be expected but it is also particularly striking at Sirmium and Ibida where the proportion of burials orientated to the west in accordance with Christian tradition is strikingly low compared to other sites south of the border. However, the data on orientation suggest a notable Barbarian influence at several other sites in the south, although it seems that there were varying degrees of tolerance for the expression of difference. In other words, that some sites were more Roman in practice than others. Given the strict preference for north or south orientation in northern Barbarian sites, the small number of west oriented burials at Târgșor and Spanțov raise interesting questions regarding these individuals. Might they be Christian Barbarians or Romans in the Barbarian area? Local traditions and gender differences also played an important role in burial practices at some sites, particularly Callatis, Bizone and Histria on the Black Sea in former Greek colonies at the eastern margin of the Empire. Here, burial practice took its own specific expression in grave construction. Local traditions may also have played a part in leading to the variability evident in burial position. Aspect of burial practice North Rite Inhumation, cremation Orientation North, South (except Sucidava) Grave construction Body position Grave goods South Inhumation North, South, West, East West > 50 % of burials at Aegyssus, Beroe, Bizone, Callatis, Dinogetia, Histria, Singidunum, Tomis, Viminacium I, Viminacium II West < 50 % of burials at Ibida, Sirmium Body placed directly in grave; coffins but notable Body placed directly in grave; variation at Bizone, Callatis, Histria, Ibida, Singiducoffins only at Pietroasele; variation in grave construction num, Storogosia with particular local traditions of at Sucidava elaboration at Bizone, Callatis and Histria Extended supine but notable variation at Callatis, HisExtended supine but notable variation at Sucidava and Târgșor tria, Ibida, Sirmium, Storogosia, Tomis, Viminacium II Present in > 50 % of graves Present in > 50 % of burials at Beroe, Singidunum, Storogosia, Tomis, Viminacium I at all sites Present in < 50 % of burials at Aegyssus, Bizone, Callatis, Dinogetia, Histria, Ibida, Sirmium, Viminacium II Tab. 10 Summary of differences between sites north and south of the River Danube. – (A. D. Soficaru, J. Sofaer). 278 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Although grave goods have previously been a strong focus of research in this region, data on this aspect of burial practice is not straightforward to interpret. Choice of object (or absence of objects) intersects with a range of variables including religion, status, sex, and ethnicity. Our focus on practice, of which objects (grave goods) form part, reveals that identification of Barbarians based on object type alone may be missing a fluidity in burial linked to cross-pollination between traditions, where Barbarians are not fully subsumed or integrated into Roman society but manipulate and play with traditions to express different aspects of identity in different ways and forms. The results of our analysis may indicate that at some sites there was an openness to the Barbarian practice of depositing grave goods and that the principles of this practice may have been more widespread than previously considered, even if the objects deposited were Roman in nature. Rather than suggesting that a Barbarian signature is missing from sites in the Roman Empire and that assimilation was widespread, a comparative analysis of data from both sides of the Danube reveals that the retention of elements of Barbarian practice was actually relatively prevalent and strong at some sites. However, the mixture of traditions seen south of the Danube was not everywhere equal in form or degree of expression. The deployment of Barbarian practices was stronger in some places than in others. Local traditions also played an important role in mortuary practice, reflecting a notion of identity beyond either Rome or Barbaricum. Mortuary practices in the Lower Danube Region were thus flexible, complex, and variable, reflecting the complexity of the social, cultural, and political milieu in which people lived and died. Acknowledgements This paper is part of the project »Women at the Edge of Empire« which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 789859-WAEE-H2020-MSCA-IF-2017. Notes 1) Curta 2006, 39-69; Harhoiu / Spânu / Gáll 2011, 28-56; Kulikowski 2007, 352-365; Pohl 2005, 466-471. 17) Bugarski / Ivanišević 2018, 291-332. 18) Périn / Kazanski 2011, 299-329; Sofaer 2019. 2) Toropu / Tătulea 1987; Găzdac et al. 2015. 19) e. g. Jones 1997. 3) Stanev 2012; 2014, 65-86. 20) e. g. Oța 2013; Rusev 2012; Soficaru 2011. 4) Gândilă 2018, 33-100; Madgearu 2011. 21) e. g. Anke 1998; Harhoiu 1997; Fiedler 1992. 5) Hakenbeck et al. 2017. 22) Rebillard 2009. 6) We use this term in line with convention to cover all tribes that lived north of the Danube in what the Romans termed Barbaricum (Kulikowski 2017, 26-29). 23) Soficaru 2011, 70-129; Gatev 2011, 230-223; Rusev 2019. 24) Rusev 2012, 381-403. 25) Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006, 228-230. 7) Poulter 2004, 223-253. 8) Bowersock / Brown / Grabar 2001; Caldwell 2012; Liebeschuetz 2015; Rousseau 2009. 26) Petković 2007, 262-268. 27) Achim 2015, 292-294 tab. 10.1. 28) Soficaru 2011, 70-129; Rusev 2012, 381-403. 9) Eger 2011, 215-230. 10) Poulter 2007, 169-182. 29) Soficaru / Radu / Tika 2019, 187-211. 11) Giostra 2011, 7-36. 30) Soficaru 2011, 75-76. 81. 12) Fischer / DiPaolo Loren 2003, 225-230. 31) Ibidem 144-156. 13) von Rummel 2007, 1-17. 32) Ibidem 76. 82. 14) Eger 2015a, 213-236. 33) Rusev 2012, 381-403. 15) von Rummel 2010, 74-77; Eger 2011, 215-230; 2015b, 269277. 34) Petković 2007, 251-275. 16) Kazanski 1991, 61-75. 36) Goldfus 1997, 6-34. 35) Nock 1932, 331-359; Rebay-Salisbury 2012, 19-21. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 279 37) See Rebillard 2009, 66. 38) Suceveanu 2007; Condurachi et al. 1959, 278; 1961, 233234; Suceveanu / Scorpan 1971, 159. 64) Kazanski 2018, 407-417; Ivanišević / Kazanski 2007, 116-125 fig. 4; Mastykova 2018, 395-405. 65) Ailincăi et al. 2014, 65-84. 39) Miriţoiu / Soficaru 2001-2003, 169-190; Zahariade 2003, 143168. 66) Paraschiv / Iacob / Rusu 2007, 383-384; Costea / Costea 2008, 297-304; Charlier / Costea / Baralis 2009, 337-346. 40) Achim 2015, 302-303 tab. 10.2; 328-330; Atanassov 2012, 327-380; Soficaru 2011, 171-175. 67) Gatev 2004, 9-13; 2011, 227-236; Mirchev / Toncheva / Dimitrov 1962, 21-109. 41) Soficaru 2011, 175-179; Rubel / Soficaru 2012, 163-168. 42) Gatev 2011, 227-236; Petković 2007, 251-275; Rusev 2012, 381-403; Soficaru 2011, 130-179; Tabakova-Tsanova 1981, 102-184. 43) Harhoiu 2008, 67. 44) Shchukin / Kazanski / Sharov 2006, 13-52. 45) Diaconu 1965; Șovan 2009; Mitrea / Preda 1966, 111-164; Petrescu 2002, 10 map III. 46) Diaconu 1994, 125-131; Lăzărescu / Ciupercă / Anton 2015, 211-237; Teodorescu / Lichiardopol / Peneș 1983, 419-434; Trohani / Zorzoliu 1983, 209-223. 47) Anke 1998, 7. 16. 27. 52. 65; Harhoiu 2008, 65; Tănase 2002/2003, 233-244. 48) Mare 1998, 285-306; 2011, 28-29. 49) Lăzărescu / Radu / Ursuțiu 2016, 301-324. 50) Andreescu et al. 2013, 134. 51) Madgearu 1997, 115-116. 52) Ibidem 121-122. 53) Dolinescu-Ferche 1992, 133. 54) Fiedler 1992, 88-91. 55) Harhoiu 2008, 62. 56) Bondoc 2011/2012, 133-142. 57) Popilian / Bondoc 2012, 255-262. 58) Tudor 1953, 700; Toropu 1981, 73-74. 59) Dr. C. Băjenaru, National Museum of History and Archaeology from Constanța, personal communication. 68) Preda 1980, 27-117; Ionescu / Alexandru / Constantin 2002/ 2003, 225-277; Soficaru 2009, 561-583. 69) Barnea 1969-1974, 93-162. 70) Hamparțumian 1971, 199-215; Rusu-Bolindeț et al. 2014, 251-281; Radu / Szeredai / Kelemen 2014, 283-297; Soficaru 2011, 183. 71) Soficaru 2011, 107-110. 183. 72) Tabakova-Tsanova 1981, 102-184. 73) Cheluță-Georgescu 1977, 253-260; Chera-Mărgineanu / Lungu 1983, 217-230; Lungu / Chera-Mărgineanu 1982, 175-199. 74) Teodorescu / Lichiardopol / Peneș 1983, 419-434. 75) Trohani / Zorzoliu1983, 209-223. 76) Simalcsik / Stăicuț 2018, 213-272. 77) Mitrea / Preda 1966, 13-42. 78) Diaconu 1965, 20-72. 79) Popilian / Bondoc 2012. 80) Petre 1987, 45-80. 81) Ivanišević / Kazanski 2002, 127-139; Pop-Lazić 2002, 21-37; 2005, 125-128. 82) Miladinović 2006, 409-434; 2009, 137-145; Popović 2012, 115-122; Popović / Kazanski / Ivanišević 2017, 39-72. 83) Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006, 138-159. 84) Ibidem 160-218. 85) Petre 1987, 101-117; Fiedler 1992, 50-58. 60) Mănucu Adameșteau 1980, 311-320. 86) Duday et al. 1990. 61) Petre 1987, 101-117; Fiedler 1992, 50-58. 87) Duday et al. 2014. 62) Ivanišević / Kazanski 2002, 101-157; Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006; Ivanišević / Kazanski 2007, 113-135; Popović / Kazanski / Ivanišević 2017. 88) Cf. Soficaru 2011, 172-175. 63) Ivanišević 2015, 653-665; Ivanišević / Bugarski 2017/2018, 91117; Bugarski / Ivanišević 2018, 292-332 tab. 1. 90) Duday 2009. 89) Duday et al. 2014. 91) Bârcă 2006, 47-50. References Achim 2015: I. Achim, Churches and Graves of the Early Byzantine Period in Scythia Minor and Moesia Secunda. The Development of a Christian Topography and the Periphery of the Roman Empire. In: J. R. Brandt / M. Prusac / H. Roland (eds), Death and Changing Rituals. Function and Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices (Oxbow 2015) 287-342. 280 Ailincăi et al. 2014: S. Ailincăi / M. Constantinescu / F. Curta / A. D. Soficaru, An Early Seventh-century Female Grave from Dobrudja. Archaeologia Bulgarica 18/1, 2014, 65-84. Andreescu et al. 2014: R. R. Andreescu / C. A. Lazăr / M. Florea / V. Opriș / M. Voicu / I. Crăciunescu, Sultana, com. Mânăstirea, jud. Călăraşi, Punct: Malu Roşu. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România – campania 2013 (București 2014) 133-134. A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Anke 1998: B. Anke, Studien zur Reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts. Teil 2 (Weissbach 1998). Atanassov 2012: G. Atanassov, Christianity along the Lower Danube Limes in the Roman Provinces of Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor (4th-6th Centuries AD). In: L. Vagalinski / N. Sharankov / S. Torbatov (eds), The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st-6th C. AD) (Sofia 2012) 327-380. Bârcă 2006: V. Bârcă, Nomazi ai stepelor. Sarmaţii timpurii în spaţiul nord-pontic (sec. II-I a. Chr.) (Cluj-Napoca 2006). Barnea 1969-1974: A. Barnea, Book Note »Dinogetia«. (Archaeological Excavations from Dinogetia for the Years of 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974) 1969-1974. Bondoc 2011/2012: D. Bondoc, A Germanic Grave inside the Late Roman Fortification of Sucidava-Celei. Oltenia. Studii și comunicări. Arheologie-Istorie 18/19, 2011/2012, 133-142. Bowersock / Brown / Grabar 2001: G. W. Bowersock / P. Brown / O. Grabar. Interpreting Late Antiquity. Essays on the Postclassical World (Cambridge MA 2001). Bugarski / Ivanišević 2018: I. Bugarski / V. Ivanišević, Sixth-century Foederati from the Upper Moesian Limes: Weapons in a Social Context. In: M. Korać / S. Golubić / N. Mrđić (eds), Vivere Militare Est. From Populus to Emperors – Living on the Frontier. Vol. I (Belgrade 2018) 291-332. Caldwell 2012: C. H. Caldwell III, The Balkans. In: S. F. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford, New York 2012) 92-114. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.013.0003. Charlier / Costea / Baralis 2009: P. Charlier / G. Costea / A. Baralis, Étude anthropologique et paléopathologique d’un sujet d’Aegyssus (IIIème - IVème s. ap. J.-C., Roumanie). Peuce 7, 2009, 337-346. Cheluţă-Georgescu 1977: N. Cheluţă-Georgescu, Contribuţii la topografia Tomisului în sec. VI e. n. Pontica 10, 1977, 253-260. Chera-Mărgineanu / Lungu 1983: C. Chera-Mărgineanu / V. Lungu, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea unor necropole creştine ale Tomisului (II). Pontica 16, 1983, 217-230. Condurachi et al. 1959: E. Condurachi și colaboratori, Șantierul Histria. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 6, 1959, 265-306. 1961: E. Condurachi și colaboratori, Șantierul Histria. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 7, 1961, 227-271. Costea / Costea 2008: G. Costea / I. Costea, A Tomb from the 4th Century A. D. Discovered in Tulcea (Aegyssus). Peuce 6, 2008, 297-304. Curta 2006: F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 (Cambridge 2006). Diaconu 1965: G. Diaconu, Tîrgșor. Necropola din secolele III-IV e. n. (București 1965). 1994: G. Diaconu, Morminte din secolul al V-lea e. n. de la Pietroasele. Musaios 4/1, 1994, 125-131. Dolinescu-Ferche 1992: S. Dolinescu-Ferche. Habitats des VIe et VIIe siècles de notre ère à Dulceanca IV. Dacia 36, 1992, 125-177. Duday 2009: H. Duday. The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology (Oxford 2009). Duday et al. 1990: H. Duday / P. Courtaud / É. Crubézy / P. Sellier / A.-M. Tillier, L’anthropologie »de terrain«: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 2/3, 1990, 29-49. 2014: H. Duday / F. Le Mort / J. Pearce / A.-M. Tillier, Archaeothanatology and Funeral Archaeology. Application to the Study of Primary Burials. Anthropologie 52/3, 2014, 235-246. Eger 2011: Ch. Eger, Kleidung und Grabausstattung barbarischer Eliten im 5. Jahrhundert. Gedanken zu Phillipp von Rummels »Habitus barbarus«. Germania 89/1-2, 2011, 215-230. 2015a: Ch. Eger, Habitus Militaris or Habitus Barbarus? Towards an Interpretation of Rich Male Grave of the Mid-5th Century in the Mediterranean. In: C. Ebanista / M. Rotili, Aristocrazie e società fra transizione romano-germanica. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 14-15 giugno 2012 (San Vitaliano 2015) 213-236. 2015b: Ch. Eger, Zur Deutung reich ausgestatteter Männergräber des mittleren 5. Jhs. im Mittelmeerraum. In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World. Romans, Barbarians and Military Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 1-2 October 2010 (Budapest 2015) 237-283. Fiedler 1992: U. Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau. Teil I. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 11 (Bonn 1992). Fischer / DiPaolo Loren 2003: G. Fischer / D. DiPaolo Loren, Embodying Identity in Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13/2, 2003, 225-230. Gândilă 2018: A. Gândilă, Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, C. 500-700. Coins, Artefacts, and History (Cambridge 2018). Gatev 2004: I. Gatev, Археологически разкопки на нос Чиракман край Каварна (античното Бизоне) през 2002 г. проучвания на късноантичен некропол от IV-VI век. Cтарина Минало 2, 2004, 9-13. 2011: I. Gatev, Rescue Excavations of Roman and Early Christian Cemetery in Kavarna (Ancient Bizone). In: Niš et Byzantium IX. Симпозиум, Ниш 3-5. јун 2010 (Niș 2011) 227-236. Găzdac et al. 2015: C. Găzdac / A. Alföldi-Găzdac / M. Neagoe / O. Neagoe, Drobeta. The Never Abandoned City of Roman Dacia (Cluj-Napoca 2015). Giostra 2011: C. Giostra, Goths and Lombards in Italy: The Potential of Archaeology with Respect to Ethnocultural Identification. Post-Classical Archaeologies 1, 2011, 7-36. Goldfus 1997: H. Goldfus, Tombs and Burials in Churches and Monasteries of Byzantine Palestine (324-628 A.D.) [unpubl. PhD thesis Univ. Princeton 1997]. Hakenbeck et al. 2017: S. E. Hakenbeck / J. Evans / H. Chapman / E. Fóthi, Practising Pastoralism in an Agricultural Environment: An Isotopic Analysis of the Impact of the Hunnic Incursions on Pannonian Populations. PloS One 12/3, 2017, e0173079. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173079. Hamparțumian 1971: N. Hamparțumian, Contribuţii la topografia cetăţii Histria în epoca romano-bizantină. Consideraţii generale asupra necropolei din sectorul Bazilicii »extra muros«. Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 22/2, 1971, 199-215. Harhoiu 1997: R. Harhoiu, Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien (Bukarest 1997). 2008: R. Harhoiu, Dunărea de Jos în epoca romană târzie și în epoca migrațiilor. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 4, 2008, 6197. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 281 Harhoiu / Spânu / Gáll 2011: R. Harhoiu / D. Spânu / E. Gáll, Barbari la Dunăre (Cluj-Napoca 2011). 2011: A. Madgearu, Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane, 275614 (Târgoviște 2011). Ionescu / Alexandru / Constantin 2002/2003: M. Ionescu / N. Alexandru / R. Constantin, Noi cercetări în necropola paleocreștină callatiană. Pontica 35/36, 2002/2003, 225-277. Mănucu Adameșteanu 1980: M. Mănucu Adameșteanu, Un mormânt germanic din necropola cetății Argamum. Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 31/2, 1980, 311-320. Ivanišević 2015: V. Ivanišević, The Danubian Limes of the Diocese of Dacia in the Fifth Century. In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World. Romans, Barbarians and Military Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 1-2 October 2010 (Budapest 2015) 653-665. Mare 1998: M. Mare, Rituri și ritualuri de înmormântare în Banatul românesc între sec. IV-IX. Analele Banatului 6, 1998, 285-306. Ivanišević / Bugarski 2017/2018: V. Ivanišević / I. Bugarski, Transformation of Burial Space in the Cities of Northern Illyricum during Late Antiquity. Antaeus 35/36, 2017/2018, 91-117. Ivanišević / Kazanski 2002: V. Ivanišević / M. Kazanski, La nécropole de l’époque des grandes migrations à Singidunum. Singidunum 3, 2002, 101-157. 2007: V. Ivanišević / M. Kazanski, Nouvelle nécropole des Grandes Migrations de Singidunum. Starinar 57, 2007, 113-135. Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006: V. Ivanišević / M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova, Lés nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des grandes migrations (Paris 2006). Jones 1997: S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in Past and Present (London 1997). Kazanski 1991: M. Kazanski, Les Goths (Ier-VIIe siècles après J.-C.) (Paris 1991). 2018: M. Kazanski, Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum. In: M. L. Nagy / K. L. Szőlősi (eds), »To Make a Fairy’s Whistle from a Briar Rose«. Studies Presented to Eszter Istvánovits on Her Sixtieth Birthday (Nyíregyháza 2018) 407-417. Kulikowski 2007: M. Kulikowski, Constantine and the Northern Barbarians. In: N. Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (Cambridge 2007) 347-376. 2017: M. Kulikowski, Barbaria, Barbaricum and the Location of the Barbarus. In: J. López Quiroga / M. Kazanski / V. Ivanišević (eds), Entangled Identities and Otherness in Late Antique and Early Medieval Europe. Historical, Archaeological and Bioarchaeological Approaches. BAR International Series 2852 (Oxford 2017) 26-29. Lăzărescu / Ciupercă / Anton 2015: V.-A. Lăzărescu / B. Ciupercă / A. Anton, The Post-Černjachovian Horizon in Wallachia Revisited. A Case Study for the Newly Discovered Site at Ciorani, Prahova County. In: S. Cociș / V.-A. Lăzărescu / M. Gui / D.-A. Deac (eds), Ad Finem Imperii Romani. Studies in Honour of Coriolan H. Opreanu (Cluj-Napoca 2015) 211-237. Lăzărescu / Radu / Ursuțiu 2016: V.-A. Lăzărescu / C. Radu / A. Ursuțiu, Preliminary Data Regarding the Newly Discovered 6th Century Necropolis at Nădlac, Arad County. Analele Banatului 24, 2016, 301-324. Liebeschuetz 2015: W. Liebeschuetz, East and West in Late Antiquity. Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion (Leiden, Boston 2015). Lungu / Chera-Mărgineanu 1982: V. Lungu / C. Chera-Mărgineanu, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea unei necropole creştine a Tomisului (I). Pontica 15, 1982, 175-199. Madgearu 1997: A. Madgearu, Continuitate și discontinuitate culturală la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VII-VIII (București 1997). 282 2011: M. Mare, II.3. Necropola din prima jumătate a secolului V p. Chr. In: M. Mare / D. Tănase / F. Drașovean / G. El Susi / S. S. Gál, Timișoara-Freidorf. Cercetările arheologice preventive din anul 2006 (Cluj-Napoca 2011) 28-29. Mastykova 2018: A. Mastykova, Female Costume from the Hun Age Grave in Vranja in the Roman Province of Pannonia II. In: M. L. Nagy / K. L. Szőlősi, »To Make a Fairy’s Whistle from a Briar Rose«. Studies Presented to Eszter Istvánovits on Her Sixtieth Birthday (Nyíregyháza 2018) 395-405. Miladinović 2006: N. Miladinović, Fizičko-antropološka analiza osteološkog materijala iz Germanskih grobova sa lokaliteta 85 u Sremskoj Mitrovici. Glasnik Srpskog Arheološkog društva / Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 22, 2006, 409-434. 2009: N. Miladinović, Лобања из саркофага пронађеногу североисточном делу Cремске Mитровице. Pад Mузеја Bојводине 51, 2009, 137-145. Mirchev / Toncheva / Dimitrov 1962: M. Mirchev / G. Toncheva / D. Dimitrov, Бизоне-Карвуна. Известия на Варненского Археологическо Дружество 13, 1962, 21-109. Miriţoiu / Soficaru 2001-2003: N. Miriţoiu / A. D. Soficaru, Osteobiographical Study of the Human Remains Discovered in the Crypt of Murighiol (Antique Halmyris) Basilica. Il Mar Nero 5, 2001-2003 (2007) 169-190. Mitrea / Preda 1966: B. Mitrea / C. Preda, Necropole din secolul al IV-lea e. n. în Muntenia (București 1966). Nock 1932: A. D. Nock, Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire. The Harvard Theological Review 25/4, 1932, 321-359. Oța 2013: L. Oța, Lumea funerară în Moesia Inferior (secolele I-III p. Chr.) (Brăila 2013). Paraschiv / Iacob / Rusu 2007: D. Paraschiv / M. Iacob / V. Rusu, 196. Tulcea, jud. Tulcea, Punct: str. Ciurel, nr. 1. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România – campania 2006 (București 2007) 383384. Périn / Kazanski 2011: P. Périn / M. Kazanski, Identity and Ethnicity during the Era of Migrations and Barbarian Kingdoms in the Light of Archaeology in Gaul. In: R. W. Mathisen / D. Shanzer (eds), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World. Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity (Farnham, Burlington 2011) 299-329. Petković 2007: S. Petković, Late Roman Necropolis of Romuliana, Area South of the Fortified Palace (Research 2005-2006). Starinar 57, 2007, 251-275. Petre 1987: A. Petre, La romanité en Scythie Mineure. Bulletin Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen 17/18, 1987, 6-171. Petrescu 2002: F. Petrescu, Repertoriul monumentelor arheologice de tip Sântana de Mureș-Cerneahov de pe teritoriul României (București 2002). A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region Pohl 2005: W. Pohl, Justinian and the Barbarian Kingdoms. In: M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge 2005) 448-476. 2019: N. Rusev, Погребални обреди в провинция Втора Мизия през късната античност (ІV-VІ в.) [unpubl. PhD thesis Univ. Veliko Tarnovo 2019]. Popilian / Bondoc 2012: G. Popilian / D. Bondoc, The Roman and Late Roman Cemetery of Sucidava-Celei. The Excavations from 1969-1983 (Craiova 2012). Rusu-Bolindeț / Bădescu / Lăzărescu / Dima 2014: V. Rusu-Bolindeț / A. Bădescu / V.-A. Lăzărescu / M. Dima, Recent Archaeological Research at the Basilica Extra Muros Sector in Histria. Pontica 47 Suppl. 3. Histria, histoire et archéologie en Mer Noire (Constanța 2014) 251-281. Pop-Lazić 2002: S. Pop-Lazić, Nekropole Rimskog Singidunum. Singidunum 3, 2002, 7-100. 2005: S. Pop-Lazić, Novi nalazi antičkih grobova u Singidunum. Singidunum 4, 2005, 125-136. Popović 2012: I. Popović, La nécropole de la basilique urbaine à Sirmium. Starinar 62, 2012, 113-135. Popović / Kazanski / Ivanišević 2017: I. Popović / M. Kazanski / V. Ivanišević, Sirmium à l’époque des grandes migrations (Paris 2017). Poulter 2004: A. Poulter, Cataclysm on the Lower Danube: The Destruction of a Complex Roman Landscape. In: N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change. Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot 2004) 223-253. 2007: A. Poulter, Invisible Goths within and beyond the Roman Empire. In: B. Salway / J. F. Drinkwater (eds), Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected. Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends, & Pupils. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Suppl. 91 (London 2007) 169-182. Preda 1980: C. Preda, Callatis. Necropola romano-bizantină (București 1980). Radu / Szeredai / Kelemen 2014: C. Radu / N. Szeredai / B. Kelemen, Bioanthropological Data for a Skeletal Sample Retrieved from the Extra Muros Necropolises of Histria. Pontica 47 Suppl. 3. Histria, histoire et archéologie en Mer Noire (Constanța 2014) 283-297. Rebay-Salisbury 2012: K. Rebay-Salisbury, Inhumation and Cremation: How Burial Practices Are Linked to Beliefs. In: M. L. Stig Sorensen / K. Rebay-Salisbury (eds), Embodied Knowledge. Perspectives on Belief and Technology (Oxford 2012) 15-26. Rebillard 2009: E. Rebillard, The Care of Dead in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, London 2009). Rousseau 2009: P. Rousseau (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity (Chichester 2009). Rubel / Soficaru 2012: A. Rubel / A. D. Soficaru, Infant Burials Roman Dobrudja. A Report of Work in Progress: The Case of Ibida (Slava Rusă). In: R. Kogălniceanu / R.-G. Curcă / M. Gligor / S. Stratton, Homines, Funera, Astra – Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Archaeology. BAR International Series 2410 (Oxford 2012) 163-168. von Rummel 2007: Ph. von Rummel, Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 55 (Berlin, New York 2007). 2010: Ph. von Rummel, Gotisch, barbarisch oder römisch? Methodologische Überlegungen zur ethnischen Interpretation von Kleidung. In: W. Pohl / M. Mehofer (eds), Archaeology of Identity – Archäologie der Identität. Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17 (Wien 2010) 51-77. Rusev 2012: N. Rusev, Burial Rituals in the Period of Late Antiquity in the Territory of the Province Second Moesia. In: L. Vagalinski / N. Sharankov / S. Torbatov (eds), The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st-6th C. AD) (Sofia 2012) 381-403. Shchukin / Kazanski / Sharov 2006: M. Shchukin / M. Kazanski / O. Sharov, Des Goths aux Huns: Le Nord de la Mer Noire au BasEmpire et à l’époque des Grandes Migrations. BAR International Series 1535 (Oxford 2006). Simalcsik / Stăicuț 2018: A. Simalcsik / G. Stăicuț, Necropola 2 de la Pietroasele. Date arheologice și paleoantropologice. Mousaios 22, 2018, 213-272. Sofaer 2019: J. Sofaer, What Does It Mean to Move? (Trans)Formation, (Re)Articulation, (Re)Construction, or Resistance: Female Identity in Response to Mobility. In: Death, Mobility and Migration from Prehistory to the Middle Ages. International Symposium of Funerary Archaeology, October 13th-16th 2019, »1 Decembrie 1918« University of Alba Iulia [unpubl. presentation 2019]. Soficaru 2009: A. D. Soficaru, Un studiu de bioarheologie asupra necropolei romano-bizantine de la Callatis. Pontica 42, 2009, 561-583. 2011: A. D. Soficaru, Populaţia provinciei Scythia în perioada romano-bizantină (Iași 2011). Soficaru / Radu / Tica 2019: A. D. Soficaru / C. Radu / C. I. Tica, A Mass Grave Outside the Walls: The Commingled Assemblage from Ibida. In: C. I. Tica / D. Martin (eds), The Bioarchaeology of Frontiers and Borderlands (Gainesville 2019) 187-211. Șovan 2009: L. Șovan, Necropola de tip Sântana de Mureș-Černjachov de la Mihălășeni (jud. Botoșani) (Târgoviște 2009). Stanev 2012: A. Stanev, Елементи на германския фибулен костюм на юг от Дунав. По археологически данни от балканските провинции на Източната Римска империя V-VI ве (Sofia 2012). 2014: A. Stanev, Observations on the Barbarian Presence in the Province of Moesia Secunda in Late Anitquity. Studia Academica Šumenensia 1, 2014, 65-86. Suceveanu 2007: A. Suceveanu, La basilique épiscopale. Histria 13 (București 2007). Suceveanu / Scorpan 1971: A. Suceveanu / C. Scorpan, Stratigrafia Histriei romane târzii în lumina cercetărilor din 1969 și 1970 în sectorul central. Pontica 4, 1971, 155-172. G. Tabakova-Tsanova, Късноантичен некропол в местността Стражата край гр. Плевен. Известия на Hационалния Исторически Музей 3, 1981, 102-184. Tănase 2002/2003: D. Tănase, Două morminte din secolele IV-V p. Chr., descoperite la Dudeștii Vechi (jud. Timiș). Analele Banatului 10/11, 2002/2003, 233-244. Teodorescu / Lichiardopol / Peneș 1993: V. Teodorescu / D. Lichiardopol / M. Peneș, Necropola daco-romană din sec. IV-V e. n. de la Boldești-Grădiștea, jud. Prahova. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 17, 1993, 419-434. Toropu 1981: O. Toropu, Noi descoperiri arheologice la SucidavaCelei. Arhivele Olteniei 1, 1981, 67-76. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 283 Toropu / Tătulea 1987: O. Toropu / C. Tătulea, Sucidava-Celei (București 1987). Trohani / Zorzoliu 1983: G. Trohani / T. Zorzoliu, O necropoă de sec. Al IV-lea e. n. descoperită la Drăgănești-Olt. Cercetări Arheologice 6, 1983, 209-223. Tudor 1953: D. Tudor, Sucidava IV. Campania a șaptea (1946) și a opta (1947) de săpături și cercetări arheologice în cetățuia dela Celei, reg. Craiova, raionul Corabia. Materiale arheologice privind istoria veche a RPR. Vol. 1 (București 1953) 693-742. Zahariade 2003: M. Zahariade, The Halmyris Episcopal Basilica and the Martyrs’ Crypt. Il Mar Nero 5, 2003, 143-168. Zusammenfassung / Summary / Résumé Regionale Muster der Bestattungssitten im unteren Donauraum im 4.-6. Jahrhundert Im 4.-6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. war die Donau eine durchlässige Grenze. Umfangreiche Wanderungsbewegungen von Stammesvölkern in das Römische Reich fanden im Süden statt, während die Römer im Norden Enklaven hatten, die hauptsächlich für militärische Kampagnen genutzt wurden. Trotzdem wird seit Langem beobachtet, dass sich die archäologischen Funde und Befunde auf beiden Seiten des Flusses deutlich unterscheiden, und die weitgehende Abwesenheit von Zeugnissen für »Stammessignaturen« südlich der Donau blieb ein Rätsel. Basierend auf der Analyse von 1780 Gräbern von beiden Seiten der römischen Grenze untersucht dieser Aufsatz die Bandbreite und Variabilität der Bestattungssitten beiderseits dieser Grenze, um zu verstehen, ob und wie sich die Bestattungstraditionen gegenseitig beeinflussten. Unsere Daten zeigen, dass die Bestattungspraktiken wohl in vielen Fällen komplexer und vielschichtiger waren als bisher angenommen. Darüber hinaus könnten gemeinsame Elemente zwischen Römern und »Barbaren« eine Veränderung der bestehenden Traditionen erleichtert haben, und die Bestattungssitten stellten sich oft als eine Mischung von Merkmalen nördlich und südlich der Donau dar. An einigen Orten wurden Elemente der »barbarischen« Sitten relativ stark beibehalten, doch das Ausmaß der Vermischung von Traditionen zeigt lokale Variationen in Form und Ausprägung. Statt davon auszugehen, dass eine »barbarische Signatur« an den Fundorten im Römischen Reich fehlt, zeigt eine vergleichende Analyse der Daten von beiden Seiten der Donau Flexibilität, Komplexität und Variabilität. Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region in the 4th-6th Centuries In the 4th-6th centuries AD, the River Danube was a permeable border. Large-scale movement of tribal peoples into the Roman Empire to the south occurred, while the Romans had enclaves to the north used primarily for military campaigns. Nonetheless, it has long been observed that there are significant differences in the nature of the archaeological record on either side of the river and the relative absence of evidence for tribal »signatures« south of the Danube has been an enigma. Based on the analysis of 1780 graves from both sides of the Roman border, this paper explores the range and variability of mortuary practices on both sides of the frontier, in order to understand whether interaction took place in mortuary traditions and the nature of that interaction. Our data indicate that in many instances mortuary practices may have been more complex and multi-dimensional than hitherto understood. Furthermore, shared elements of practice between Romans and »Barbarians« may have facilitated modification of the existing traditions, and burial practice often played out as a mixture of characteristics from north and south of the Danube. The retention of elements of Barbarian practice was relatively strong at some sites, but the extent to which a mixing of traditions took place reveals local variation in the form and degree of expression. Rather than suggesting that a Barbarian signature is missing from sites in the Roman Empire, a comparative analysis of data from both sides of the Danube reveals flexibility, complexity and variability. Les formes régionales de coutumes funéraires dans le Bas-Danube du 4e au 6e siècle Le fleuve du Danube était une frontière poreuse du 4e au 6e siècle ap. J.-C. Des mouvements de tribus vers le sud se déroulèrent à grande échelle dans l’empire romain, tandis que les Romains, eux, disposaient d’enclaves vers le nord tout d’abord pour mener des campagnes militaires. On a néanmoins observé des différences significatives dans la nature des traces archéologiques des deux côtés du fleuve et l’absence relative d’indices de »signatures« tribales au sud du Danube était une énigme. Basé sur l’analyse de 1780 tombes des deux côtés de la frontière romaine, cet article examine l’éventail et la variabilité des coutumes funéraires des deux côtés de la frontière pour déceler d’éventuelles interactions au sein des traditions funéraires et déterminer la nature de ces interactions. Nos données indiquent que dans bien des cas les coutumes funéraires auraient été plus complexes et multidimensionnelles que l’on ne le croyait jusqu’ici. En outre, certains éléments partagés par les Romains et les »barbares« auraient facilité l’évolution de traditions existantes, les rites funéraires se déroulant alors souvent comme un mélange de caractéristiques du nord et du sud du Danube. Certains sites ont conservé relativement longtemps des éléments de pratique barbare, mais l’ampleur 284 A. D. Soficaru · J. Sofaer · Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region du mélange des traditions révèle une variation locale de la forme et du degré d’expression. L’analyse comparative des données des deux côtés du Danube révèle plutôt de la flexibilité, complexité et variabilité que l’absence de signature Traduction: Y. Gautier barbare dans les sites de l’empire romain. Schlüsselwörter / Keywords / Mots clés Untere Donau / Spätantike / Barbaren / Bestattungssitten / multivariate Korrespondenzanalyse Lower Danube / Late Antiquity / Barbarians / mortuary practice / multivariate correspondence analysis Bas-Danube / Antiquité tardive / barbares / coutumes funéraires / analyse des correspondances multiples Andrei D. Soficaru Joanna Sofaer University of Southampton Faculty of Arts and Humanities / Department of Archaeology Building 65a, Avenue Campus Highfield UK - SO17 1BF [email protected] [email protected] Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51 · 2021 285 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS Ümit Güder, Turan Takaoğlu, Abdulkadir Özdemir, Middle Chalcolithic Copper Tools from Gülpınar in North-Western Anatolia – an Archaeometric Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Christian Harb, Niels Bleicher, Sonja Guber, Erwin Hildbrand, Nikita Kobert, Zürich-Parkhaus Opéra / CH: Erster direkter Nachweis für eine neolithische Bienenbehausung . . 171 Bruno Chaume, Norbert Nieszery, Walter Reinhard, Das Bleigewicht aus dem Hofareal der Fürstin von Vix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Uwe Sperling, Ülle Tamla, Frank Trommer, Jüri Vassiljev, Mart Viljus, Ein bronzener Brillenspiralanhänger von der Insel Aegna (Estland). Überlegungen zur Herkunft, Herstellung und zur Insel als Deponierungsort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Ronald Bockius, Ein punischer Holzsarkophag (?) im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum . . . . . . 221 Werner Eck, Michael A. Speidel, Kein judäischer Vermessungsingenieur in Köln. Zum Senklot eines militärischen mensor / librator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Ulrike Ehmig, Rudolf Haensch, Die erste bildliche Darstellung eines römischen Warenetiketts . . . . . 245 Stefan F. Pfahl, Ein römisches Silberplatten-Viertel mit griechischen Inschriften aus dem Raum Ternopil / UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Andrei D. Soficaru, Joanna Sofaer, Regional Patterns in Mortuary Practice in the Lower Danube Region in the 4th-6th Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Nikolaj Makarov, Anna Krasnikova, Irina Zaytseva, Maria Dobrovolskaja, New Evidence on the Late Viking-Age Burial Rituals in the Volga-Oka Region: Excavations at Shekshovo / RU . . 287 ISSN 0342-734X NEUERSCHEINUNGEN Bendeguz Tobias Frühmittelalterliche Gräber mit Beigaben von Werkzeugen zur Metallverarbeitung Monographien des RGZM, Band 153 2 Teile 770 S., 62 Abb., 314 Taf. ISBN 978-3-88467-330-0 € 129,– Die Sitte, Werkzeuge zur Metallbearbeitung einem Verstorbenen mit ins Grab zu geben, ist bereits seit der Kupferzeit bekannt und in Europa, Asien und Afrika weitverbreitet. Der vorliegende Band versucht, diese Praktik nachzuzeichnen und dabei die geistige Kultur der jeweiligen Epoche mitzuberücksichtigen. Das Bild der archäologischen Hinterlassenschaft wird durch schriftliche und bildliche Quellen vervollständigt. So wird letztendlich versucht, den Beweggründen nachzuspüren, warum man über einen sehr langen Zeitraum, von der Kupferzeit bis zum Mittelalter, in Gräbern immer wieder Geräte zur Metallbearbeitung deponiert hat. Die Arbeit gibt einen Überblick von der Kupferzeit bis ins Mittelalter zu allen Gräbern, in denen Schmiedewerkzeuge gefunden wurden. Einige ausgewählte Beispiele aus dem frühen Mittelalter werden in Einzelstudien eingehender behandelt. Allen voran soll hier das Schmiedegrab von Kunszentmárton in Ungarn erwähnt werden, das am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum restauriert und chemisch untersucht wurde. Diese gezielte Analyse etwa der Pressblechmodel und der byzantinischen Gewichte erbrachte neue Erkenntnisse zur chemischen Zusammensetzung und Verwendung dieser Werkzeuge. Giacomo Bardelli · Raimon Graells i Fabregat (eds) Ancient Weapons New Research Perspectives on Weapons and Warfare Proceedings of the International Conference – Mainz, September 20th-21st 2019 RGZM – Tagungen, Band 44 222 S., 120 meist farb. Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-343-0 € 45,– Ergonomic design, the finest selection of materials, and high-developed technological background: pre-, protohistoric and classical weapons have always been some of the most appreciated items by warfare specialists all over the world. Modern archaeology goes beyond the interest in the exterior appearance of ancient weapons and considers the single objects as starting points to explore new research avenues. Far from being objects for amateurs and collectors, ancient weapons become protagonists in historical and scientific reconstructions, with a huge potential as sources of knowledge. The papers collected in this volume are dedicated to different case studies, focusing on the archaeological and cultural contexts of ancient weapons, their practical and symbolic use, and the complexity of their technological features. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 9124-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: [email protected] · Internet: www.rgzm.de