Critical Remarks on the Sucidava Class Archaeologia Bulgarica ХХV, 3 (2021), 57-118 Florin CURTA Abstract: The recent revival in scholarly interest in buckles of the early Byzantine period has included the group first called “the Sucidava class” by Joachim Werner. Several important studies have been dedicated to finds from the Balkans, the last and most relevant of which being Lyuba Traykova’s dissertation. However, there has been no attempt to look at all finds from Eastern Europe, an approach meant to clarify problems of chronology and distribution. This paper deals with both buckles and belt mounts grouped in 11 lists on the basis of their open-work decoration. Its conclusions are in fact at variance to those of other scholars. There are two clusters of finds, one in the northeastern region of the Balkan Peninsula (now divided between Bulgaria and Romania), the other in the Crimea. All types are present in the former region, but some are conspicuously absent from the latter. The large numbers of miscasts in the northeastern region of the Balkans suggests a center of production. While only a few specimens have been found immediately to the north from the Danube frontier of the early Byzantine Empire, a great number of specimens are known from much farther afield. Particularly significant is the spread in the Middle Danube region, where buckles of the Sucidava class signaled military status when deposited in graves. Since there is no chronological distinction between the many types of the Sucidava class, the spread coincided in time with the popularity of those buckles in the Balkans during the second half of the 6th century. Key words: Sucidava class, buckles, belt mounts, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, chronology, casting. 1 As the work was published posthumously, it bears all the marks of an unfinished manuscript. Petre did not describe in detail any of his types, but merely illustrated them with finds from Piatra Frecăței. There is no typology properly speaking, and no chronology in his monograph. Nonetheless, I have adopted his terminology, because it is based on the idea of types being part of a class (Sucidava). There has recently been a great deal of scholarly interest in buckles of the early Byzantine period (Tsivikis 2012; Гавритухин 2016; 2019; Хайрединова 2019; Костромичев 2019; Мастыкова 2020). Among them, those that the German archaeologist Joachim Werner (19091994) attributed to his Sucidava class (Werner 1955, 39) are especially important for the archaeology of the last century of Roman power in the Balkans. They were also the first buckles to introduce a new fastening system, which would become common in the following centuries. To Werner’s buckles decorated with a cross in open work, the Hungarian archaeologist Dezső Csallány (1903-1977) added the buckles with a decoration in the form of a human face (“mask”) (Csallány 1962). Despite the ever-growing number of finds, there was no further, special, and separate discussion of the Sucidava class for the next two decades. In his monograph of the large cemetery excavated at Piatra Frecăței, on the right bank of the Măcin Branch of the Danube, in northern Dobrudja, the Romanian archaeologist Aurelian Petre (19251982) first noted the great variety of types inside the Sucidava class, and attempted to tackle it by means of a refined typology that would go beyond a mere separation of cross- from mask-decorated buckles (Petre 1987)1. A few years later, another Romanian archaeologist, Dan Gh. Teodor (b. 1933) first dealt with the Sucidava class as one of the most important varieties of early Byzantine buckles (Teodor 1991b). By that time, interest in those buckles had quickly spread to Germany (Uenze 1992, 184-186) and Slovakia (Varsik 1992). Meanwhile, the 58 FLoRIN CURTA corpus of finds continued to grow at an accelerated pace. Nowhere, was that more conspicuous than in Bulgaria and North Macedonia (Хараламбиева 1993; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995). More than two decades after Csallány’s path-breaking article, the Romanian historian Alexandru Madgearu (b. 1964) published the first study in which the emphasis was primarily on the basic elements of the open-work decoration – the cross, the crescent, and the human face (“mask”) (Madgearu 1998, 218). By the beginning of the 21st century, the number of finds has increased steadily and sufficiently for a new typology and synthesis of research. Instead of tackling the typological variability that bothered Aurelian Petre, the German archaeologist Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm (b. 1944) preferred to return to Werner and Csallány’s two basic types of the Sucidava class, one with a cross-, the other with a mask-ornament (now rebaptized D1 and D2, respectively) (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 146-155). The list of finds and the distribution maps in her book (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 150, fig. 54, 154, fig. 58) include only a few of the very large number of buckles and belt mounts discovered in Bulgaria. This soon prompted the publication of the first works of synthesis, which attempted to put the whole material in order and employed distribution maps for each type (Даскалов / Трендафилова 2005; Даскалов 2012). The situation in Bulgaria even influenced the interpretation of finds outside the Balkan Peninsula (Гавритухин 2009). However, the real game-changer in the last few years has been the dissertation of the young Bulgarian archaeologist Lyuba Traykova (Трайкова 2017b). Both the large number of finds and the high-resolution typology, which employed both technological and ornamental criteria, make this dissertation the most important work on the Sucidava class (in addition to many other classes of buckles and belt mounts). Traykova drew heavily on comparisons with specimens found both inside and outside the Balkans, but hers is no synthesis at the scale of the whole of Eastern Europe. Moreover, despite the abundant literature published in recent years on the Sucidava class, a number of misconceptions and outright errors of interpretation are still lingering on. In this paper, I will attempt to use that scale (the whole of Eastern Europe) in order to make a number of critical remarks regarding the conclusions of the most important studies and to correct the persistent misconceptions. List 1 (figs. 1-3) Buckles with cross (Sucidava-Solin [Petre]=Ia [Madgearu]=B III.1 [Daskalov]=C VIb1 [Traykova]) 1. Asparukhovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.7; Даскалов 2012, 64, 228, fig. 58/1. 2. Borniş (Neamţ county, Romania); found in house 25, together with handmade pottery and a cast, bronze fibula; bronze; Popovici 1988, 249-250, 250, fig. 1/2. 3. Capidava, in Dunăreni (Constanţa county, Romania); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Covacef 1995-1996, 98, 101, pl. III/2, 114, pl. IX/3. 4. Constanţa (=Tomis, Romania); bronze; Teodor 1991b, 136, 119, fig. 1/4. 5. Čučer (near Skopje, North Macedonia); bronze; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 265, 266, pl. V/3. 6. Gamzigrad (near Zaječar, Serbia); Даскалов 2012, 64, 228, fig. 58/2. 7. Gyenesdiás (Zala county, Hungary); found on the ilium of the male skeleton in grave 64, together with a saber, three-edged arrow heads with open-work ornament, bone reinforcement plates for the bow, 2 stirrups with elongated attachment CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS Fig. 1. Buckles decorated with cross (Sucidava-Solin type). Numbers refer to List 1 Fig. 2. Buckles decorated with cross (Sucidava-Solin type). Numbers refer to List 1 59 Fig. 3. Buckles and belt mounts decorated with cross (Sucidava-Solin type). Numbers refer to List 1 tab, a gold earring with glass pendant, a golden finger-ring, and a solidus struck for Emperor Constans II in Constantinople between 654 and 659; bronze; L=5.4; Müller 1989, 147, 148, fig. 6/1. 8. Khărlec, near Vraca (=Augustae, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress on the Kaleto site; bronze; L=5.5; Даскалов 2012, 64, 231, fig. 61/13. 9. Liaskovec (near Kărdzhali, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Kaleto site; bronze; L=4.4; Даскалов / Думанов 2003, 194, 196, fig. 3/1. 10. Malăk Preslavec (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.7; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 413, pl. 51/445. 11. Moštica (near Delčevo, North Macedonia); bronze; Mikulčić 2002, 217, fig. 111/2. 12. Montana (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.4; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 413, pl. 51/441. 13. Orşova (Romania); Csallány 1962, 57, 67, pl. IV/5. 14. Petina (near Kruševac, Serbia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the site Gradište; Тошић / Рашковић 2009, 186 with fig. 5/1. 15. Piatra Frecăţei (Constanţa county, Romania); found in grave B45, together with another buckle of the II B Beroe type, and two belt mounts (one of the SucidavaBeroe I B type, the other of the Sucidava-Beroe V type), a purse mount with circleand-dot ornament, and 2 bone dice; Petre 1987, 69-70, pl. 126, fig. 200e. 16. Prahovo (near Negotin, Serbia); bronze; Janković 1981, 213-214, pl. XVII/1. 17. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 37-38, pl. II/7. 18. Ruino (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017a, 483, pl. I/4. 19. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Sadovsko kale; L=4.3; Uenze 1992, 474, pl. 12/6. 20. Solin, near Split (=Salona, Croatia); Vinski 1967, 38, pl. XXX/1. 21. Shumen (Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.45; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 412, pl. 50/436. 22. Slaveikovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.25; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 414 pl. 52/453. 23. Stara Zagora (=Beroe, Bulgaria); found on the floor of the building with mosaic pavement discovered on the Stoletov Street; bronze; L=4.7; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 414, pl. 52/452. 24. Stari Kostolac (near Požarevac, Serbia); found at the waist of the male skeleton (over 45 years of age) in grave 114; bronze; L=3.9; Ivanišević et al. 2006, 166, 169, pl. 14/T 114.2. 25-26. Sveti Atanas, in Biala (near Varna, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=3.65, 60 FLoRIN CURTA 3.6; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 255, 412, pl. 50/435, 419, pl. 57/520. 27. Svishtov, near Veliko Tărnovo (=Novae, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.3; Димитров et al. 1964, 229, 227, fig. 15/2. 28. Szőreg (Csongrád county, Hungary); found with a male skeleton in grave 103, together with an arrow head, a flint steel, and fragments of a sword; Csallány 1961, 165, pl. CLXXX/4. 29. Unknown location (near Omurtag, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.4; Хрисимов 2006, 224-225, 241 fig. 6; Трайкова 2017b, 250 (where L=5.6), 413, pl. 51/448. 30. Unknown location (near Razgrad, Bulgaria); bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 38, pl. II/4. 31-35. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 5 specimens, bronze; L=4.6, 3.65, 4.5, 4.3, 4.4; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 412 pl. 50/449, 450, 413 pl. 51/442, 444, 414, pl. 52/450. 32. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.65; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 413, pl. 51/444. 33. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.5; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 412, pl. 50/449. 34. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.3; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 412, pl. 50/450. 35. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.4; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 414, pl. 52/458. 36. Varna (Bulgaria); bronze; L=5.1; Трайкова 2017b, 249, 412, pl. 50/437. 37. Venchan (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.05; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 414, pl. 52/454. 38. Vetren (near Pazardzhik, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.3; Трайкова 2017b, 250, 414, pl. 52/451. Belt mounts decorated with cross (Sucidava-Solin [Petre]=Ia [Madgearu]=B III.1 [Daskalov]=B IIb2 [Traykova]) 39. Čreška (near Štip, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fort at the Hisar site; bronze; Mikulčić 2002, 384, fig. 287/1. 40. Preslav (near Shumen, Bulgaria); found in the administrative building on the southern side of the palatial compound inside the Inner Town; bronze, fragment; Станилов 1995, 166, 169, fig. 1/7. 41. Sveti Atanas, in Biala (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=3; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 485, pl. 122/1432. 42. Zemen (near Pernik, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 228, fig. 58/14. According to Alexandru Madgearu, the evolution of the Sucidava class begins with specimens with an open-work cross ornament on the chape (Madgearu 1998, 219). If so, the Sucidava-Solin type (first called so by Petre 1987, 70) should be the earliest of the entire class. In reality, the buckle of the Sucidava-Solin type found in Gyenesdiás is the most recent specimen of the class2. That much results from its association in grave 64 with a solidus struck for Emperor Constans II in Constantinople between 654 and 659 (Müller 1989; for the coin, see Somogyi 1997, 43). Moreover, there are no traces of wear on the buckle, which was the main component of a 14-piece belt set with elaborate decoration (Müller 1989, 148, fig. 6). In other words, the buckle must have been fully operational at the time of the burial. one has therefore to admit that buckles of the Sucidava-Solin type were still in use, if only sporadically, inside the Carpathian Basin, in the mid-7th century or by the end of the second third of that century. Moreover, the Gyenesdiás specimen may well be of local production, as it has a number of unique features: an oval loop with thickened middle part; an open-work, trefoiled ornament instead of the regular cross; and a very large, terminal knob on the chape3. Although a few other specimens have oval loops (for example, Svishtov, fig. 2/27), in no other case is the middle part of 2 Pace Riemer 2000, 152, who believes that the most recent specimen is that found in grave 55 of the cemetery excavated in Jánoshida. The specimen from Abony (List 9, 1) was found in an even later assemblage dated to the Late Avar age (8th century), but it is not at all clear whether the buckle was still functional. 3 Except finds from Constanța (List 1, 4) and Szőreg (List 1, 28), all other specimens (both buckles and mounts) of the Sucidava-Solin type have a knob at the end of the chape. For none is that feature as exaggerated as for the specimen found in Gyenesdiás. CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 61 Fig. 4. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with cross (Sucidava-Solin type). Small circles mark single specimens, the larger one is for 3 specimens. Numbers refer to List 1 Nothing could be said in that respect about a specimen from Madara mentioned by Даскалов 2012, 64 as of the Sucidava-Solin type, but without illustration. The same is true for a belt mount from Nadarevo, for which see Даскалов 2012, 64. 5 The two coins were most likely in a purse together with bone dice and fragments of flint stone. The closing mount of the purse, which was made of bone, is a relatively common artifact for late 6th- and early 7th -century assemblages (Diaconu 1991). 6 To be sure, grave 103 has also been robbed. In addition to the remains of a male skeleton, two more skulls have been found in the grave pit, one of a man, the other of a woman. There were also horse bones in that pit, but it remains unclear whether those were from the grave 103 or, perhaps, from some other robbed burial (Cseh et al. 2005, 133). 4 the loop thickened as in the case of the Gyenesdiás buckle. Similarly, while the cross on several other specimens (such as Stara Zagora, Svishtov, Vetren, and unknown locations in Bulgaria, figs. 2/29, 3/34) has rounded ends, in no other case was the upper arm separated from the rest of the cross, to form a separate hole4. Similarly, the open-work ornament on the four belt mounts included in List 1 has no parallel on any of the corresponding buckles. Particularly interesting is the cross fourchy on the belt mount from Zemen (fig. 3/42). The broken, lower arm of the cross on one of the buckles from unknown locations in Bulgaria (fig. 3/35) may have been an (unsuccessful) attempt to reproduce that motif. Similarly, the barely recognizable cross on the chape of the buckle from Petina (fig.1/14) is the only analogy for the rather poor job of cutting the cross on the belt mount from Sveti Atanas (fig. 3/41). The latter is one of three specimens of the Sucidava-Solin class found on that site, the largest representation of the type anywhere in the Balkans. No other buckle of the Sucidava-Solin has been found in an assemblage as clearly dated as that of grave 64 in Gyenesdiás. The specimen from Piatra Frecăței (List 1, 15) was found together with coins. one of them is a 4th-century issue, while the other is too badly preserved to be legible and identifiable (Petre 1987, 70)5. However, the buckle of the Sucidava-Solin type was one of two buckles found between the knees of the poorly preserved skeleton of an adult in grave B45 (Petre 1987, 69-70). The other buckle may be classified as of the II B Beroe type, and has a good analogy in Sveti Atanas, which was found together with two gold coins struck for emperors Justinian and Maurice (see below). This suggests that the Sucidava-Solin type may be equally dated to the late 6th and early 7th century. This is further substantiated by the topographic analysis of grave 103 in Szőreg, in which another specimen of the Sucidava-Solin type has been found. The grave is located on the eastern edge of the cemetery, flanked by a horse burial to the southeast (grave 116) and a robbed female burial 62 FLoRIN CURTA to the west (grave 100; see Cseh et al. 2005, 133-134, 122 fig. 2)6. As horse burials appear in the southern parts of the Great Hungarian Plain during the second half of the 6th century, it is likely that grave 103 may be dated to that same time – one of the last burials in the Szőreg cemetery. Its peripheral position within the cemetery is certainly not in contradiction with that dating hypothesis (Kiss 2019a, 382)7. Grave 103 was a male burial, and most other buckles of the Sucidava-Solin type from burial assemblages have been found with male, not female skeletons (contra: Schulze-Dörlamm 2002, 149). In at least two cases (Gyenesdiás and Stari Kostolac), the position of the buckle in relation to the body strongly suggests that it was functional, and not an heirloom kept in a purse. The Sucidava-Solin type was in use during the last decades of Roman power in the Balkans. Ten specimens are in fact said to have been found on hillfort sites, being associated with the last phase of occupation (List 1, 3, 8, 9, 14, 19, 25, 26, 39, 14). There is a clear cluster of finds in the northeastern region of Bulgaria and in the Dobrudja (fig. 4). This may well have been the area in which the Sucidava-Solin type was invented and from which buckles of that type spread to other parts of the Balkans. It is important to note, however, that what may have “spread” was the idea, not the buckles themselves. Despite claims to the contrary (Werner 1955, 39; Teodor 1991b, 125), there is no evidence of standardized, mass production in the imperial workshops. In fact, the buckles of the Sucidava-Solin type may have been produced by means of such low-cost technologies as casting in simple, one-part moulds made of clay. Although no traces of production have so far been found, it is perhaps significant in this respect that there is no pair of identical specimens. Even at a cursory examination, it becomes readily evident that every buckle is different from the others in minute details; it must therefore have been cast separately. This is also true for the three specimens found outside the Balkan provinces of the Empire – Borniş, Szőreg, and Gyenesdiás (List 1, 2, 7, 28; fig. 1/2, 7; fig. 2/28). To be sure, the Borniş buckle, the most decorated specimen of the series, is in some respects similar to a buckle from an unknown location in Bulgaria (List 1, 35; fig. 3/35). However, its execution is much more careful and its ornamentation more detailed – 16 concentric circles (2 on the loop, 3 next to the tongue, and 11 on the chape). Likewise, the specimen found in grave 103 in Szőreg is similar in some respects to the buckle found in Gamzigrad (List 1, 6; fig. 1/6). The chape of each one of them, for example, has three circles with dots, one of which is underneath the lower arm of the cross. However, on the chape of the Szőreg buckle two circles with dots are placed on either side of the upper arm of the cross, while on the Gamzigrad buckle they are on either side of the lower arm of the cross. This “mirror image” suggests a process of imitation in which the concern was to keep the “general concept” of the ornamentation, and not pay much attention to details8. Such a casual attitude towards the details of the ornamentation is a strong argument against the idea of a mass production. List 2 (figs. 5-14) Buckles with crescent and cross (Sucidava-Beroe I B [Petre]=Ib and d [Madgearu]=D1 [SchulzeDörrlamm]=B III.2 [Daskalov]=C VIb3 [Traykova]) There is another, 7th-century cemetery in Szőreg, on the same site, but its graves have a different (north-south) orientation. Grave 103 most certainly does not belong to that cemetery. 8 There are five concentric circles on the chape of the Malăk Preslavec buckle (fig.1/10), and only one of them is placed as on the chapes of the Szőreg and Gamzigrad specimens, namely that underneath the lower arm of the cross. 7 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 63 Fig. 5. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 Fig. 6. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 Fig. 7. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 Fig. 8. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 Fig. 9. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 Fig. 10. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 1. Alba Iulia (Romania); Teodor 2003, 245, 249, fig. 1/2. 2-3. Archar, near Vidin (=Ratiaria, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=5.2; Филов 1914, 285, fig. 261; Csallány 1962, 56, 63, pl. III/8. 4. Bălgarevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 418, pl. 56/506. 5. Bela Voda, in Pernik (Bulgaria); Любенова 1995, 12-14, 12, fig. 11в. 6. Belgrade (Serbia); bronze; Varsik 1992, 90, 99, pl. I/1. 7. Botevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Khach borun; bronze; L=4.7; Трайкова 2017b, 257, 422, pl. 60/549. 8. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found on the last vertebra of one of the two skeletons in grave 113, together with a “Slavic” bow fibula of Werner’s class I H; Bârzu 64 Fig. 11. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 12. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 2010, 201, 297, pl. 19/G113.2. 9-10. Caričin Grad (near Lebane, Serbia); 2 specimens, one of which was found in the southwestern residential quarter of the Lower Town; bronze; L=5; Дероко / Радојчић 1950, 131, 137, fig. 35; Ivanišević 2010, 768, 769, fig. 18/9. 11-12. Celei, in Corabia, Olt county (=Sucidava, Romania); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment, found inside the early Byzantine fortress; L=4; Tudor 1937-1940, 371, 372, fig. 8b-c. 13. Čezava (near Negotin, Serbia); specimen found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Васић 1982-1983, 113, 119, 118, fig. 22/10. 14-15. Cherencha (near Shumen, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=5.1, 4.5; Трайкова 2017b, 252, 255, 415 pl. 53/475, 419, pl. 57/525. 16. Chiren (near Vraca, Bulgaria); fragment; Даскалов 2012, 65, 231, fig. 61/9. 17. Cristuru Secuiesc (Covasna county, Romania); gilded bronze; found in grave 1, together with a lance head and a shield boss; L=4.7; Benkő 1992, 173, pl. 16/12. 18. Dăneşti (Vaslui county, Romania); fragment; Teodor 2003, 245, 250, fig. 2/7. 19. Dolánky (near Podbořany, Ústí nad Labem region, Czech Republic); found inside the early medieval hillfort at Rubín; bronze; Profantová 2013, 180, 182, fig. 3/2, 3. 20. Doničko Brdo, in Gradac (near Kragujevac, Serbia); found in grave 9, together with another, oval buckle and 3 belt mounts; bronze; Петровић 1962-1963, 288, 288 fig. 39/1. 21-26. Dragoevo (near Shumen, Bulgaria); 6 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=4.15, 4.55; Трайкова 2017b, 251-252, 258, 414 pl. 52/460, 463, 415 pl. 53/474, 416, pl. 54/477, 418, pl. 56/503, 423, pl. 61/562. 27. Drenkovo (near Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.4; Даскалов 2012, 64, 229, fig. 59/6. 28. Drinovo (near Popovo, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 417, pl. 55/499. 29. Gamzigrad (near Zaječar, Serbia); Živić 2009, 204, fig. 18. 30. Gorna Koznica (near Kiustendil, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.7; Трайкова 2017b, 256, 420, pl. 58/536. 31. Grad Stalać (near Kruševac, Serbia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Ukosa site; Рашковић 2016, 291, 299, pl. III/3. 32. Gradsko (=Stobi; North Macedonia); bronze, fragment; Vinski 1967, 38, pl. XXX/11. 33. Gutinaş, in Ştefan cel Mare (Bacău county, Romania); fragment found in the filling of house 17, together with wheel- and handmade pottery; Mitrea 2015, 62, 17, Fig. 13. Buckles decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 65 fig. 49/1. 34. Hódmezővásárhely (Csongrád county, Hungary); found at the waist of the 55year old male in grave 65 of the cemetery excavated at the Kishomok site, together with a double-sided comb and a harpoon; L=5; Bóna / Nagy 2002, 61-62, 349h, pl. 75/8. 35. Istanbul (=Constantinople, Turkey); Vinski 1967, 37, pl. XXIII/8. 36. Izvoarele (Constanţa county, Romania); stray find; bronze, fragment; Culică 1969, 365, 366, fig. 3/2. 37. Izvor (near Pernik, Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2007, 382, 388, fig. 1/5. 38. Jánoshida (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county, Hungary); found on the ilium of the skeleton in grave 55 of the cemetery excavated at the Tótkérpuszta site, together with glass beads and an iron bracelet; Erdélyi 1958, 15, pl. XVIII/1. 39. Jelica (near Čačak, Serbia); found in the main room of building o V in the early Byzantine fortress on the Gradina site, together with a double-sided comb, a fragmentary cast fibula with bent stem, and a bronze ring; bronze; L=4.6; Милинковић 2010, 76-86, pl. XII/3. 40. Khărlec, near Vraca (=Augusta, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress on the Kaleto site; bronze, fragment; Даскалов 2012, 65, 231 fig. 61/6. 41. Kiten (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.7; Трайкова 2017b, 256, 420, pl. 58/535. 42. Kiustendil (Bulgaria); found inside the basilica 1; bronze; L=3.95; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 417, pl. 55/496. 43. Klárafalva, in Deszk (Csongrád county, Hungary); fragment, found in grave 25 of cemetery G, together with another buckle and a stirrup; Csallány 1962, 56, 61, pl. II/7. 44. Knin (Croatia); found on the right ilium of a female skeleton in grave 95; bronze; Vinski 1989, 26, 64, pl. XV/5. 45. Kölked (county Baranya, Hungary); found between the vertebrae of the skeleton in grave 57 of cemetery A, together with a knife and a ring; Kiss 1996, p. 32, pl. 112/1, pl. 28.A57/1. 46. Komunari (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 254, 418, pl. 56/505. 47. Livno (near Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina); found in a grave of the cemetery excavated around the Church of St. Ives; bronze; L=3.9; Petrinec et al. 1999, 84, fig. 210. 48. Lozarevo (near Karnobat, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Gradishteto site; bronze; L=3.8; Момчилов 2013, 407, 412, 415, fig. 1/3. 49. Luchyste, near Alushta (Bakhchesarai district, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the right ilium of skeleton 3 in the burial chamber 64, together with a shoe buckle, shoe strap ends and mounts; Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 93, 270, pl. 122/1. 50. Madara (near Shumen, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 39, pl. III/12. 51. Marten (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found in grave 49; bronze; L=4.65; Трайкова 2017b, 258, 423, pl. 61/569. 52. Marten (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found in grave 293; bronze L=4.65; Трайкова 2017b, 257, 422, pl. 60/555. 53. Mihaljevići (near Rajlovac, Sarajevo district, Bosnia-Hercegovina); found on the ilium of a male skeleton in grave 76; bronze; L=4.2; Miletić 1956, 17-18, pls. I/1 and VIII/4. 54. Mogila (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.6; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 419, pl. 57/524. 55-56. Mošute, in Dubci (near Aleksandrovac, Serbia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Gradac site; 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; Тошић / Рашковић 2009, 186, fig. 5/3, 4. 57-58. Nesebăr (=Mesembria, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; Даскалов 2007, 93 fig. 3; Даскалов 2012, 66, 230, fig. 60/19. 59. Nikiup, near Veliko Tărnovo (=Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria); fragment; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 420, pl. 58/529. 60. Noşlac (Alba county, Romania); found in grave 10, together with a bronze ring; bronze; Rusu 1962, 269-270, 279, 272, fig. 2/35. 61. Nova Cherna (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.6; Трайкова 2017a, 483, 66 FLoRIN CURTA pl. I/5. 62. Novakovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 257, 422, pl. 60/548. 63. Novo Selo (near Vidin, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.65; Трайкова 2017b, 252, 416, pl. 54/482. 64. Odărci (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Dymaczewski 1979, 222-224, 223, fig. 3/4. 65. Olympia (Ilis, Peloponnesus, Greece); Völling 1992, 495, 494, fig. 4. 66. Orşova (Romania); Csallány 1962, 57, 67, pl. IV/7. 67. Pecica (Arad county, Romania); fragment; bronze; Csallány 1961, 143-144, pl. 213/13. 68-69. Pernik (Bulgaria); 2 specimens found inside the early Byzantine fortress; Любенова 1981, 125, 177, fig. 119/3, 4. 70. Peshtera (Bulgaria); found on the town’s outskirts; bronze; L=5; Трайкова 2017b, 257-58, 423, pl. 61/559. 71. Pet Mogili (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 257, 422, pl. 60/553. 72. Petina (near Kruševac, Serbia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the site Gradište; Тошић / Рашковић 2009, 186, fig. 5/2. 73. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); stray find on the territory of the early Byzantine cemetery; bronze; Petre 1987, 69, pl. 124, fig. 196. 74. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found between the knees of the skeleton in grave B92; Petre 1987, 69, pl. 125, fig. 199b. 75. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave B100; Petre 1987, 68-69, pl. 124, fig. 197. 76. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave C62, together with a belt mount of the Sucidava-Beroe V type and a double-sided comb; Petre 1962, 228, 224, fig. 11. 77. Plovdiv (=Philippopolis, Bulgaria); found in grave 6 of the eastern cemetery, together with two other buckles; bronze; Bospachieva 1998, 152, 153, fig. 6C. 78. Poliacite (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Kaleto site; bronze; L=4.5; Даскалов 2012, 64, 229 fig. 59/7 (where the location of the find is Dălgopol); Трайкова 2017b, 251, 414, pl. 52/462. 79-81. Razgrad (=Abritus, Bulgaria); 3 specimens found inside the early Byzantine town, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=4.95; Csallány 1962, 56, 67 pl. IV/4; Трайкова 2017b, 251, 257, 414 pl. 52/461, 422, pl. 60/556. 82-85. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); 4 specimens found inside the early Byzantine fortress; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 38, pl. II/8, 10, 11; Трайкова 2017b, 256, 420, pl. 58/534. 86-88. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); 3 specimens (one fragment) found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Golemannovo kale; bronze; L=4.2, 4.8; Uenze 1992, 442, 479, pl. 12/2, 5, 7. 89. Sevastopil’ (=Chersonesus, Crimea, Ukraine); Гавритухин 2002, 228, fig. 4/1. 90. Shumen (Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=5; Антонова 1986, 52, pl. I/14. 91. Skakavica (near Kiustendil, Bulgaria); bronze; L=5.05; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 420, pl. 58/530. 92. Skalyste (near Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found among the remains of skeleton # 1 in the burial chamber 107, together with two strap ends with open-work ornament, a fragment of a quiver hanger, as well as glass and amber beads; L=4.2; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 12-13, 12, fig. 5/9. 93. Slava Rusă (=Ibida, Tulcea county, Romania); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; opaiţ 1990, 47, 48, fig. 19/42. 94. Slokoshtica (near Kyustendil, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Werner 1955, 45, pl. 8/11. 95-96. Smolian (Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=4.85; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 258, 417 pl. 55/491, 421, pl. 61/564. 97-98. Sofia (=Serdica, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=5.9; Даскалов 2012, 65, 230 fig. 61/2, 3; Трайкова 2017b, 257 (where L=6.05), 421, pl. 59/546. 99-100. Stărmen (near Ruse, Bulgaria); 2 specimens found inside the early CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 67 Byzantine fortress at the Gradishteto site, one of them is a fragment; bronze; L=4.5; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 255, 417, pl. 55/490, 419, pl. 526. 101. Strazhata (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found on the ilum of the skeleton in grave 18 of the cemetery excavated on the Kailăka site; bronze, fragment; ТабаковаЦанова 1981, 104, 144, fig. 8/30. 102. Suuk Su, near Hurzuf (Yalta district, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of the male skeleton in grave 153, together with another buckle with rectangular chape and open-work ornament, a silver bracelet, and a flint steel; bronze; Репников 1907, 116-117, pl. XV/5. 103. Szentes (Csongrád county, Hungary); found next to the right hip of the male skeleton in grave 29 of the cemetery excavated at the Nagyhegy site, together with a cast belt mount with open-work decoration; bronze; Csallány 1961, 50-51, pl. XXV/13. 104. Szőreg (Csongrád county, Hungary); found in grave XI, together with a S-shaped fibula and a gilded bronze coin; bronze; L=4.3; Tömörkény 1904, 192. 105. Taor (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Ristov 2015, 363-364, 379-385, 384, fig. 25 (lower right corner). 106-122. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 17 specimens, three of which are fragments; bronze; L=5.1, 5, 4.5, 4.6, 4.55, 4.35, 4.65, 4.95, 4.7; Трайкова 2017b, 251, 252, 253, 255-58; 415 pl. 53/471, 416, pl. 54/478, 479, 481, 484, 417, pl. 55/488, 489, 497, 418, pl. 56/504, 511, 419, pl. 57/522, 420, fig. 58/527, 531, 533, 423, pl. 61/558, 561, 565. 123. Unknown location (Greece); bronze; L=5.7; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 146, fig. 109. 124-125. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=5, 3.6; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 38, pl. II/13, 14. 126. Unknown location (northern Bulgaria, near the Danube); bronze; L=4.4; Трайкова 2017b, 252, 416, pl. 54/485. 127-128. Unknown location (region of Kotel, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; Даскалов 2009, 90, 91, fig. 1/3, 4. 129. Unknown location (region of Kiustendil, Bulgaria); L=4.53; Спасов 2001, 46, 49, pl. II/13. 130. Unknown location (region of Novi Pazar, Bulgaria); bronze; L=5; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 38, pl. II/15. 131-135. Unknown location (region of Pernik, Bulgaria); 5 specimens; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2007, 381-82, 388, fig. 1/1-4 (where the location of the find is Zemen, with L=4.6, 5, 4.5, 4.2); Даскалов 2012, 230, fig. 60/6-10. 136-137. Unknown location (region of Plovdiv, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is an untrimmed cast; bronze; L=4.75, 4.05; Даскалов 2012, 65, 117, 229, fig. 59/17, 258, fig. 88/2. 138-143. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 6 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; Гатев 1997, 366, pl. II/10; Даскалов 2012, 231, fig. 61/5; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 257, 420, fig. 58/528, 422, pl. 60/550, 552, 554. 144. Unknown location (region of Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.95; Трайкова 2017b, 251, 415, pl. 53/470. 145. Unknown location (the Iron Gates region, Banat, Romania); bronze; L=4; Tănase / Mare 2001, 187-193, 204, pl. VI/4. 146. Vardim (near Ruse, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 254, 418, pl. 56/509. 147-148. Varna (=Odessos, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, both fragments; bronze; L=4.5; Csallány 1962, 56, 63 pl. III/4; Трайкова 2017b, 251, 415, pl. 53/468. 149. Velyka Ternivka (near Iakymivka, Zaporizhzhia region, Ukraine); found on the last vertebra of the skeleton in grave 1 (under barrow 22); bronze; L=5.3; Комар et al. 2006, 338, 340, 341, 339, fig. 42/3. 150. Velykyi Tokmak, in Tokmak (Zaporizhzhia region, Ukraine); found on the ilium of the skeleton of a teenager in grave 1 (under barrow 1), together with 3 belt mounts with open-work ornament and a handmade pot with vertically combed ornament; Смирнов 1960, 177, 175, fig. 128/1. 151-152. Vetren (near Silistra, Bulgaria); 2 specimens (both fragments) found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Vetren site; bronze; Атанасов / Йорданов 68 FLoRIN CURTA 1994, 54, 98, pl. II/9, 11. 153. Vidin (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.5; Трайкова 2017b, 257, 422, pl. 60/557. 154-155. Vodno (near Skopje, North Macedonia); 2 fragments found inside the early Byzantine fortress in Markovi kuli; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 267, pl. V/4, 5. 156. Vukovo (near Dupnica, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Werner 1955, 45, pl. 8/10; Даскалов 2012, 64, 229, fig. 59/8 (where the location of the find is Eliseina). Belt mounts with crescent and cross (Sucidava-Beroe I B [Petre]= B III.2 [Daskalov]=B IIb3 [Traykova]) 157. Alekovo (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.45; Трайкова 2017b, 258, 424, pl. 62/572. 158. Asparukhovo (nerar Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.5; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 485, pl. 122/1437. 159. Bitola (=Heraclea Lynkestis, North Macedonia); Werner 1989-1990, 275, 276, fig. 1/8; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 268, pl. VI/7 (where the find location is given as Vodno). 160. Cherni vărkh (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 253, 417, pl. 55/500. 161. Hradyz’ke (district of Hlobyne, Kremenchuk region, Ukraine); Левченко 2001, 27, fig. 1/12. 162. Iskra (near Părvomai, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 485, pl. 122/1434. 163. Khats’ky (Cherkasy region, Ukraine); found in a hoard of 106 bronze and silver argitfacts, together with silver bracelets, pseudo-buckles, and a belt buckle of the II B Beroe type; bronze; Parczewski 1991, 119-120, 116, fig. 1/7, pl. II/5. 164. Kölked (county Baranya, Hungary); found in grave 38 of cemetery A, together with scissors, a comb, and a buckle with a cross on the tongue; Kiss 1996, 28, pl. 25/A38.3, pl. 109/6. 165. Louloudies (near Pydna, in Kitros, Pieria, Greece); found in a grave; Μαρκή 1997, 293, 296, fig. 5. 166. Luchyste (district of Alushta, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of skeleton # 4 in the burial chamber 77, together with 9 other belt mounts with open-work ornament and 4 silver strap ends; silver; Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 122, 339, pl. 191/16. 167. Nikopol (region of Dnipropetrovs’ke, Ukraine); bronze: L=2.3; SchulzeDörrlamm 2009, 265, fig. 578. 168. Okorsh (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze; L=1.85; Трайкова 2017b, 318, 484, pl. 121/1417. 169. Orşova (Romania); Csallány 1962, 57, 67 pl. IV/8 (where it is interpreted as the chape of a buckle); Teodor 2003, 245, 249, fig. 1/6. 170. Petropavlovo (district of Mozhga, Udmurtia, Russia); found on the territory of the biritual cemetery; silver model; Семенов 1967, 164, 170, pl. II/25. 171. Piatra Frecăţei (Constanţa county, Romania); found in grave B45, together with 2 buckles (one of the Sucidava-Solin type and another of the II B Beroe type), another belt mount of the Sucidava-Beroe V, a purse mount with circle-and-dot ornament, and 2 bone dice; Petre 1987, 69-70, pl. 126, fig. 200g. 172. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort at Golemannovo kale; bronze; L=3.4; Uenze 1992, pl. 131/6; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 485, pl. 122/1438 (where the location of the find is the Shumen region, with L=3.55). 173. Slava Rusă (Tulcea district, Romania); L=2.7; opaiţ 1990, 47, 46, fig. 18/55. 174. Stărmen (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found on the territory of the early Byzantine fortress at Gradishteto; bronze; L=3.7; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 419, pl. 57/526. 175. Svishtov, near Veliko Tărnovo (=Novae, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 231, fig. 61/4. 176. Tiszafüred (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county, Hungary); found on the left hip of the skeleton in grave 988 of the cemetery excavated at the Majoros site, together with two earrings with star-shaped pendant, melon seed-shaped beads, a circular pendant with open-work ornament, and a knife; Garam 1995, 117, pl. 138/988.3. 177-181. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 5 specimens; bronze; L=2.55, 2.3, 3.5, 3.65, 2.9; Трайкова 2017b, 256, 318-319, 421, pl. 59/540, 483, pl. 120/1413, 484, pl. Fig. 14. Buckles and belt mounts decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 69 121/1414, 485, pl. 122/1435, 1439. 182. Unknown location (near Kiustendil, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 65, 231, fig. 61/12. 183-185. Unknown location (Shumen region, Bulgaria); 3 specimens; bronze; L=1. 85, 1.95, 2.7; Трайкова 2017b, 318, 484, pl. 121/1415, 1416, 485, pl. 122/1438. 186. Unknown location (the Iron Gates region, Banat, Romania); Tănase / Mare 2001, 187-193, 204, pl. VI/5. 187. Varni (district of Debesy, Udmurtia, Russia); found above the ilium of the female skeleton in grave 88, together with glass beads, 2 earrings with bead pendants, an arrow head, and belt mounts with open-work ornament; Семенов 1980, 71, 8687, 118, pl. XII/18. 188. Vodno (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Markovi kuli; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 268 pl. VI/7; Лилчиќ 1996, 78, 75, fig. (upper left corner) (where the location of the find is Belica). Fig. 15. Belt mounts decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Numbers refer to List 2 By contrast, Даскалов 2012, 39 blames Teodor 1991b and Varsik 1992 for extending the name “Sucidava” to all types. 10 It is important to note that more often than not, damage appears on the upper and not on the lower slots, e.g., Alba Iulia (List 2, 1) and Bratei (List 2, 8). 11 Some belt mounts were fastened in the same way as the buckle chapes, e.g., the mounts from Bitola (List 2, 159; Werner 1989-1990, 276 fig. 1/8), Kölked (List 2, 164; Kiss 1996, pl. 109/6), Sadovec (List 2, 172; Трайкова 2017b, 485, pl. 122/1438), Tiszafüred (List 2, 176; Garam 1995, pl. 138/988.3), Vodno (List 2, 188; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 268 pl. VI/7), and an uknown location in Bulgaria (List 2, 181; Трайкова 2017b, 485, pl. 122/1439). 9 Although prompting the German archaeologist Joachim Werner to call the entire class “Sucidava” (Werner 1955, 39), the buckles discovered during excavations in Sucidava (now Celei, in Corabia, Romania) were not the first finds of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type (socalled by Petre 1987, 67) to be published. In other words, if at stake was to highlight the earliest finds that got published, Werner could have used other potentially eponymous sites, such as Szőreg or Archar (Tőmőrkény 1904; Филов 1914)9. His concern, however, was different: according to him, this was the first class of a new kind of Byzantine buckles. Unlike those of the 4th or 5th century, the Sucidava(-Beroe I B) buckles were fastened by means of three slots on the backside, which would pass through buttonholes in the belt and would then be attached with pins. Although all buckles of the Sucidava class are fastened in the same way, Werner used specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type to show that the innovation was meant to allow detaching the buckle from the belt in order to clean both more easily (Werner 1989-1990, 591 with # 13; see also Werner 1988, 301). The three slots on the backside are always placed two on either side of the upper arm of the cross and another underneath the crescent of the open-work ornament (Дероко / Радојчић 1950, 131, 137, fig. 35). The pins going through the two slots next to the upper arm of the cross served for fastening the end of the belt, while the pin at the end of the chape, underneath the crescent, secured the position of the buckle on and along the belt. All buckles published with drawings of front- and backside show that arrangement10. In some cases, while the slots by the upper arm of the cross are placed vertically, that underneath the crescent has a horizontal position. This placed the lower pin at a right angle to the upper pins and fastened the buckle to the belt even tighter. Such a specific arrangement results from drawings published for the buckles from Alba Iulia (List 2, 1; Teodor 2003, 249 fig. 1/2), Bratei (List 2, 8; Bârzu 2010, 297, pl. 19/G113.2), Dolánky (List 2, 19; Profantová 2013, 180, 182 fig. 3/2), and from unknown locations in northeastern Bulgaria (List 2, 124 and 125; Трайкова 2017b, 420, fig. 58/27; Хараламбиева 1993, 38, pl. II/13) and Greece (List 2.123; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 146, fig. 109)11. Dezső Csallány believed that the cross-and-crescent ornament derived from the mask motif of the Sucidava-Beroe V type (Csallány 1962, 60). However, the two ornamental patterns seem to have been independent of each other, although they most likely coexisted. The 70 FLoRIN CURTA combination of cross and crescent is easily recognizable on all specimens of the type, even when the cross arms are rounded, as in Botevo (fig. 5/7), Caričin Grad (fig. 5/9), Gutinaş (fig. 7/33), or Skalyste (fig. 10/92)12. on some specimens, the cross and the crescent merge, e.g., Mihaljevići (fig. 8/53), Pernik (fig. 9/68), Chersonesus (fig. 10/89), and Piatra Frecăței (fig. 16/171). on others, the cross is broken: Alekovo (fig. 14/157), Dragoevo (fig. 6/26), Poliacite (fig. 9/78), Smolian (fig. 10/96), and unknown locations in Bulgaria (fig. 13/109, 111) and the region of Shumen (fig. 13/140-141). Such variation may be explained as the result of miscasts, which indirectly points to a local production of such artifacts13. A more direct evidence of local production is the mould cast with visible burr from an unknown location in the region of Plovdiv (fig. 13/137). In spite of claims to the contrary (Csallány 1962, 60; Varsik 1993, 208-209), the Sucidava-Beroe I B type did not originate in Constantinople; it was most likely the creation of the population in the many military sites in the Balkans. A great number of specimens are in fact specifically said to have been found within early Byzantine forts14. Some of those fortified sites have been only surveyed or simply identified in the landscape (Botevo, Grad Stalać, Mošute, Novakovo, Petina, Poliacite, Riakhovo). Many more have been systematically excavated (Celei: Tudor 1965; Čezava: Vasić 1990; Jelica: Милинковић 2010; Khărlec: Машов 1990; Lozarevo: Дражева 2002; Madara: Антонова 1992; odărci: Doncheva-Petkova / Torbatov; Pernik: Любенова 1981; Razgrad: Radoslavova 2011; Sadovec: Uenze 1992; Shumen: Антонова 1987; Slava Rusă: opaiţ 1990; Stărmen: Kurnatowska / Mamzer 2007; Taor: Ristov 2015; Vetren: Атанасов / Йорданов 1994; Vodno: Микулчиќ / Нилуљска 1978). In one of those forts, a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type was found together with a fragment of a cast fibula with bent stem in the same room of a house (Милинковић 2010, 76-86, 84, fig. 73, 243, pl. 286, pl. XII/3). Given that cast fibulae with bent stem, another category of dress accessories most typical for military sites in the Balkans, may be dated to the last three decades of the 6th century (Curta / Gândilă 2011), one may advance the idea that the buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B found in Jelica was of the same date. The buckle from Luchyste was found with one of four skeletons on the floor of the burial chamber 64. on the skeleton’s feet were two buckles, two strap ends, and six mounts, all of which served for tying and ornamenting leather shoes (Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 92-94, 271, pl. 123/1-8, 10). on the basis of analogies from different other burial chambers in Luchyste or on other sites in southwestern Crimea, Elzara Khairedinova has dated the shoe fastening set from burial chamber 64 to the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century (Хайрединова 2003, 129, 135-36, 141, fig. 1, 142, fig. 2). That is most likely the date of the associated belt buckle as well.15 Such a suggestion would not contradict the evidence from outside the Balkan provinces of the Empire. In grave 113 of the cemetery excavated in Bratei, a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type (List 2, 8) was found together with a “Slavic” bow fibula of Werner’s type I H, dated between the late 6th and the first half of the 7th century (Curta 2004, 70). To the same date points the association of another buckle of the same type with a stirrup in grave 25 of the cemetery G excavated in Klárafalva (List 2, 43). Although no illustration of the stirrup has About a quarter of all specimens of the type (both buckles and belt mounts) have crosses with rounded arms. on three specimens (Riakhovo, fig. 10/83; Sadovec, fig. 10/86; and Skalyste, fig. 10/90), only two arms are rounded. Several others, such as Kölked (fig. 7/44), orşova (fig. 14/163), Piatra Frecăței (fig. 9/73), and Stărmen (fig. 15/167), have crosses with only the lower arm rounded. on Dragoevo (fig. 6/22), the cross with rounded arms is flattened to the point that it does not look like a cross any more. A very interesting variation is that of Vardim (fig. 13/144) with a cross fourchy. 13 Bad design and execution (cut of the clay mould), and not casting can explain the asymmetry on Riakhovo (fig. 10/82). Simplification led to the diminishing number of cross arms, as on the specimens from Dolánky (fig. 6/19), Dragoevo (fig. 6/21), Iskra (fig. 14/162), Istanbul (fig. 7/35), Louloudies (fig. 14/165), Luchyste (figs. 8/49, 15/166), Nikopol (fig. 15/167), okorsh (fig. 15/168), Petropavlovo (fig. 15/170), Razgrad (fig. 11/80), Slava Rusă (fig. 15/173), Suuk Su (fig. 12/102), Svishtov (fig. 15/174), Varni (fig. 15/187), and an unknown location in Bulgaria (fig. 15/178, 179, 183-185). on the other hand, the specimens found in Kölked (fig. 7/45), Marten (fig. 8/51), and Velyka Ternivka (fig. 14/149) are visibly repaired, as they all have iron tongues. Since all three specimens come from burial assemblages, the repair may have been done for the occasion. 14 Many more have been published without illustrations, which prevents the exact classification or the verification of another author’s classification: Arkovna, Asparukhovo, and Barutin (Даскалов 2012, 64), Gigen (Varsik 1992, 90), Kamen briag (Varsik 1992, 91; Даскалов 2012, 65), Kovalevsko kale, Malăk Preslavec, Nadarevo, Samokov, and Silistra (Даскалов 2012, 65), Sliven (Varsik 1992, 91), Stara Zagora, Topola, Veliko Tărnovo, Venchan, and Znamenosec (Даскалов 2012, 65), unknown locations in the region of Vidin (Даскалов 2012, 64) and Trăn (Даскалов 2012, 65). 15 The same may be true for the belt mount with crescent found with skeleton 4 on the floor of chamber 77 in Luchyste (List 9, 26). This was part of a belt with multiple straps, which included also mounts of Somogyi’s types A5 and A7 (Aibabin / Khairedinova 2000, 75, fig. 8/18, 24-28). 12 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 16 This is in direct contradiction to Csanád Bálint’s recent claims, according to which the Avars had no need of Byzantine-type buckles, such as those of the Sucidava class, although they could have acquired them from the lands across the Carpathians (Bálint 2019, 67). 17 This is in direct contradiction with Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 149, who claims that, unlike the situation inside the Empire, in the Carpathian Basin buckles of the Sucidava class were found in female graves. True, the skeleton in grave 76 in Mihaljevići is that of a male, but the buckle from grave 95 in Knin was found with a female skeleton. Leaving aside the question of whether presentday Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia were part of the Empire in the 6th century, it is nonetheless important to note that outside the Balkans, wherever skeletons have been properly sexed, buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type were found with males (Hődmezővásárhely, grave 65; Szentes, grave 29; Suuk Su, grave 153). Pace Uenze 1992, 186, the belt mount in grave 29 of the cemetery excavated at Szentes-Nagyhegy is not a specimen of the Sucidava class. 71 been published to allow for a proper identification, the earliest stirrups cannot be dated in the Carpathian Basin before ca. 570 (Curta 2008). A date within the 7th century may be advanced for the assemblage in grave 88 in Varni on the basis of the associated earrings, which are typical for the third phase of the Polom culture in the region of the Upper Kama (Семенов 1980, 107, pl. I/15, 19; Голдина 2012c, 401). The same date applies, of course, to the buckle and the mount found in that assemblage. To Syna Uenze, the earliest specimen of the entire Sucidava class was that found in Szőreg in association with a S-shaped fibula (List 2, 104; Uenze 1992, 186). At a close examination, that fibula appears to be a specimen of the Schwechat-Pallersdorf(-Bezenye) type which has been dated to the middle third of the 6th century (Brather-Walter 2010, 67 and 73 fig. 6; for the date, see also Tejral 1990, 246; Tejral 2002, 344; Milavec 2007, 337, Tejral 2008, 68; Tejral 2012, 56). If such chronological indications are to be taken into consideration, then the SucidavaBeroe I B type must have been in use primarily during the second half of the 6th century. Whether or not the type was still fashionable during the 7th century remains an open question, given the absence of any finds from the Balkans that could be dated that late. Elsewhere, outside the Empire, buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type were most clearly still in use after 600. How to explain the presence of a belt mount of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type in a Late Avar burial assemblage in Tiszafüred, which is dated to the 8th century on the basis of the associated earrings with star-shaped pendants and of the melon-seed glass beads? In my opinion, the Tiszafüred was a precious heirloom, and had been so for quite some time before being deposited in the grave. The numerous finds in the Carpathian Basin (Hungary and Transylvania) raise the question of how buckles of the SucidavaBeroe I B type could reach that far outside the Balkan provinces of the Empire (fig. 16). It is important to note that such buckles appear both in assemblages dated only to the 6th century (and attributed to the Gepids) and in those that must be dated to the Early Avar age, ca. 570 to ca. 630 (for the absolute chronology of the Avar age, see Stadler 2008, 59, table 1). If the chronology of the type may be restricted to the second half of the 6th century, then assemblages with buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type coincided in time. In other words, when it comes to access to such buckles, the events of 568 and the Avar conquest of the Carpathian Basin do not seem to have had any influence whatsoever16. Moreover, in those cases where skeletons were properly sexed and aged, buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type were typically found with men, not women17. Moreover, there was a harpoon next to the right shoulder of the man buried in grave 65 of the cemetery excavated in Hódmezővásárhely. Harpoons appear only occasionally in pre-Avar assemblages of the Carpathian Basin (Bóna / Nagy 2002, 111), but are more common in Early Avar assemblages (Gulyás / Lőrinczy 2018, 103). They have been traditionally interpreted as fishing tools, but others have suggested that they may have served as hunting weapons (Husár 2016, 108). Whatever the exact function(s) of the artifacts in question, their deposition in exclusively male burials has not been sufficiently explored. The position of the Hódmezővásárhely harpoon in relation to the body strongly suggests that the man was buried in grave 65 with his right arm embracing the pole of the weapon. This arrange- 72 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 16. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with cross and crescent (Sucidava-Beroe I B type). Small circles mark single specimens, larger ones for 2, 3, and 4 specimens, respectively. The star indicates more than 4 specimens. Numbers refer to List 2 ment is strikingly similar to that in grave 96 of the same cemetery, in which a lance head was found next to the right shoulder of the male skeleton. Despite the poor state of preservation in which that skeleton was found, it is likely that the right arm (of which only a bone fragment survives) was placed on top of the lance pole. In addition, remains of a helmet were found next to the right shoulder (Bóna / Nagy 2002, 73, 72, fig. 36/96). The military symbolism of this arrangement needs no further explanation. Another harpoon was discovered in grave 57 of the cemetery excavated at the Jaksor site in Szentes, again with a male skeleton. The harpoon was by the right forearm, not shoulder, because the latter position was occupied by a lance, the head of which was found next to the skull. Unfortunately, no grave plan has been published, but from the written information it appears that, in addition to the lance head and to the harpoon, there was also a sword on the left side of the body (Csallány 1961, 33). The association between buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type and weapons is also illustrated by the assem- CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 18 If one is to trust the published information, and if that is not the result of some confusion, there are actually two buckles of the Sucidava class found in Cristuru Secuiesc. one is that from the grave accidentally found in the Liberty Square, the other a stray find from the environs of the Molnár István Museum. Since no illustration of the latter has been published, it is not possible to classify it more precisely (Baltag 2000, 155). 19 Grave 153 is in fact a burial chamber with three skeletons found on the floor – two females and one male. Unlike the female skeletons, the male was buried with the arms slightly bent, and hands on the pelvic region. This implies that the two buckles were covered by the forearms. 20 The two assemblages with buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type from the steppe region of present-day Ukraine (Velyka Ternivka and Velyky Tokmak) directly contradict Ковалевская 1979, 45, who claimed that all buckles of the Sucidava class known from the territory of the former USSR have been found in the Crimea. The Velyky Tokmak buckle, at least, had long been published by the time Vera Kovalevskaia made such claims (Смирнов 1960). 73 blage in the grave found in Cristuru Secuiesc, which included a lance head and a shield boss (Nyárádi 2010-2011, 333)18. Such an association suggests that those belt buckles were acquired inside the Empire by men (warriors), who had served for a while in the imperial army. They were buried with accoutrements reminding survivors of their martial skills. Alternative explanations, such as commercial exchanges or the mobility of persons of Byzantine origin, would have to account for this peculiar feature of burial assemblages with belt buckles of the Sucidava class that have been found outside the Balkan provinces of the Empire (Werner 1989-1990, 591 with # 12; Varsik 1992, 79). By contrast, a good number of burial assemblages in the Balkans with belt buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type have no other grave goods at all (the grave in Louloudies, grave 95 in Knin, Livno, graves 49 and 293 in Marten, grave 51 in Mihaljevići, graves B92 and B100 in Piatra Frecăței, and grave 99 in Strazhata). In a few other cases, the specimen of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type was one of several buckles in the assemblage. outside the Balkan provinces of the Empire or the Crimea, there are only isolated parallels to such practices of buckle deposition. Grave 42 in Klárafalva produced two buckles, which suggests the existence of two separate belts. Such a conclusion may also apply to three burials from territories that were inside Empire in the 6th century – grave 9 in Doničko brdo, grave 6 in Plovdiv, and grave 153 in Suuk Su. only for the latter is the exact position of the buckles known – one on the right, the other on the left ilium of the male skeleton (Репников 1907, 117)19. If those were separate belts, they conspicuously lacked any ornamental mounts. Similarly, no mounts, and no other grave goods have been found in grave 1 excavated under one of the mounds in Velyka Ternivka, a situation perfectly matching the deposition practices in the Balkan provinces of the Balkans (Комар et al. 2006, 338)20. In three cases (grave 161 in Kölked, grave C62 in Piatra Frecăței, and grave 29 in Szentes), a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type was found together with one, single belt mount. The position of those artifacts in relation to the body is known in only two cases. In Szentes, the buckle was next to the right hip, while the belt mount was next to the other, left hip (Csallány 1961, 50-51). An even more relevant example is that in grave C62 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței. The buckle, which still had fragments of leather attached to its chape, was by the right shinbone, to the inside, while the mount was found by the skull (Petre 1987, pl. 122 bis fig. 189c). This suggests that both artifacts were detached from the belt and thrown into the grave, after the deposition of the body. The exact meaning of such actions remains unknown, but it may be worth exploring farther the symbolism of buckles detached from belts and thrown into pits. This applies to specimens found in the filling of sunken-floored buildings, as in Gutinaş, where another buckle was retrieved from the house floor (Mitrea 2015, 60-62). This may well be another form of marking abandoned houses with artifacts intentionally left behind, a practice advanced as an explanation for the presence of single “Slavic” bow fibulae in settlement assemblages (Curta 2012, 288). List 3 (figs. 17-19) Buckles with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (Sucidava-Kranj [Petre]=1e [Madgearu]=B III.3 [Daskalov]=C VIb5 [Traykova]) 74 Fig. 17. Buckles decorated with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (SucidavaKranj type). Numbers refer to List 3 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 18. Buckles decorated with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (SucidavaKranj type). Numbers refer to List 3 1. Adamclisi, Constanţa county (=Tropaeum Traiani, Romania); found inside the early Byzantine town; Bogdan-Cătăniciu / Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1975, 61, fig. 3a. 2. Akandzhievo (near Pazardzhik, Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.55; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 424, pl. 62/589. 3. Archar near Vidin (=Ratiaria, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 259, 425, pl. 63/582. 4. Arkovna (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 424, pl. 62/590. 5. Celei, in Corabia, Olt county (=Sucidava, Romania); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; L=5.2; Tudor 1937-1940, 371, 372, fig. 8a. 6. Chernomorec (near Burgas, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Akra on the Sv. Nikola Peninsula; bronze; L=4.95; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 424, pl. 62/599. 7. Istria, Constanţa county (=Histria, Romania); found on the ilium of the skeleton in grave 8; bronze; L=5.1; specimen with rounded cross; Pippidi et al. 1961, 257, 260, fig. 25b. 8. Karataš near Negotin (=Diana, Serbia); bronze; L=5.3; Špehar 2010, 55, 188, pl. II/48. 9. Kranj (Slovenia); bronze; Werner 1955, 45, pl. 8/6. 10. Marten (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found in an inhumation grave; bronze; L=5; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 424, pl. 62/594. 11. Mokranjske stene (near Negotin, Serbia); bronze, fragment; Сретеновић 1984, 223-224, 233, fig. 216/5. 12. Nikiup near Veliko Tărnovo (=Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria); specimen found on the southern side of the early Byzantine fortress, near the gate; bronze; L=4.75; Poulter 1988, 79, 84, fig. 11/17. 13. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found between the knees of the skeleton in grave D23; Petre 1987, 67, pl. 122, fig. 188c. 14. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); bronze; L=5; Трайкова 2017b, 259, 424, pl. 62/579. 15. Rusalka (near Kavarna, Bulgaria); found between the legs of the skeleton in Fig. 19. Buckles and belt mounts decorated with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (Sucidava-Kranj type). Numbers refer to List 3 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 75 grave 2; bronze; Гатев 1998, 29, fig. 2; Даскалов 2012, 66, 232, fig. 62/10 (where the location of the find is Sv. Nikola). 16. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort at the Golemannovo kale site; L=4.9; Uenze 1992, p. 469, pl. 12/1. 17. Satu Nou, near Oltina (Constanţa county, Romania); stray find; bronze; L=5; Custurea 2000-2001, 584, 585, pl. I/1. 18. Shumen (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.75; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 427, pl. 65/601. 19. Strazhata (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found on the left tibia of the skeleton in grave 48 of the cemetery excavated at the Kailăka site; bronze; L=4.7; ТабаковаЦанова 1981, 108, 144. fig. 8/29. 20. Sukhanove (district of Beryslav, Kherson region, Ukraine); found on the left ilium of the skeleton in grave 2 under barrow 8, together with a gold finger-ring with three glass cabochons, and two gold mounts; bronze; Приходнюк et al. 2001, 77-78, 79, fig. 2/3, 6. 21. Taor (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Ristov 2015, 363-364, 379-385, 384, fig. 25 (upper right corner). 22. Unknown location (region of Kiustendil, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.93; Спасов 2001, 46, 49, pl. II/14. 23. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 424, pl. 62/587. 24-35. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 12 specimens, two of which are fragments; bronze; L=4.25, 5.05, 4.95, 5.1, 4.8, 5.15, 4.95; Трайкова 2017b, 259, 260, 424, pl. 62/574, 575, 581, 425, pl. 63/583-585, 588, 591, 426, pl. 64/594, 598, 600, 427 pl. 65/602. 36. Veliki Gradac, in Donji Milanovac near Majdanpek (=Taliata, Serbia); bronze; Vinski 1967, 38, pl. XXX/8. 37. Zhelăd (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 259, 424, pl. 62/580. Belt mounts with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (fig. 19) (Sucidava-Kranj [Petre] =1e [Madgearu]=B III.3 [Daskalov]) 38. Chernomorec (near Burgas, Bulgaria); Христов 2013, 66, 67 (middle of the middle row). 39. Tatul (near Momchilgrad, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 66, 232, fig. 62/11. 40. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 260, 425, pl. 62/593. A very interesting case of simplification is that of the belt mount from Chernomorec (fig. 19/38): the cross was reduced to a V-shaped motif, while the crescent turned into an oval shape. 22 This is true even if one adds to List 3 specimens published with no illustration: the buckles from Vidin (Даскалов 2012, 64), Razgrad and Stara Zagora (Даскалов 2012, 65), Bălgarevo, Botevo, Komunari, Nadarevo, Sherba, and the region of Vidin (Даскалов 2012, 66), as well as the mount from Asparukhovo (Даскалов 2012, 66). 23 This is remarkably similar to the situation in Istria. Grave 8 was dug into barrow XVI of the Hellenistic cemetery of the city of Histria (Pippidi et al. 1961, 257). However, unlike Sukhanove, nine other graves were dug into that same, ancient barrow. They have all been dated to the same time as grave 8. 21 Except the two holes on either side of the lower cross arm, buckles of the Sucidava-Kranj type (called so by Petre 1987, 67) are remarkably similar to those of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type. The arms of the cross are sometimes rounded, as in Chernomorec (fig. 17/6), Istria (fig. 17/7), or Shumen (fig. 18/18), much like with specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe I B. There are even cases of cross and crescent merging (Archar, fig. 17/3) or of much simplified crosses reduced to T-shaped motifs (unknown locations in Bulgaria, fig. 18/24, 25)21. Given that there are many more buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B than of the Sucidava-Kranj type, it is likely that the latter is simply a variation of the former22. Among buckles of the Sucidava-Kranj type, some have all three slots in a vertical position, and others have the lower slot (underneath the crescent) in a horizontal position, exactly as with buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type. Those similarities suggest that the two types coincided in time, even though no evidence exists so far for the dating of the buckles of the Sucidava-Kranj type found in the Balkans. The only assemblage that can offer some clues is Sukhanove. This was an inhumation grave dug into a prehistoric (Iron-Age) barrow on the right bank of the river Dnieper23. The social symbolism of that location matches the lavish 76 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 20. Sukhanove, barrow 8, grave 2: plan and associated grave goods (fingerring, appliques, clip, belt buckle). After Приходнюк et al. 2001 furnishings of the grave: two golden appliques on either side of the skull, and a golden finger-ring with three cabochons at the right hand (fig. 20)24. The best analogies for the golden finger-ring with granulated ornament and three cabochons found in Sukhanove were found in 1868 in a very rich grave at Morskoi Chulek, near Taganrog, on the northern shore of the Sea of Azov (Засецкая et al. 2007, 10, 161167, pl. II/4, 5, pl. III/1-3). That assemblage, which includes a gold chain with medallion, two gold earrings with cloisonné decoration, two gold bracelets (one with a Latin inscription), seven gold phalerae with cloisonné decoration, and several fragments of almandine and lazurite cabochons, has been recently (re)dated to the middle third of 6th century (Curta 2019, 52-53, 55, table 1). This may indicate a similar date for the assemblage in Sukhanove. However, the best analogies for the gold appliques in that assemblage are two models made of leadand-tin alloy and found in a hoard recently discovered at Kuzebaevo (near Alnashi, in southern Udmurtia; Останина et al. 2011, 9-50, 119149, 174, fig. 7/3, 4). This remarkable assemblage of the forest region of Eastern Europe was a collection of jeweler tools, raw materials, and half-manufactured products. The Kuzebaevo hoard includes no less than 90 lead models, mostly for belt fittings (buckles, strap ends, belt mounts), as well as ear- and finger-rings, pendants, and purse mounts. The exact function of all those models remains unclear: were they just samples (to be shown as examples of the kind of work that the jeweler was capable of doing) or did they have a technological role in the process of casting? Be that as it may, several components, such as buckles and belt mounts, have been securely dated to the 7th century, most likely to its first half, and that is the date of the Kuzebaevo hoard as According to Комар 2008, 94 there was also a fragment of an amphora in the region of the abdomen. 24 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 77 Fig. 21. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with crescent, cross, and two holes on either side of the lower cross arm (Sucidava-Kranj type). Numbers refer to List 3 well. Similarly, the latest artifacts in the Sukhanove burial assemblage may be dated after ca. 600. It would therefore be prudent to date the belt buckle of the Sucidava-Kranj type from Sukhanove to the second half of the 6th century. This was a perfectly operational buckle that was most likely attached to a belt. That that belt had no ornamental mounts is most likely in imitation of fashions in the Balkans. Five burial assemblages are known from the Peninsula, and each one of them produced a buckle, but no other grave goods (Istria, List 3, 7; Marten, List 3, 10; Piatra Frecăței, List 3, 13; Rusalka, List 3, 15; Strazhata, List 3, 19). Unfortunately, the sex and age of the individuals buried with buckles of the Sucidava-Kranj type remain unknown in the absence of any anthropological analysis of the bones. This is true both for the Balkan cases and for Sukhanove. Eight out of 23 buckles, for which the find location is known, are said to have been discovered on military sites in the northern and central Balkans (Celei, List 3, 5; Chernomorec, List 3, 6; Karataš, List 3, 8; Mokranjske stene, List 3, 11; Nikiup, List 3, 12; Sadovec, List 3, 16; Taor, List 3, 21; and Veliki Gradac, List 3, 36) (fig. 21). It is tempting to take that as an indication that belt buckles of the SucidavaKranj type were worn by men in the garrisons of those forts. However, there is now abundant evidence of the presence of both women and children on such sites. only new finds can help elucidate the exact dating, as well as the gender-related aspects of the Sucidava-Kranj type. List 4 (figs. 22-24) Buckles with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (SucidavaBeroe V [Petre]=IIc [Madgearu]=D2 [Schulze-Dörrlamm]=B IV [Daskalov]=C VIb6, C VIIIb 3[Traykova]) 1. Arkovna (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in an early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=4.9; Трайкова 2017b, 265, 433, pl. 71/668. 2. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found in grave 90, together with another buckle, and a three-edged arrowhead; Bârzu 2010, 195-196, 195, fig. 133, 295, pl. 17/G90, 337, pl. 59/G90.2. 3-4. Cape Kaliakra (Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=5.3; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 430, pl. 68/643, 644. 5. Dilesi, in Tanagra (Voiotia, Greece); found in grave 28, together with another bronze buckle, 10 ceramic pitchers, and two amphoridia; Χαμηλάκη 2009, 1169, 1186, fig. 12/3558. 6. Hódmezővásárhely (Csongrád county, Hungary); found in grave 106 of the cemetery excavated at the Kishomok site, together with a a seax, a spear head, an arrow head, scissors, and a wheel-made pot with burnished ornament; Bóna / Nagy 2002, 76, 300, pl. 27/106.6, 351, pl. 77/4. 78 Fig. 22. Buckles decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 23. Buckles decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 7. Khodzha Sala (near Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in the burial chamber 5 excavated on the Iuzhnyi 2 site, together with another buckle with openwork ornament, a buckle with attachment clips and 3 strap ends with open-work ornament; bronze; L=4; Bemmann et al. 2013, 84, pl. 49/5. 8. Nesebăr (=Mesembria, Bulgaria); found in an inhumation grave; bronze; L=4.75; Трайкова 2017b, 265, 433, pl. 71/671. 9. Opolany (near Nymburk, Central Bohemian Region, Czech Republic); stray find; bronze; Profantová 2015a, 254, fig. 4/5. 10. Osenovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in burial chamber 2; bronze; L=4.55; Трайкова 2017b, 265, 433, pl. 71/670. 11. Osijek (Croatia); Dimitrijević et al. 1962, 114, pl. 11. 12. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found on the territory of the cemetery; Petre 1987, 69, pl. 124, fig. 193. 13. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found on the left leg of the skeleton in grave A 98; Petre 1987, p. 68, pl. 124, fig. 194b. 14. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave E286, together with a bone buckle; Petre 1987, 68, pl. 123, fig. 191b. 15. Preslav (near Shumen, Bulgaria); Станилов 1995, 166, 169, fig. 1/8. 16. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 427, pl. 65/607. 17. Sevastopil’, Crimea (=Chersonesus, Ukraine); found inside cistern II in the early Byantine town of Chersonesus; fragment; Гавритухин 2002, 219, 226, fig. 2/2. 18. Severci (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); fragment; bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 39, pl. III/10. 19. Sherba (near Varna, Bulgaria); found on the territory of the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 264, 431, pl. 69/646. 20-21. Slava Rusă, Tulcea county (=Ibida, Romania); 2 specimens; bronze; L=3.7, 5.0; opaiţ 1990, 47, 46, fig. 18/43, 44. 22. Svalenik (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 427, pl. 65/604. 23. Svishtov, near Veliko Tărnovo (=Novae, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=5.5; Димитров et al. 1974, 171, fig. 40/a. 24. Taor (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Ristov 2015, 363-364, 379-385, 384, fig. 25 (lower left corner). Fig. 24. Buckles decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 79 25-27. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 3 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=5, 4.75; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 427 pl. 65/608, 609, 431, pl. 69/647. 28-30. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); 3 specimens, all fragments; bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 38 pl. II/3; Трайкова 2017b, 263-264, 431, pl. 69/645, 652. 31-37. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 7 specimens, two of which are fragments; bronze; L=5.3, 5.05, 4.75, 4.8, 5.15; Трайкова 2017b, 261-265, 427, pl. 65/605, 606, 610, 428, pl. 66/615, 616, 430 pl. 68/642, 433, pl. 71/667. 38. Venchan (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 264, 432, pl. 70/656. 39. Vetren (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=5.1; Атанасов / Йорданов 1994, 54, 98, pl. II/10. 40. Vodno (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found in a hoard inside cistern # 1 in the early Byzantine fortress at the Markovi kuli site, together with a golden earring with three pendants, and a golden fibula with bent stem; Микулчиќ / Билбија 19811982, 212, 213 fig. 7; Микулчиќ / Лилчиќ 1995, 265 (where the location of the find is Bitola), 266, pl. V/2. Belt mounts with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V [Petre]=IIc [Madgearu=B IV [Daskalov]=B IIb4 [Traykova]) 41. Abrit (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 428, pl. 66/618. 42. Aksakovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 429, pl. 67/628. 43. Archar near Vidin (=Ratiaria, Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов 2012, 66, 233, fig. 63/10. 44. Bălgarevo (near Kavarna, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 430, pl. 68/641. 45-46. Botevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); 2 specimens found inside the early Byzantine fort at Khan borun; bronze: L=3.85, 3.35; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 320, 428 pl. 66/621, 486, pl. 123/1445. 47. Cape Kaliakra (Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов 2012, 66, 233, fig. 63/15. 48. Debelt (near Burgas, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.7; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 485, pl. 122/1440. 49. Dragoevo (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 262263, 429, pl. 67/631. 50. Golesh (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found in the early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; Atanasov 1997, 127-129, 138, fig. 5/7. 51. Istanbul (Turkey); Csallány 1962, 56, 67, pl. IV/10. 52. Istria, Constanţa county (=Histria, Romania); found in the early Byzantine town; fragment; Stoian / Sâmpetru 1970, 189-190, 189, fig. 9/4. 53. Kavarna (near Varna, Bulgaria); found on the territory of the early Byzantine fortress at the Iailata site; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 429, pl. 67/633. 54. Kerch’, Crimea (=Bosporus, Ukraine); Csallány 1962, 56, 61, pl. II/1. 55. Kochovo (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.9; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 428, pl. 66/620. 56. Luchyste (near Alushta, district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the right tibia of the skeleton in layer 2 of the burial chamber 43, together with a silver eagle-headed belt buckle, two gold earrings with polyhedral pendant, two “Slavic” bow brooches of Werner’s class II C, and two two silver bracelets with widened ends; silver foil, stamped; Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 52, 159, pl. 11/11. 57. Mirovci (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 429, pl. 67/632. 58. Murighiol, Tulcea county (=Halmyris, Romania); bronze; L=3; Nuțu 2011, 179-180, 191, pl. 2/16. 59-60. Odărci (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; Даскалов 2012, 66, 233 fig. 63/14; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 429, pl. 67/634. 61. Oreshak (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.4; Трайкова 2017b, 320, 486, pl. 123/1446. 80 FLoRIN CURTA 62. Piatra Frecăţei (Constanţa county, Romania); found in grave B45, together with 2 buckles (one of the Sucidava-Solin type and another of the II B Beroe type), another belt mount of the Sucidava-Beroe I B class, a purse mount with circle-anddot ornament, and 2 bone dice; Petre 1987, 69-70, pl. 126, fig. 200f. 63. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found on the skull of the skeleton in grave C62, together with a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type and a double-sided comb; Petre 1962, 228, 224, fig. 11. 64. Poprusanovo (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017a, 483, pl. I/7. 65. Prahovo near Negotin (=Aquis, Serbia); fragment; Janković 1981, 213-214, pl. XVII/2. 66-67. Rogachevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=3.35; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 319-320, 429, pl. 67/629, 485, pl. 122/1441. 68. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort at the Golemannovo kale site; L=3.8; Uenze 1992, 442, pl. 12/4. 69. Sherba (near Varna, Bulgaria); found on the territory of the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 264, 431, pl. 69/655. 70. Slava Rusă, Tulcea county (=Ibida, Romania); bronze, fragment; opaiţ 1990, 47, 46, fig. 18/45. 71. Sveti Atanas, in Biala (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 264, 431, pl. 69/648. 72-78. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 7 specimens ; bronze: L=3.1; Трайкова 2017b, 262, 320, 428, pl. 66/622, 429, pl. 67/624-626, 630, 635, 486, pl. 123/1448. 79-80. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); bronze; 2 specimens; L=2.75; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 38, pl. II/3, 12, Трайкова 2017b, 320, 486, pl. 123/1447. 81. Unknown location (region of Negotin, Serbia); Vinski 1967, pl. XXXI/1. 82-83. Unknown location (region of Pomorie, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=3.25, 3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 320, 486, pl. 123/1442, 1443. 84-86. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 3 specimens; bronze; L=3.55; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 320, 428, pl. 66/627, 430, pl. 68/639, 486, pl. 123/1444. 87. Unknown location (region of Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 431, pl. 69/650. 88. Varna (Bulgaria); found inside the basilica discovered at Dzhanavar tepe; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 429, pl. 67/636. 89. Vetren (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Атанасов / Йорданов 1994, 54, 98, pl. II/12. 90. Zemen (near Pernik, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2007, 382, 389, fig. 2/1. 91. Zhelăd (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.9; Трайкова 2017b, 261, 428, pl. 66/613. There is a persistent misconception that buckles of the SucidavaBeroe V type (so called by Petre 1987, 68) appear only inside the Empire (Madgearu 1998, 222) or only in the Black Sea area (Uenze 1992, 185). The distribution map for Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type D2 shows several finds in the central Balkans, away from the Black Sea shore. However, there are no finds beyond the Danube frontier of the Empire other than osijek (List 4, 11; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 154, fig. 68; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2010, 257, fig. 3). The explanation for the absence of the type from barbaricum is its supposedly late chronology: the Sucidava-Beroe V type came into being only in the 580s (Madgearu 1998, 222). Three buckles found at a considerable distance from the Danube frontier of the 6th-century Empire belie such claims. Nonetheless, one of them seems to support, at least partially, the idea of a late 6th-century date for the type. The buckle was associated with a lance head, an arrowhead, scissors, a wheel-made pot with burnished ornament, and a seax with narrow blade (Bóna / Nagy 2002, 76). While the pottery can be dated on the basis of the ornament between CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS Grave 90 is located in the western part of the cemetery, dated to the late 6th and early 7th century (Harhoiu 2010, 226, 232-232). 26 For a date between the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century for all specimens from the Crimea, see also Khairedinova 2010, 64. None of the other burial assemblages with buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe V type can be dated with any degree of precision. The many ceramic pitchers and amphoridia found in grave 28 of the cemetery excavated in Dilesi offer no indications of precise dating (Χαμηλάκη 2010, 596-598). The belt buckles in Nesebăr, osenovo, and grave A 98 in Piatra Frecăței were the only artifacts found in those respective burial assemblages. This is true also for the specimen from grave 57 inside the metropolitan basilica in Amathous, Cyprus (Προκοπίου 1997, 335, 336, fig. 1/9). 27 Much like buckles of other types of the Sucidava class, some specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe V type have the lower slot set horizontally, while the upper slots are in a vertical position (e.g., fig. 23/20). 25 81 500 and 600, the seax is a weapon most typical for the last phase of the row-grave cemeteries in the Carpathian Basin, which is dated to the second half of the 6th century (Kiss 2019b, 477). Grave 90 of the cemetery 3 excavated in Bratei, with a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe V type, has been robbed. Nonetheless, the assemblage produced another buckle of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type D18, which is dated to the second half of the 6th century (Bârzu 2010, 295 pl. 17/1; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 189)25. The same dating may be advanced for the assemblages in the burial chamber 5 of the cemetery excavated at Iuzhnyi 2 near Khodzha Sala, in the Crimea. The chamber was robbed, and it is now impossible to decide which one of the several artifacts left behind was associated with which one of the three adults and three children initially buried there. However, one of those artifacts was a buckle with attachment clips, a specimen of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s class B15, which is also dated to the second half of the 6th century (Bemmann et al. 2013, p. 49/8; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 72). The small hoard discovered in 1980 in the main cistern of the early Byzantine fort at Vodno, near Markovi Kuli, on the southeastern outskirts of Skopje, included a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe V type, a golden pendant with a polyhaedral attachment, a golden earring with pendants, and a gold fibula with bent stem. The latter belongs to Curta and Gândilă’s class 11, a group of fibulae with trapeze-shaped stems. Specimens of that group have been found together with buckles of the Krainburg type and with earrings with chains and glass beads, all dated to the second half or last third of the 6th century (Микулчиќ / Билбија 1981-1982, 212; Curta / Gândilă 2013, 128-129). To the same period may be dated burial assemblages with belt mounts of the Sucidava-Beroe V type. In grave B45 of the Piatra Frecăței cemetery, one such specimen was associated with two buckles, one of which is of the Sucidava-Solin type dated to the second half of the 6th century (see above; Petre 1987, 69-70). The specimen from grave C62 of that same cemetery was found together with a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type, which is also dated to the second half of the 6th century (see above; Petre 1987, 67-68; see also Fiedler 1992, 73). The silver-sheet imitation of a belt mount of the Sucidava-Beroe V type from Luchyste (List 4, 56; fig. 25/56) was found on the right shinbone of skeleton 4 in the burial chamber 43. on the ilium of that skeleton was a silver belt buckle with eagle-headed chape of Zaseckaia’s IIA class dated to the first half of the 7th century (Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, pl. 8/4; Zaseckaia 2004, 104). In the Crimea, “Slavic” bow fibulae of Werner’s class II C, such as found on the left side of the chest and on the abdomen of skeleton 4 in the burial chamber 43 of the Luchyste cemetery may be dated to the second quarter of the 7th century (Curta 2012, 269). In short, there is no evidence whatsoever of a date between the first third and the middle of the 6th century for the Sucidava-Beroe V type (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 155), and no basis for earlier claims that that is the oldest type of the entire Sucidava class of buckles (Csallány 1962, 61)26. It is also a misconception that the mounts of the Sucidava-Beroe V type are counterplates of buckles of that same type (Uenze 1992, 189). Both buckles and mounts were fastened by means of pins going through the slots on the backside27. It would not be possible to have a counterplate fastened on the same side of the belt where the pins go 82 Fig. 25. Belt mounts decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 26. Belt mounts decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 through the corresponding buckle’s slots. True, unlike other types of the Sucidava class, for the Sucidava-Beroe V type belt mounts and buckles are remarkably similar, to the point that, in addition to the “mask,” some mounts have a hole on the upper side, imitating the hole for the prong of the buckle. only a few mounts lack that feature, either deliberately (figs. 25/45, 48, 56, 26/65, 66, 72, 79, 80, 27/81-84), or by accident (fig. 25/54, 58). In the latter case, other aspects of the open-work ornament suggest the existence of miscasts28. For both buckles and mounts, the most specific feature is the arrangement of the open-work ornament in such a manner as to make it look like a smiling human face (a “mask”). However, at a closer examination, it seems that that arrangement is in fact the result of an advanced simplification of a broken cross with only three arms, such as shown on buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B class. Indeed, while the nose of the human face is the lower arm of the cross, the eyebrows constitute the two other arms29. on some buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type the lower arm of the cross merges with the crescent underneath (see above). Similarly, the nose and mouth of the human face merge on some buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe V type (figs. 22/4, 24/28, 26/69, 78, 79, 27/87, 90). The simplification is taken one step further on a few other buckles, on which the merged nose and mouth become a fleuron-like motif or a triangle with rounded corners (figs. 22/1, 5, 8, 10, 24/37). on the other hand, much like buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type, from which their ornament derives, specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe V type are sometimes additionally decorated with the circle-and-dot ornament in sets of two (fig. 23/13), three (fig. 22/12), four (figs. 23/17, 21, 24/27, 36, 38), five (figs. 22/3, 4, 23/23, 24/29, 26/62, 71), seven (fig. 23/19), or as many as nine (figs. 26/80, 27/87). Such similarities with the Sucidava-Beroe I B type, as well as the presence of miscasts strongly suggest that buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava-Beroe V type were produced locally. Exactly where they Fig. 27. Belt mounts decorated with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Numbers refer to List 4 28 The mount from Sveti Atanas (fig. 26/71), as well as those from unknown locations in Bulgaria and the region of Varna (figs. 26/74, 27/87) are also miscasts. 29 The two holes on either side of the lower cross arm, which are typical for the Sucidava-Beroe I B class are now the eyes of the human face. Two specimens from Preslav and Slava Rusă have no eyebrows (fig. 23/15, 20). CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 83 Fig. 28. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts with human faces with eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth (Sucidava-Beroe V type). Small circles mark single specimens, larger ones for 2 and 3 specimens, respectively. The star indicates more than 4 specimens. Numbers refer to List 4 were produced remains unclear, but the extraordinary cluster of finds in the northeastern region of present-day Bulgaria cannot be an accident (fig. 28)30. The largest number of specimens per site is from the Piatra Frecăței cemetery, but an even larger number comes from early Byzantine forts, such as Arkovna, Botevo, Golesh, Kavarna, Riakhovo, Sherba, Svalenik, and Svishtov. It is likely, therefore, that the SucidavaBeroe V type came into existence in the military milieu of the (former) provinces of Moesia II and Scythia Minor, where it also enjoyed a considerable popularity. It is from those northeastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula that the type spread to other parts, to Constantinople, the Crimea, and to barbaricum. List 5 (fig. 29) It is worth noting that out of 35 specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe V type with finds spots indicated in the insert of the map in fig. 28, 22 are belt mounts. The fashion, in other words, seems to have privileged the display of “masks” on the belt. The picture does not change even if one adds specimens for which no illustration has been published, such as the buckles from Kichevo, Malăk Preslavec, and an unknown location in the region of Vidin, as well as the belt mounts from Krum, Krumovo kale, and Vidin (Даскалов 2012, 66). 30 Belt buckles decorated with a stylized motif derived from the human face (Sucidava-Diergardt [Petre]=IId [Madgearu]=B V [Daskalov]=C VIb 7 [Traykova]) 1. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found between the legs of the skeleton in grave A425; Petre 1987, 69, pl. 125, fig. 198c. 2. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found between the knees of the skeleton in grave E199, together with purse mount and a pierced coin struck for Justin I (518-527); Petre 1987, 67, pl. 122, fig. 187b. Belt mounts with a stylized motif derived from the human face (Sucidava-Diergardt [Petre]=IId [Madgearu]=B V [Daskalov]=B IIb 5 [Traykova]) 3. Arkovna (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in an early Byzantine fortress; bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 266, 434, pl. 676. 4. Pristoe (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.35; Трайкова 2017b, 320, 486, pl. 123/1449. 5-6. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); 2 specimens found in the territory of the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 266, 434, pl. 72/674, 675. 7. Unknown location (Bulgaria); L=3.35; Трайкова 2017b, 320, 486, pl. 123/1450. That the open-work ornament of buckles and belt mounts of the 84 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 29. Buckles and belt mounts decorated with a stylized motif derived from the human face (SucidavaDiergardt type). Numbers refer to List 5 Fig. 30. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with a stylized motif derived from the human face (Sucidava-Diergardt type). Numbers refer to List 5 Sucidava-Diergardt type (so called by Petre 1987, 67) derives from the human face-like arrangement on specimens of the SucidavaBeroe V type is quite obvious. The crescent-shaped mouth and the eyebrows can be easily recognized. The nose has now turned into a five-point star-like motif, while the two holes playing the role of eyes have become two elongated openings along the margins. It is quite possible that the multiple holes on the margins of the chape from grave A425 in Piatra Frecăței were meant to be an imitation of the circle-and-dot ornament. Be that as it may, the fact that the lower slot on the backside of that buckle is placed horizontally, unlike the upper slots, suggests that the Sucidava-Diergardt type is simply a variation of the same type of buckle, with a much simplified ornament. This suggestion is further substantiated by the fact that all known specimens are from the same northeastern area of the Balkan Peninsula in which buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe V type were most popular31. It is likely that the two types coincided in time, although no direct evidence of that exists (Teodor 1991b, 125). At any rate, there is no basis for the idea that buckles of the Sucidava class came into being before the middle of the 6th century (Fiedler 1992, 73; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2005, 9). That idea is ultimately based on the association in grave E199 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței of a buckle of the Sucidava-Diergardt type with a half-follis struck for Emperor Justin I (518-527). That coin was found by the left leg of the (unfortunately, unsexed) skeleton in that grave, next to a bone mount with two holes, most likely from a drawstring pouch (Petre 1987, 67). In other words, the coin was in the pouch, which also included a small knife and a flint stone. This is an indication that the objects in question were not necessarily of the same age as the associated belt buckle, which was found between the knees. In the case of 31 Another specimen is known from Burdur in southwestern Turkey (Neeft 1988, 4, fig. 4). The specimens from Bălgarevo, Malăk Preslavec and okorsh mentioned by Даскалов 2012, 63 presumably belong to the same type. However, without the corresponding illustrations, it is impossible to verify such claims. CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 85 the coin, the lack of any chronological relation to the buckle results directly from the fact that it has been pierced. How long was the coin in circulation before being pierced, and how long it was presumably worn as a pendant, after being pierced and before being deposited in the grave will remain of course unknown (for pierced coins in the early Byzantine Empire, as ornaments, see Gândilă 2018, 274, 276 fig. 40)32. In short, the date of the coin is nothing more than a terminus a quo for all the associated artifacts in the burial assemblage of grave E199. The date of that assemblage, however, may very well be later. How late is of course impossible to establish, but the striking morphological parallels between the Sucidava-Beroe V and the Sucidava-Diergardt types suggest that the latter could also be dated to the second half of the 6th century. List 6 (fig. 31) Fig. 31. Buckles decorated with two vertical crescents (Madgearu’s type II A). Numbers refer to List 6 Buckles with cross and two vertical crescents (C VIb3 [Traykova]) 1. Odărci (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 419, pl. 57/516. 2. Sakharna Golovka (near Sevastopil’, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of one of the skeletons in the eastern niche of grave 2; bronze; Борисова 1959, 183-184, 175, pl. IV/4. 3. Unknown location (region of Pomorie, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 419, pl. 57/517. 4. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=4.4; Трайкова 2017b, 255, 419, pl. 57/518. Belt mounts with cross and two vertical crescents (B IIb1 [Traykova]) 5. Čelopek (near Tetovo, North Macedonia); bronze; Mikulčić 2002, 124-125, 125, fig. 13/1. 6-7. Ljubinci (near Aleksandrovac, Serbia); 2 specimens found inside the early Byzantine fort at Gradište; Рашковић et al. 2010, 29, pl. 7. Fig. 32. Belt mounts decorated with two vertical crescents (Madgearu’s type II A). Numbers refer to List 6 A few graves around the basilica at Khirbet Kerak (on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee) produced bronze coins struck for Emperors Anastasius and Justinian, all pierced. However, the cemetery may be dated as late as the associated church, namely to the last quarter of the 6th century, if not even to the first decade of the following century (Delougaz/Haines 1960, 51, 57-58). I am grateful to Andrei Gândilă for drawing my attention to this interesting case. 32 8. Slaveikovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 484 pl. 121/1427. 9. Sveti Atanas, in Biala (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=3.35; Трайкова 2017b, 318-319, 484, pl. 121/1426. 10-11. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=2.35, 3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 484, pl. 121/1429, 1430. 12. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.45; Трайкова 2017b, 319, 484, pl. 121/1428. 13. Unknown location (the Iron Gates region, Romania); bronze; Tănase / Mare 2001, 193, 204, pl. VI/6. List 6a (fig. 32) Buckles with two vertical crescents (IIa [Madgearu]) 14. Celei, in Corabia, Olt county (=Sucidava, Romania); bronze: L=4.7; Tudor 1945-1947, 197, 196, fig. 41/23. 15. Lebiazh’e (Kursk region, Russia); found in grave 3, together with a belt mount with open-work ornament; bronze; Липкинг 1974, 147, 146, fig. 5/10. 16. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave B59, together with another buckle; Petre 1987, 68, pl. 122 bis fig. 190c. 17. Skalyste (near Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in the burial chamber 430; bronze; L=4.7; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 105-106, 105, fig. 75/30. 18. Skalyste (near Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of one of the teenager skeletons in the burial chamber 436, together with 3 glass beads; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 107-108, 108, fig. 77/23. 19. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 86 FLoRIN CURTA 2017b, 265, 433 pl. 71/672. Belt mounts with two vertical crescents (IIa [Madgearu]) 20. Taor (near Skopje, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Ristov 2015, 363-364, 379-385, 384 fig. 25 (upper left corner). 21. Unknown location (Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 282, 448, pl. 86/904. The cross of the Sucidava-Solin type, including a rare cross fourchy (fig. 31/1), which appears on specimens of Traykova’s type C VIb3 (Трайкова 2017b, 82) is sufficient proof that buckles and mounts in List 6 are members of the Sucidava class. The simplified version of that cross is the T-shaped motif on the buckle from Sakharna Golovka (fig. 31/2) and most belt mounts of Traykova’s type B IIb1 (fig. 31/5-10, 12-13). However, there are also buckles (fig. 32/2, 3), as well as belt mounts (fig. 32/8) with no cross or other motif resulting from its simplification – Madgearu’s type IIa (see Madgearu 1998, 218). The buckle from Sakharna Golovka was found in an inhumation grave with two niches. The western niche contained two skeletons of children. Next to the skull of one of them was a silver earring with grape-shaped pendant, which in the Crimea is dated to the 7th century, because of its association with buckles of the Syracuse type (Aibabin / Khairedinova 2009, 117-118, pl. 129/4, 6; Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 83-84, 247, pl. 99/3, 4, 8; for the date of the Syracuse-type buckles in the Crimea, see Гавритухин 2019, 303). The imitation found in the eastern niche is likely of the same date. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether it was associated with the male or the female skeleton in that niche, but this was most certainly a functional belt buckle, as it was found on the ilium of that skeleton (Борисова 1959, 184). one of the buckles of Madgearu’s type IIa was found in a cremation burial in Lebiazh’e, near Kursk at a considerable distance from the main area of distribution (Тихомиров 1990, 157 fig. 2; see fig. 33). In addition to the buckle, the urn cremation produced a belt mount of the so-called Martynovka group, a specimen of Somogyi’s class A7 (Somogyi 1987, 128). Such mounts appear in Early Avar assemblages in the Carpathian Basin, and could therefore be dated between ca. 570 and ca. 630 (Somogyi 1987, 131). To be sure, there are good indications that in the Ciscaucasian region, as well as at Kerch’, such mounts appear in assemblages dated to the first half of the 6th century (Афанасьев 1979, 47; Kazanski 1996, 330). Nonetheless, in Eastern Europe, none of the datable assemblages with belt mounts of Somogyi’s class A7 is earlier than ca. 550 (Спицын 1901, 73, pl. XVI/4; Орлов / Рассамакин 1996, 103113, 109, fig. 5/11, 12; Рашев 2000, 18-19, 23, 121, fig. 15/8, 136, fig. 30/2, 4; Комар / Орлов 2006, 387, 388-393, 396, 393, fig. 4/4; Комар et al. 2006, 245-251, 267-301, 269 fig. 13/1, 2; Ахмедов 2015, 37, 43, 47, fig. 11/4; Хардаєв 2015, 112-115, 113, fig. 3/5; see also ВолодарецьУрбанович 2016, 94-96)33. A later date within the second half of the 6th century for buckles of Madgearu’s type IIa results also from the association of one such specimen with a buckle with shield-shaped chape (Petre’s Sucidava-Beroe II type) in grave B 59 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței. Analogies for that buckle are known from Early Avar assemblages, such as grave 7 in Csengőd (Kovrig 1946-1948, 339, pl. LXXIII/1) or grave 2 in Törökbálint (Kovrig 1957, 120-121, pl. XIX/11). A similar buckle was found in room d of house VI excavated Perhaps the most relevant in this respect is the inhumation from Borok (region of Riazan’, Russia), which produced a coin struck for Justinian in 549 (Ахмедов 2016, 68, 73 fig. 5/4). The assemblage is obviously of a date later than that of the coin. 33 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 87 Fig. 33. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with two vertical crescents (Madgearu’s type II A). Numbers refer to the List 6 inside the early Byzantine town at Jelica (near Čačak, in Serbia), together with a bronze pin and bronze bracelets, all dated to the late 6th and early 7th century (Milinković 2020, 283, 282, fig. 11/5). It is therefore quite possible that buckles and mounts with two vertical crescents (with or without cross) were in vogue both before and after AD 600. Like most other types of the Sucidava class, belt mounts with two vertical crescents have been found on early Byzantine fortified sites in the Balkans, which strongly suggests that they were worn by the military. List 7 (fig. 34) Buckles with two vertical crescents and a fleuron 1. Brody (district of Kungur, Perm’ region, Russia); found in grave 51, together with a bronze earring and two bronze pendants; Голдина / Водолаго 1990, 124, pl. XXVII/11. 2. Haydary (district of Zmiiv, Kharkiv region, Ukraine); found in a hoard (?) together with another buckle with rectangular chape and rounded end, 17 belt mounts and 10 strap ends with open-work decoration, 10 pseudo-buckles, and 10 circular appliqués; silver; Скиба 2016, 103, 157, fig. 29/3. 3. Khodzha Sala (near Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in the burial chamber 5, excavated at the Iuzhnyi II site, together with another belt buckle with open-work ornament, a belt buckle with attachment clips, and 3 belt strap ends with open-work ornament; Bemmann et al. 2013, 84, pl. 49/9. 4. Nesebăr (=Mesembria, Bulgaria); found in a grave of the cemetery discovered in the new town; bronze; Даскалов 2012, 69, 240, fig. 70/4. 5. Suuk Su (near Hurzuf, district of Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of the make skeleton in grave 199, together with belt mounts and a strap end with open-work decoration; Репников 1909, 108, 106, fig. 11/7. Fig. 34. Belt buckles and a belt mount decorated with vertical crescents and a fleuron. Numbers refer to List 7 Belt mounts with two vertical crescents and a fleuron (fig. 34) 6. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found above the left knee of the skeleton in grave B 72, together with a bronze buckle with attachment clips; Petre 1987, 72, pl. 131, fig. 208c. When naming his types, Aurelian Petre employed eponymous sites 88 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 35. The distribution of buckles and belt mounts decorated with vertical crescents and a fleuron. Numbers refer to List 7 that were located as far as possible from Sucidava and Piatra Frecăței. In the old tradition of the late 19th- and early 20th-century German archaeology, this was meant to hint at the maximum geographical distribution of the type. If one would think for a moment of adopting Petre’s typological method, one would therefore need to give the name Sucidava-Brody to the group of buckles and belt mounts in List 7. This is one of the largest geographical spans of any type of the Sucidava class. To be sure, there are no specimens so far found in Sucidava, and the only ones known from the Balkans are from sites in the northeastern region. Brody is in the foothills of the Ural Mountains, over 1,000 miles away from Sucidava, as the crow flies (fig. 35). The barrow cemetery that Aleksandr Spicyn excavated on the northwestern side of the village between 1898 and 1901 is nowadays regarded as typical for the earliest phase of the so-called Nevolino culture, dated to the 4th and 5th centuries (Голдина 2012b, 206). Grave 51, located in an isolated position in the northeastern corner of the cemetery, is most evidently of a later date (for the plan of the cemetery, see Голдина 2012b, 235, fig. 3). Devoid of any barrow, this grave produced a number of diagnostic artifacts, such as barrel- and flask-shaped bronze pendants. CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 89 Rimma Goldina ascribed the latter to the third phase of the Nevolino culture, which she dated to the 8th century (Голдина 2012b, 217, 270, fig. 32/23-26). Nonetheless, one such pendant was found in grave 106 in Nevolino together with a drachm struck for Khusro II (590-628) (Голдина 2012a, 15, 166, fig. 21/13). Seventh-century strap ends were also associated with a flask-shaped pendant in grave 14 of the cemetery excavated in Ust’-Irgino near Suksun, farther to the south from Brody, along the river Sylva (Волков / Пастушенко 2005-2006, 10, 32, fig. 14/6-8, 13). A 7th-century date, most likely within the first half of that century, must also be accepted for the assemblage in Haydary, possibly a hoard, on the basis of the 10 pseudo-buckles of type IV 2, according to the most recent classification (Аксенов 2012, 32-33, 35, 34, fig. 1/6; Samu / Daim 2018, 220, 229-230). A somewhat earlier date within the second half of the 6th century may be advanced for the specimen from burial chamber 5 in Khodzha Sala, which, although robbed, still produced a buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe V type (see above). While the association of that buckle with the one decorated with two vertical crescents and a fleuron is not secured, a date within the second half of the 6th century must nevertheless be accepted for the assemblage in grave 199 of the cemetery excavated in Suuk Su. The associated belt mount of Somogyi’s type A6 has good analogies in the same cemetery which have been dated to the mid-6th century or the decades immediately after that (Репников 1909, 108; Uenze 1992, 189, 191). The assemblage in grave B 72 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței is likely of the same date (second half of the 6th century), judging by the associated buckle with attachment clips, a specimen of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s class B15 (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 72). In conclusion, the buckles and belt mounts with two crescents and a fleuron seem to have come into being during the second half of the 6th century. However, in certain areas of Eastern Europe (Left-Bank Ukraine and the Perm region of modern-day Russia), they remained in fashion throughout the first half of the 7th century, perhaps even later. It is important to note in that respect that there is a substantial morphological difference between the buckles from Brody and Khodzha Sala, on one hand, and those from Haydary and Nesebăr (perhaps also Suuk Su), on the other hand. While each of the former is cast into one piece, the latter are clearly made of two pieces each – the chape and the frame – that were cast separately. The two parts were attached to each other by means of a hinge mechanism. In itself, the hinge is a clear indication of a later date, for hinge buckles made their appearance only after 600 (SchulzeDörrlamm 2009, 1-2). In other words, the open-work ornament with two crescents and a fleuron continued, even when the technology changed. List 8 (figs. 36-38) Buckles with crescent or fleuron and with two holes (II B Beroe [Petre]=IIb [Madgearu]=C VIIIb2 [Traykova]) 1. Abrit (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 274, 440, pl. 78/789. 2-4. Adamclisi, Constanţa county (=Tropaeum Traiani, Romania); 3 specimens (2 fragments); Talmaţchi / Șova 2016, 187, fig. 6 (third row from the bottom). 5. Asparukhovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.5; Даскалов 2012, 63, 227, fig. 57/5. 90 Fig. 36. Belt buckles decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 37. Belt buckles decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8 6. Bălgarevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze: L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 438, pl. 76/746. 7. Cape Doloşman, in Jurilovca, Tulcea county (=Argamum, Romania); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; Nuţu / Iacob 2011, 208, fig. 5. 8-9. Cherni vrăkh (near Shumen, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 273, 438, pl. 76/754, 440, pl. 78/777. 10. Dălgopol (near Varna, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 227, fig. 57/8. 11-12. Debelt (near Burgas, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=3.25, 3.15; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 439, pl. 77/765, 766. 13-14. Dobrich (Bulgaria); found on the road to the village of odărci; 2 specimens; bronze; L=3.3, 2.9; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 274, 438, pl. 76/747, 440, pl. 78/790. 15. Dolishte (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 438, pl. 76/756. 16-18. Dragoevo (near Shumen); 3 specimens; bronze; L=3.35, 3.3, 2.95; Трайкова 2017b, 263, 272, 432, pl. 70/658, 438, pl. 76/760, 439, pl. 77/776. 19. Drenkovo (near Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 63, 227, fig. 57/3. 20. Edinakovci (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.15; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 439, pl. 77/763. 21. Goliam Izvor (near Khaskovo, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Chala; bronze; L=3.35; Даскалов / Думанов 193, 194, fig. 1/1. 22. Haćki (Białystok voivodeship, Poland); found inside the early medieval hillfort; bronze; L=3.3; Szymański 1976, 488, 489, fig. 2; Parczewski 1991, 119-120 (where the location of the find is Khats’ky), 116, fig. 1/8, pl. II/8. 23. Istanbul (=Constantinople, Turkey); Csallány 1962, 65, 59, pl. I/1. 24. Kalimanci (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 438, pl. 76/757. 25. Kerch’, Crimea (=Bosporus, Ukraine); found on skeleton 7 (female) in the burial chamber 180, together with a silver pyxis, 2 gilded silver bow fibulae, a belt buckle with eagle-headed rectangular plate, a sword, silver belt mounts, and 2 silver bracelets; the specimen has a V-shaped motif underneath the prong hole; Засецкая 1997, 433, 446, 475, pl. XIX/9. 26. Kichevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.25; Трайкова 2017b, 273, 439, pl. 77/772. 27. Kiten (near Burgas, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 273, 440, pl. 78/782. 28. Krupskoi (Krasnoarmeiski district, Krasnodar region, Russia); found in grave Fig. 38. Belt buckles decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 91 5 underneath barrow 4, together with a sword, as well as gold strap ends and mounts with granulated ornament; bronze; Атавин 1996, 228, 239, pl. 2/2. 29. Magyarcsanád, in Nagylak (Csongrád county, Hungary); found on the ilium of the skeleton in grave 4; Banner 1926, 99, 96, fig. 15/8. 30. Nea Anchialos, near Volos, Thessalia (=Thebes, Greece); found in a burial chamber; Σωτηρίου 1956, 113-115, pl. 41β. 31. Novakovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=3.1; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 439, pl. 77/764. 32. Onogur (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=3.3; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 39 pl. III/6; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 438, pl. 76/759 (where the location of the find is Pchelnik). 33. Pet mogili (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, fragment; Трайкова 2017b, 265, 433, pl. 71/669. 34. Petropavlovo (district of Mozhga, Udmurtia, Russia); found on the territory of the biritual cemetery; silver; Семенов 1967, 164, 170, pl. II/22. 35. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave B45, together with another buckle of the Sucidava-Solin type, and two belt mounts (one of the SucidavaBeroe, the other of the Sucidava-Beroe IB type), a purse mount, and 2 dice; Petre 1987, 69-70, pl. 126, fig. 200d. 36. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found between the ankles of the skeleton in grave B100, together with another buckle; Petre 1987, 68-69, pl. 124, fig. 195b. 37. Riabivka (district of Trostianets’, Sumy region, Ukraine); found in the filling of grave 2; Обломский / Терпиловский 1993, 169, fig. 2/5. 38. Rupkite (near Chirpan, Bulgaria); found in grave 17; Даскалов 2012, 64, 227, fig. 57/11. 39. Rupkite (near Chirpan, Bulgaria); found in grave I-63; Даскалов 2012, 64, 227, fig. 57/12. 40. Shumen (Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.2; Трайкова 2017b, 271, 438, pl. 76/744. 41-42. Sliven (Bulgaria); 2 specimens found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Hisarlăka; bronze; L=3.3, 3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 273, 439, pl. 77/769, 440, pl. 78/781. 43-45. Sveti Atanas, in Biala (near Varna, Bulgaria); 3 specimens, two of which were found in a building inside the early Byzantine fortress, together with two solidi struck for emperors Justinian and Maurice, amphorae, lamps, a balance, and three lead weights; another specimen is a fragment; bronze; Йотов 2013, 428, 437 fig. 11; Трайкова 2017b, 274, 400, pl. 78/792. 46. Tăkach (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.5; Трайкова 2017b, 272, 439, pl. 77/767. 47. Unknown location (region of Pomorie, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.65; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 437, pl. 75/741. 48-58. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 11 specimens, six of which are fragments; bronze; L=3.45, 3, 3.3, 3.1, 3.3, 2.95; Трайкова 2017b, 265, 270, 27, 273, 274, 432, pl. 70/660, 437, pl. 75/740, 438, pl. 76/745, 752, 439, pl. 77/761, 770, 773, 440 pl. 78/778, 785, 787, 793, 441, pl. 79/797. 59. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.45; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 438, pl. 76/743. 60-68. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 9 specimens, five of which are fragments; bronze; L=3.3, 3.5, 3.55, 3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 272, 438, pl. 76/751, 753, 758, 439, pl. 77/762, 780, 440, pl. 78/783, 784, 786, 795. 69-70. Varna (Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which was found inside the basilica at Dzhanavar tepe; bronze; L=3.45, 2.95; Трайкова 2017b, 264, 273, 432, pl. 70/657, 439, pl. 77/774. 71. Vetren (near Burgas, Bulgaria); found on the site of the Mineral Baths (Aquae Calidae); bronze; L=3.05; Момчилов / Димитрова 2014, 20, fig. 1a, fig. 2a. 72. Vetren (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Vetren site; bronze; Атанасов / Йорданов 1994, 54, 98, pl. II/8. Belt mounts with crescent or fleuron and with two holes (II B Beroe=A2 Somogyi=H1 Schulze-Dörrlamm=IA3 Skyba=B I and B XV Traykova) 92 Fig. 39. Belt mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8. FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 40. Belt mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8. 73-74. Abrit (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); 2 specimens; bronze; L=2.3, 3.1; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 39, pl. III/4; Трайкова 2017b, 329, 493, pl. 130/1574. 75. Arcybashevo (district of Skopin, region of Riazan’, Russia); found in a grave together with a sword with P-shaped attachment loops for the scabbard, two golden strap ends, 8 golden belt mounts, a golden earring with pyramid-shaped pendant, 4 bronze belt mounts (two with open-work decoration), 8 three-edged arrow heads, and a bridle bit; Монгайт 1951, 124-124, 126, fig. 43/8. 76. Arkovna (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in the early Byzantine fort; bronze; L=2.05; Даскалов 2012, 99, 249, fig. 79/6. 77. Bakla, in Skalyste (district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in burial chamber 23; bronze, fragment; Айбабин / Юрочкин 1995, 130, 234, fig. 29/5. 78. Cherencha (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze, L=2; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 482, pl. 119/1390. 79. Chornomors’ke (district of Hola Prystan’, Kherson region, Ukraine); found on the male skeleton in grave 11 underneath barrow 1, together with 9 other belt mounts with open-work ornament, 4 strap ends with open-work ornament and a silver strap end; bronze; Комар / Орлов 2006, 393, 394, fig. 4/9. 80-81. Chufut Kale, in Starosel’e (district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); 2 specimens found in burial chamber 34, together with a gold coin struck for Emperor Justinian, 3 strap ends with open-work ornament, and 4 other belt mounts with open-work ornament; Кропоткин 1958, 210, 215, fig. 5a. 82. Deszk (Csongrád county, Hungary); found in grave 18 of cemetery G, together with fragments of belt straps and mounts, two iron buckles, arrow heads, a fragmentary bridle bit, a stirrup, and bow reinforcement plates; bronze, pressed (imitation?), fragment; Balogh 2004, 265, 280, fig. 5/21, 283, fig. 7/3. 83. Dichin (near Veliko Tărnovo, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort at the Gradishte site; bronze; L=1.95; Даскалов 2012, 99, 249, fig. 79/2. 84-88. Dragoevo (near Shumen, Bulgaria); 5 specimens; bronze; L=2.25, 2.45, 2.15, 1.95, 2.15; Трайкова 2017b, 315, 316, 317, 482, pl. 119/1380, 1384, 1387, 1398, 483, pl. 120/1403. 89. Golesh (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort; bronze; Atanasov 1997, 127-129, 138, fig. 5/6. 90. Gradište (near Kumanovo, North Macedonia); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; Mikulčić 2002, 127, 126, fig. 15/4. 91. Hradyz’ke (district of Hlobyne, Kremenchuk region, Ukraine); Левченко 2001, Fig. 41. Belt mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8. CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 93 27, fig. 1/10. 92. Istanbul (Turkey); Csallány 1962, 55-56, 59, pl. I/4. 93. Kalininskaia (Krasnodar region, Russia); found in grave 10 underneath barrow 4, together with a complete belt set, a bone bridle-bit cheek piece, and a fragment of a stirrup; silver; Атавин 1996, 228-229, 247, pl. 10/5. 94. Kalininskaia (Krasnodar region, Russia); found in grave 3 underneath barrow 30, together with a complete belt set, arrow heads, a bone buckle, and bow reinforcement plates; bronze, fragment; Атавин 1996, 228, 250, pl. 13/14. 95. Kapitan Dimitrovo (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.4; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 482, pl. 119/1383. 96-99. Kerch (Crimea, Ukraine); bronze; 4 specimens; Шаблавина 2007, 22, fig. 2/3. 100. Komunari (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze: L=2.6; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 481, pl. 118/1376. 101. Kuzebaevo (district of Alnashi, Udmurt Republic, Russia); found in a hoard of craft tools, dies, models, and scrap metal; lead-tin alloy model; Останина et al. 2011, 131, 171, fig. 4/18. 102. Liaskovec (near Khaskovo, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at Kaleto; bronze; L=2.5; Даскалов / Думанов 2003, 194, 196, fig. 3/4. 103-106. Luchyste (near Alushta, district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); 4 specimens found on the left ilium and above it, on skeleton # 1 (male) in the burial chamber 74, together with a bronze buckle with attachment clips, 8 other belt mounts with open-work ornament, and 8 strap ends with open work ornament; bronze; L=2.5, 2.7, 2.7, 2.7; Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 112, 315, pl. 167/2-5, 387, pl. 239/3, 5, 7, 10. 107. Luchyste (near Alushta, district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); 3 specimens found on the feet of skeleton 3 in the burial chamber 170; bronze; Хайрединова 2003, 136, 154, fig. 14/3, 5, 8. 108. Luchyste (near Alushta, district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in a burial chamber destroyed by a landslide; bronze; Aibabin / Khairedinova 2009, 96-97, pl. 4/3. 109. Markovo (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.95; Трайкова 2017b, 329, 493, pl. 130/1573. 110. Mihovo (near Šentjernej, Slovenia); found inside the fort at Zidani gaber; bronze; Bitenc / Knific 2001, 48, fig. 135. 111. Mogila (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.3; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 482, pl. 119/1396. 112-113. Mogukorovka (Krasnoarmeiski district, Krasnodar region, Russia); 2 specimens found in the inhumation burial underneath the Carskii barrow, together with a belt set and three-edged arrow heads; bronze; Атавин 1996, 229, 254, pl. 17/1, 2. 114. Mokrin (near Kikinda, Vojvodina, Serbia); found on the ilium of the skeleton in grave 49, next to other bronze pressed belt mounts; bronze, pressed (imitation?); Balogh 2004, 268, 280 fig. 5/20, 296, fig. 20. 115-117. Mokva (Kursk region, Russia); 3 specimens found in a grave, together a shoe buckle, 4 other belt mounts with open-work ornament, 2 strap ends with openwork ornament, the fragment of an earring with polyhedral pendant, and 4 glass beads; Корзухина 1996, 405, 649, pl. 59/7-9. 118. Nevsha (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.5; Даскалов 2012, 99, 249, fig. 79/7. 119. Nikopol (region of Dnipropetrovs’ke, Ukraine); bronze: L=2; SchulzeDörrlamm 2009, 265, fig. 578. 120. Nosovel (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.3; Трайкова 2017b, 315-316, 482, pl. 119/1381. 121. Orşova (Romania); Csallány 1962, 57, 67, pl. IV/9. 122. Pchelnik (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов 2012, 37, 39, pl. III/7. 123. Petronell-Carnuntum (Austria); bronze, pressed (imitation?); Somogyi 1987, 130, 129, fig. 2/21. 124-128. Pleven (Bulgaria); 5 specimens (one of which is a fragment) found in a grave together with 10 other belt mounts with open-work ornament and a belt buckle with attachment clips; bronze; Ваклинова 1989, 131, 136, fig. 2. 129. Pliska (near Shumen, Bulgaria); Антонова 1986, 53, pl. III/1. 94 FLoRIN CURTA 130. Preslav (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.25; Станилов 1995, 166, 169, fig. 1/9. 131. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 38, pl. II/9. 132. Sadovec (near Pleven, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort at Sadovsko kale; bronze; L=2.7; Velkov 1935, pl. 19/3. 133. Shumen (Bulgaria); Антонова 1986, 53, pl. III/4. 134-136. Skalyste (district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); 3 specimens found in burial chamber 449; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 111-112, 86, fig. 59/10, 11, 11a. 137. Slava Rusă, Tulcea district (=Ibida, Romania); bronze; L=2.1; opaiţ 1990, 47, 46 fig. 18/54. 139. Stara Zagora (=Beroe, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.4; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 482, pl. 119/1386. 140. Staraia Maina (region of Ul’ianovsk, Russia); found on the territory of the early medieval stronghold; bronze; Никитина 2017, 68, 79, fig. 6/7. 141. Suuk Su, near Hurzuf (district of Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine); found in grave 118 together with 3 bronze buckles, 13 other belt mounts, a flint steel, and a belt strap; Репников 1907, 109, pl. XV/9. 142. Syvashivka (district of Novotroits’ke, Kherson region, Ukraine); found next to the male skeleton in grave 2 (under barrow 3), together with a sword, two silver strap ends with open-work decoration, silver belt mounts witht open-work decoration, and silver belt buckles; silver; Комар et al. 2006, 268, 269, fig. 13/3. 143. Tutrakan (Bulgaria); bronze; L=1.95; Трайкова 2017b, 316, 482, pl. 119/1392. 144-150. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 7 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=2.55, 2.3, 2.15, 2.35, 2.1; Трайкова 2017b, 315, 316, 329, 481, pl. 118/1373, 482, pl. 119/1388, 1395, 1396, 1401, 493 pl. 130/1575. 151-156. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); 6 specimens; bronze; L=2.4, 2.15, 2.05; Даскалов 2012, 99, 100, 250, fig. 80/1, 253, fig. 83/12, 13; Трайкова 2017b, 315, 481, pl. 118/1368, 1369, 1371. 157. Unknown location (region of Kotel, Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов 2009, 94, 95, fig. 2/1. 158. Unknown location (region of Pomorie, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.2; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 482, pl. 119/1397. 159-162. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 4 specimens; bronze; L=2.4, 1.7, 2.15; Трайкова 2017b, 273, 315, 316, 441, pl. 79/797, 481, pl. 118/1379, 482, pl. 119/1385, 1393, 483, pl. 120/1400. 163. Unknown location (the Iron Gates region, Romania); bronze; L=2.3; Tănase / Mare 2001, 193, 204, pl. VI/7. 164. Varna (=Odessos, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.35; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 120/1399. 165. Vetren (near Silistra, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Vetren site; bronze; Атанасов / Йорданов 1994, 54, 98, pl. II/7. 166. Yalta (Crimea, Ukraine); found on the lower chest of skeleton 1 (male) in the burial chamber 2, together with a buckle with attachment clips, 9 belt mounts with open work decoration and 8 strap ends (one of which is also with open-work decoration); Турова / Черныш 2015, 137, 158, fig. 11/5. 167. Zamost’e (near Sudzha, Kursk region, Russia); found in a hoard, together with a bronze diadem, two bow fibulae, a bell-shaped pendant, a P-shaped sword scabbard mount, and a strap end with open-work decoration; Кашкин / Родникова 2010, 86, 87, fig. 5 (fourth from the right, bottom row). 168. Zemen (near Pernik, Bulgaria); bronze; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2007, 382, 389, fig. 2/3. 169. Zhelăd (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.65; Трайкова 2017b, 315, 481, pl. 118/1375. 170-171. Zimen (near Karnobat, Bulgaria); bronze; 2 specimens; L=2.35, 2.08; Момчилов 2013, 412, 415, fig. 1/6, 7. That buckles of the II B Beroe type (so called by Petre 1987, 69) belong to the Sucidava class is taken for granted. Some claim that the CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS The association of a buckle of the Sucidava-Solin with another of the II B Beroe type in grave B45 in Piatra Frecăței clearly shows that the latter type of buckle co-existed with at least some of the types in the Sucidava class. 35 Since the slots were aligned in most cases, this raises the question of one or two pins used to fasten the buckle to the belt. That may even apply to the Magyarcsanád buckle (List 8, 29), which is the only specimen with the two slots placed horizontally. The only clear case of two slots and two pins is the chape of the buckle from Cape Doloşman (List 8, 7), on the back of which one slot is placed vertically, and another horizontally. on the buckle from Krupskoi (List 8, 28), the two slots have been replaced by rivets. 36 There are three cases of belt mounts with three, instead of two slots (List 8, 95, 141 and 161). only one of them, the mount from Kapitan Dimitrovo, has one of the three slots placed horizontally, exactly as on buckles and mounts of other types. The slots of the mount from an unknown location in the region of Shumen are of vertical, while those of the mount from Syvashivka are all horizontal. For mounts of other types with two slots placed horizontally, see List 9, 28, 30, 33-35; List 11, 6-10, 13-15. 37 The fastening system was very similar to that of two rivets, as in the case of the Luchyste mount (List 8, 108). What has been described as repair in the case of the mount from Staraia Maina (List 8, 140; Никитина 2017, 68) may also be rivets. 38 The co-occurrence of two buckles, one with eagle-headed chape, the other of the II B Beroe type raises the possibility of the latter being part of a belt set ritually deposited in the female grave, along wth the accompanying sword (Засецкая 1997, 475 pl. XIX/27). For the fibulae, see also Гавритухин 2011, 475, 481, 483. According to Kazanski 1996, 330, the assemblage associated with skeleton 7 in burial chamber 180 should be dated to the first half of the 6th century. 34 95 type is an intermediary (or evolutionary link) between the “classical” Sucidava buckles and the Pécs class (Ibler 1992, 137; Madgearu 1998, 219; for buckles of the Pécs class, see Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 165-66, who attributes them to her type D9). However, the relation between II B Beroe and other types of the Sucidava class is never discussed34. At a closer examination the speech bubble-like, open-work motif on the lower chape of the II B Beroe type (figs. 36/1, 2, 4, 6, 13-15, 17-22, 37/40, 40-43, 47, 38/51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 63, 65, 67, 68) reminds one of the mask-like ornament on some buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe V type, such as those found in Arkovna and Dilesi (fig. 22/1, 5). However, buckles of the II B Beroe type are conspicuously smaller than those of the Sucidava-Beroe V type. Perhaps because of that, they were attached to the belt by means of only two, instead of three slots, as with most other types of the Sucidava class. Judging from those cases published with both front and backside illustrations (drawings), 70 percent of those buckles have only two slots placed vertically and next to each other35. only four buckles (List 8, 18, 47, 50, 69) have three slots, two of which are placed vertically and a third horizontally. Differences between the II B Beroe type and other types of the Sucidava class are also apparent when examining belt mounts. Most of them (88 percent of those published with both front and backside illustrations) have two slots placed horizontally, one underneath the other, a configuration rarely found on belt mounts of other types in the Sucidava class36. one of the two mounts from Mogukorovka (List 8, 112) still has the pins in the slots, showing how this particular configuration worked in practice37. Buckles decorated with human faces (“masks”) were long regarded as the oldest type in the class, but that idea is not supported by the existing evidence (see above). Moreover, the II B Beroe type may also be dated to the second half of the 6th century, judging by the association of one such buckle with a pair of gilded silver bow fibulae of the Udine-Planis type and with a belt buckle with eagle-headed chape of Zaseckaia’s type IA in the burial chamber 180 in Kerch’ (Засецкая 1997, 446, 475, pl. XIX/1, 2; Zaseckaia 2004, 111-112, 85, fig. 4/4)38. It is important to note in this context that the closest analogy for the buckle found in Kerch’ is the chape from Cape Doloşman, which could also be dated to the second half of the 6th century (fig. 36/7). The same date may be accepted for the burial chamber found at Nea Anchialos, on the site of the ancient city of Thebes, between basilicas A and B, in association with scattered remains of several skeletons. It is of course impossible to match artifacts and skeletons, but in addition to the buckle of the II B Beroe type, that burial chamber produced a pair of earrings with good analogies in a child grave (E 143) from Piatra Frecăței (Σωτηρίου 1956, pl. 41β; Petre 1987, 79, pl. 145, fig. 239c, d; for other analogies, see Curta 2010, 425). The earrings have been found in that grave together with a fibula with bent stem dated to the last few decades of the 6th century (Curta / Gândilă 2011). In addition, there were several lamps in the Nea Anchialos burial chamber. one of them is a specimen of Hayes’s type 11 (with cross-shaped handle), which is dated to the late 6th century (Σωτηρίου 1956, pl. 40α; Curta 2016, 88). The belt set found on the ilium of the male skeleton (# 1) in burial chamber 74 of the cemetery excavated in Luchyste had a bronze 96 FLoRIN CURTA buckle with attachment clips of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B15, which is dated to the second half of the 6th century (Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 315, pl. 167/1; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 72; for the reconstruction of the belt set, see Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 316, pl. 168/4). The four mounts of the II B Beroe type in the Luchyste belt set must therefore be dated shortly before 600 (fig. 39/100-103)39. The same is true for five similar mounts from Pleven, which were part of a belt set fastened with a buckle of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B 15 (Ваклинова 1989, 136, fig. 2; for the date of this assemblage, see also Fiedler 1992, 68)40. Moreover, the date advanced for Luchyste and Pleven is confirmed by finds in one of the two rooms of house 1 in Sveti Atanas, where a buckle of the II B Beroe type was found together with 242 coins, the latest of which is a solidus struck for Emperor Maurice (582602; Йотов 2013, 427). Several other specimens of the II B Beroe type may be dated to the last few decades of the 6th and the first few decades of the 7th century. This is the case of the imitation from grave 8 in Deszk G (fig. 39/82). The associated stirrup cannot be dated before the Early Avar age, i.e., before ca. 570 (Balogh 2004, 265, 284, fig. 8/9, 288, fig. 12; Curta 2008)41. A fragment of a stirrup was also found in grave 10 under barrow 4 in Kalininskaia (Атавин 1996, 248, fig. 11/7). This seems to be a good indication of a date shortly before or after 600 (Хрисимов 2014, 227) for both the stirrup and the associated silver mount of the II B Beroe type (fig. 39/93). This, in turn, suggests the same date for the mount from grave 3 under barrow 30 on that same site (fig. 39/91). The buckle found in grave 8 underneath barrow 4 in Krupskoi may be dated to the last two decades before or the first two decades after the year 600 (fig. 37/28). Together with the buckle, archaeologists found a gold bet set decorated with granulated ornament. on the basis of analogies in Arcybashevo and Madara, the belt set may be dated to the late 6th or early 7th century (Fiedler 1997, 132-33)42. The closest analogy for the Krupskoi buckle is that found in the filling of a robbed burial in Riabivka (fig. 37/37). As a consequence, that buckle may also be dated shortly before or after 60043. This is one of few specimens with one large and two small holes (figs. 39/75, 92, 41/161). All those specimens have been been found within the territory that was inside the Empire during the 6th century, but none of them could be dated with any degree of precision. Three mounts very similar in shape but with a somewhat different, open-work decoration have been found in Chornomors’ke, together with a belt mount of the II B Beroe type (Комар / Орлов 2006, 394, fig. 4/8)44. A late 6th- or early 7th-century date for that assemblage is based on a pair of mounts of Somogyi’s class A7 (Комар / Орлов 2006, 394 fig. 4/4; Somogyi 1987, 131). The striking similarity between the Krupskoi and the Arcybashevo golden belt mounts means that those two assemblages are coeval. The belt mount of the II B Beroe type found in Arcybashevo could therefore be dated to the late 6th or early 7th century as well. At a quick glimpse, one of the earliest assemblages with belt mounts of the II B Beroe type is that from burial chamber 34 in Chufut Kale, which produced seven belt mounts, one of them of the II B Beroe type. Associated with those mounts was a gold coin struck for Justinian (Кропоткин 1958, 210, 214, fig. 5/1). However, the coin is very worn, which suggests that it may have been in circulation for quite some time after leaving the mint. According to Elzara Khairedinova, the shoe buckle, strap end, and strap mounts found on the feet of skeleton 3 in burial chamber 170 of the Luchyste cemetery may also be dated to the second half of the 6th century (Хайрединова 2003, 142, fig. 2; for a reconstruction of the leather shoes tied with straps fastened with a buckle, see 154, fig. 14/II). This has implication for the strap mount found in Mihovo (List 8, 107), the closest analogy to the specimens found in Luchyste (figs. 39/104, 107). Similarly, the best analogies for another mount from Luchyste (Fig. 40/105) are two of the three mounts from burial chamber 449 in Skalyste (fig. 40/132, 133). All three specimens have a specific, round indentation on the upper side. The Skalyste mounts were found among scattered remains of several skeletons, together with a pair of sheet fibulae with trapezoidal head-plate (Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 112, fig. 80/26, 114, fig. 82/5). Another pair of the same type of fibulae was found in Luchyste, together with the belt mount of the II B Beroe type (Aibabin / Khairedinova 2009, pls. 1-3; for the type of fibulae in question, see Фурасьев 2010). In addition, both burial chambers produced belt buckles with attachment clips, specimens of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B 15 (Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 114, fig. 82/13; Aibabin / Khairedinova 2009, pl. 4/7). Finally, in Luchyste there was a large buckle with rectangular plate decorated with a lion, while the assemblage in Skalyste included the fragment of an equally large buckle with rectangular plate decorated with a cross. According to Хайрединова 1999, such buckles were part of the late 6th- and early 7th-century female costume in the Crimea. 40 Another belt set with a buckle of Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B15 was found on the male skeleton in Yalta (Турова / Черныш 2015, 157, fig. 10/3). However, that set includes only one mount of the II B Beroe type. 41 A date within the last third of the 6th or the first half of the 7th century for the assemblage in grave 18 of the cemetery G excavated in Deszk is also supported by the associated buckle of the Salona-Histria type (Balogh 2004, 286, fig. 10/21; Uenze 1966, 143-146). A date within the Early Avar age has also been advanced for the assemblage in grave 49 of the cemetery excavated in Mokrin, which produced another imitation (Balogh 2004, 256). This, in turn, suggests a similar date – late 6th or early 7th century – for the mount from Petronell-Carnuntum (fig. 40/120), the best analogy for the Mokrin specimen. A single-edged sword was found on the left side of the male skeleton in grave 2 under barrow 3 Syvashivka (Комар et al. 2006, 280, fig. 18). This was a blade without 39 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS crossguard, a good indication of an early date (Csiky 2015, 174). However, the false edge identified on the weapon (Bálint 1992, 340) may help restrict the dating of the assemblage to the first half of the 7th century, as single-edged swords with false edge appear in Eastern Europe only after 600 (Csiky 2015, 321-322). on the other hand, the two P-shaped suspension loops have good analogies in Early Avar assemblages in Hungary (Csiky 2015, 274-276, 313). Despite the later dating of the sword, therefore, the associated mount of the II B Beroe type may be dated to the late 6th or early 7th century. 42 As Атавин 1996, 228 notes, the exact analogies for one of the small belt mounts from Krupskoi (Атавин 1996, 239 pl. 2/15) have been found in Arcybashevo (Монгайт 1951, 128, fig. 45/7, 9-11). 43 Grave 2 in Riabivka superposed the side of the pit of one of the nine houses excavated on the same site. For the chronological relation between settlement and cemetery, see Curta 2020, 147. 44 The same association is documented in Mogukorovka (Атавин 1996, 254, pl. 17/1-5). The associated mounts of the II B Beroe type (fig. 40/109, 110) thus coincided in time with those in Chornomors’ke. 45 No evidence exists to support Larissa Golofast’s claim that a belt mount (wrongly interpreted as a belt buckle) of the II B Beroe type found in the fill of a the cistern in building 9A in quarter 8 of the northern part of Chersonesus may be dated to the late 7th century (Golofast 2003, 107). 46 Two buckles have also been found in grave B 100 of the same cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței. The specimen of the II B Beroe type (List 8, 36) may not have been functional. Too large to be a shoe buckle, it was nonetheless found between the skeleton’s feet. Another buckle, which was discovered on the left ilium, most likely fastened a belt. That the buckle of the II B Beroe type was at the feet suggests a ritual deposition of the buckle, after being detached from the belt, perhaps in a gesture of mourning. In this respect, the situation in grave B 100 is directly comparable with that in graves A 240, B 14 and B 59 of that same cemetery, each with two different buckles (Petre 1987, 68-70, pl. 122 bis fig. 190, pl. 126, fig. 200, pl. 127, fig. 202). 47 That much results from finds of multiple specimens within the same belt set. Mounts of the II B Beroe type have been found in pairs (Chufut Kale, Mogukorovka), as well as in sets of three (Luchyste, Mokva, and Skalyste), four (Luchyste), or even five specimens (Pleven). When only one specimen appears, it is commonly associated with many other belt mounts of different types, as well as with multiple strap ends. 97 Exactly how long the coin circulated remains unknown, but it may have been deposited in Chufut Kale by the late 6th or early 7th century. Type II B Beroe is partially synchronous with other types of the Sucidava class45. Much like the latter, buckles and belt mounts of the II B Beroe type have been found on military sites in the Balkans (List 8, 7, 21, 31, 32, 41, 42, 72, 75, 83, 86, 89, 102, 110, and 132). In burial assemblages, buckles of this type, like others of the Sucidava class, either are the only grave goods (List 8, 29, 30, 37, 39), or are accompanied by just one belt mount in each case (List 8, 35)46. However, unlike other specimens of the Sucidava class, some buckles and most mounts of the II B Beroe type seem to have been preferred for belts with multiple straps (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 266; for the reconstruction of a belt with multiple straps, see Айбабин / Хайрединова 2014, 316, pl. 168/4)47. Such belts were a typically male accessory (Schmauder 2000; see also Bálint 2000). Where properly sexed, skeletons associated with mounts of the II B Beroe type turn out to be of men (List 8, 79, 103106, 141, 165). However, a buckle of that same type was found with a female skeleton in the burial chamber 180 excavated in Kerch’. The buckle was associated with no less than eight mounts, some in pairs or in sets of three, which strongly suggests a belt with multiple straps. Since there was another buckle with eagle-headed chape in that assemblage, it is possible that the belt with multiple straps was not fastened around the body of the woman buried in that burial chamber. Instead, it may represent a symbolic deposition of a male accessory, perhaps as a form of mourning. In no less than three cases, two in the Crimea (Luchyste, Yalta) and another in the Balkans (Pleven), the belt with multiple straps decorated with mounts (some of them of the II B Beroe type) was fastened by means of a buckle with attachment clips. This strongly suggests a deliberate choice of components, a conclusion substantiated by the absence of any cases in which a belt buckle of the II B Beroe type was found together with a belt mount of that same type. The idea of a belt with multiple straps was quickly adopted by populations living in the vicinity of the Roman territory48. The common opinion is that belt buckles of the Sucidava class, in general, were modest dress accessories, and that the belt fastened with such buckles was for commoners or ordinary soldiers (Uenze 1992, 184; Varsik 1992, 80; Varsik 1993, 208-209). However, outside the Empire, such conclusions do not apply. In Krupskoi, a buckle of the II B Beroe type fastened a belt studded with golden mounts and provided with side straps, each decorated with a golden strap end. In Arcybashevo, the belt mount of the II B Beroe type was made of silver, not bronze, and was also associated with golden mounts and strap ends. The belt sets in grave 10 at Kalininskaia and grave 2 at Syvashivka are also made of silver. Those were definitely not modest dress accessories. The II B Beroe type is also different from the other types of the Sucidava class in terms of the distribution pattern (figs. 42-43). To be sure, it has the widest distribution in Eastern Europe, from Slovenia (List 8, 110) to Udmurtia (List 8, 33, 101) and from Poland (List 8, 22) to Greece (List 8, 30). Responsible for that may have been the use of buckles and mounts of the II B Beroe type for belts with multiple straps. It is no accident that the majority of finds in Eastern Europe are of belt mounts, not of buckles. All specimens known from Crimea are belt mounts, while most buckles have been found in the Balkans, espe- 98 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 42. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8 cially in the northeastern region (pace Даскалов 2012, 38, who believes that his types B II 3 and B II 4 appear just as frequently to the north as to the south of the Stara Planina range)49. The cluster of belt mounts in the Crimea has long been noted, and some have even suggested that they were produced there, since assemblages in the peninsula are presumably earlier than anywhere else (Somogyi 1987, 137)50. However, the evidence shows that the mounts from Crimean sites are not earlier than those from the Balkans. Moreover, no evidence of local production has so far been found in the Crimea. In contrast, belt mounts of Somogyi’s class A 2 very similar to the II B Beroe type were most certainly cast in one-piece moulds such as discovered in the southwestern quarter of the Lower Town at Caričin Grad (Bavant 1990, 221, 222-223, pl. XXXVIII/209, 210). Miscasts are another category of evidence for local production in the Balkans (figs. 39/81, 40/115, 127, 128, 41/145, 158, 161). Belt mounts of the II B Beroe type may have been also produced by means of another technology, the lost-wax technique. That much results from the existence of models of leaded bronze, such as that in the Kuzebaevo hoard (List 8, 101; for models of leaded bronze and lost-wax casting, see Curta / Szmoniewski 2019, 184)51. List 9 Buckles with crescent or fleuron (figs. 44-45) (C VIIIb1 [Traykova]) 1. Abony (Pest county, Hungary); found in grave 132 together with 2 earrings with glass pendants, glass beads (some of them in the form of melon seeds), and two bone needles cases; bronze; Éber 1902, 260-261, 260, fig. 1. 2. Bata (near Pazardzhik, Bulgaria); found in grave 148; Григоров 2010, 126, 178, 257, fig. 62/I-648. Such versatility may have encouraged typological and stylistic cross-fertilization. It is not an accident that the ornamental patterns of the II B Beroe type are the only ones in the Sucidava class to appear on so-called Martynovka mounts. Good illustrations of such hybrids are the T-shaped mounts from Abrit (fig. 39/74), Markovo (fig. 40/109), Mokva (fig. 40/115-117), and Sadovec (fig. 40/132), which although decorated like all other mounts of the II B Beroe type, belong in fact to Somogyi’s class A 7. 48 Werner 1974 wrongly believed that diffusion had taken place in the opposite direction – from barbaricum into the Roman Empire. 49 This remains true even if one adds the buckles mentioned in the literature, but without illustrations – Alfatar, Drianovo, Gora krepost (Даскалов 2012, 63), Silistra and Stara Zagora (Даскалов 2012, 64). 50 To be sure, Somogyi 1987, 138 also noted that along with other Martynovka-type mounts, those of his type A 2 (=II B Beroe) appear in the second phase of the Mokraia balka cemetery in the Ciscaucasian region. Since that phase is dated to the middle third of the 6th century (Афанасьев 1979, 47), Somogyi suggested that the Martynovkatype mounts were “invented” in the Caucasus region, where they were first produced before spreading out to other parts of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. 51 The use of the lost wax technique may explain the existence of very similar, but CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS Fig. 44. Belt buckles decorated with crescent or fleuron (Traykova’s type C VIIIb1). Numbers refer to List 9 Fig. 43. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron and two holes (II B Beroe type). Numbers refer to List 8 not identical specimens, such as the buckles from Dragoevo (fig. 36/16) and Varna (fig. 38/69), those from Krupskoi (fig. 38/28) and Riabivka (fig. 37/37), and those from Sliven (fig. 37/42) and an unknown location in Bulgaria (fig. 38/64). 99 Fig. 45. Belt buckles decorated with crescent or fleuron (Traykova’s type C VIIIb1). Numbers refer to List 9 3. Bălgarevo (near Kavarna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 269, 437, pl. 75/727. 4. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found in grave 118 (skeleton of a teenager), together with a bronze hook for the suspension of the quiver, a flint steel, and a handmade pot; Bârzu 2010, 203, fig. 150, 299, pl. 21/G118.1. 5. Cape Kaliakra, in Bălgarevo (near Kavarna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 437, pl. 75/734. 6. Plovdiv (Bulgaria); bronze; L=3.5; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 437, pl. 75/736. 7. Poliacite (near Varna, Bulgaria); found in the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=3.25; Трайкова 2017b, 269, 437, pl. 75/729. 8. Preslav (near Shumen, Bulgaria); fragment; Станилов 1995, 166, 169, fig. 1/6. 9. Skalyste (district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found in the burial chamber 331, together with a buckle of the Syracuse class, glass, amber, and carnelian beads, three-edged arrow heads, and bronze belt mounts and strap ends; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 73, 75, fig. 50/13. 10. Skalyste (district of Bakhchesarai, Crimea, Ukraine); found next to the tibia of the male skeleton in the burial chamber 420, together with a bow sheet fibula and a strainer; bronze; L=4.2; Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 98-101, 100, fig. 71/14. 11. Srebărna (near Silistra, Bulgaria); bronze, Трайкова 2017a, 483, pl. I/11. 12. Suuk Su, near Hurzuf (district of Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine); found above the female skeleton in the burial chamber 46, together with a a pair of sheet fibulae, amber, rock crystal, and glass beads, 8 triangular, golden pendants, a silver buckle with eagle-headed, rectangular plate, and two silver bracelets; bronze; Репников 1906, 12-13, pl. X/17. 13. Suuk Su, near Hurzuf (district of Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine); found on the ilium of the child skeleton in the burial chamber 169, together with 9 amber beads and a bronze bracelet; bronze; Репников 1907, 121-122, pl. XVI/11. 14. Ufa (Bashkortostan, Russia); Ахмеров 1970, 165, 175, fig. 3 (first on the left in the second row from the top). 15-16. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); 2 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=3.3; Трайкова 2017b, 269, 270, 437, pl. 75/728, 739. 17-19. Unknown location (Bulgaria); 3 specimens, one of which is a fragment; bronze; L=3.25, 3.6; Трайкова 2017b, 269, 270, 437, pl. 75/726, 735, 738. 20. Varni (district of Debesy, Udmurtia, Russia); found above the ilium of the female skeleton in grave 88, together with glass beads, 2 earring with bead pendants, an arrow head, and belt mounts with open-work ornament; Семенов 1980, 71, 8687, 116, pl. X/12. 100 FLoRIN CURTA 21. Vukovo (near Dupnica, Bulgaria); bronze: L=2.5; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 437, pl. 75/732. Belt mounts with a crescent or a fleuron (H1 [Schulze-Dörrlamm]=A 2 [Somogyi]=B I [Traykova]) 22. Cherencha (near Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; Трайкова 2017b, 270, 437, pl. 75/731. 23. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea district, Romania); found in grave B79, together with a comb and a bronze belt buckle; Petre 1987, 66-67, pl. 121, fig. 185c. 24. Trubchevsk (Briansk region, Russia); found in a hoard of silver and bronze artifacts, together with 17 “Slavic” bow fibulae, 2 bow fibulae with animal decoration (Dnieper class), two torcs, 23 silver buckles, 3 animal-shaped mounts, and 38 mounts with open-work ornament; silver; Приходнюк et al. 1996, 88, 89, fig. 11/6. 25. Vynohradne (district of Tokmak, Zaporizhzhia region, Ukraine); found near the head of the horse in grave 1, together with two bronze buckles and 6 gold mounts with glass cabochons; bronze; Орлов / Рассамакин 1996, 103-113, 106, fig. 3/3. There seems to be no doubt that belt buckles and mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron belong to the Sucidava class (Vinski 1967, 37; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 266). To be sure, there are obvious similarities, especially with the II B Beroe type illustrated in figs. 36-41. Like II B Beroe, buckles with crescent and fleuron are typically smaller than those of other types in the Sucidava class, especially those with cross ornament. As a consequence, all buckles with crescent and fleuron have only two slots on the backside, both placed vertically52. Conversely, with a few exceptions, all mounts have the slots placed horizontally, one underneath the other, no doubt for tighter fastening to the belt.53 one of the two buckles from Skalyste was found with the remains of a male skeleton on the floor of chamber 420, together with sheet fibula with trapezoidal head-plate dated to the second half of the 6th century (Веймарн / Айбабин 1993, 103, pl. 73/4; Фурасьев 2010)54. Two similar fibulae were found underneath the shoulders of the female skeleton in burial chamber 46 of the Suuk Su cemetery (Репников 1906, 12, fig. 5, 70, figs. 41, 43). In the center of the body, next to the buckle with fleuron, was a large, silver buckle with eagle-headed chape, a specimen of Zaseckaia’s II C, dated to the second half of the 6th or the early 7th century (Репников 1906, pl. IX/7; Zaseckaia 2004, 130). The mount from the Trubchevsk hoard was associated with eight “Slavic” bow fibulae, one of Werner’s class I D and another of his class II A, both dated to the second half of the 6th century, a date confirmed by 12 pseudo-buckles of Samu and Daim’s type III 2 that were also found in the hoard (Приходнюк et al. 1996, 80 fig. 1/5, 81, fig. 2/3, 90, fig. 12; Curta 2012, 270; Samu / Daim 2018, 229). The mount was decorated with an ornament similar to that on the chape of one of the three buckles in the assemblage (Приходнюк et al. 1996, 89, fig. 11/1). This, however, was a hinge buckle, with good analogies in contemporary hoards, such as Koloskovo (Корзухина 1996, 690, pl. 100/4) and Martynivka (Pekars’ka / Kidd 1994, 67, pl. 38/4). Since hinge buckles appear after 600, the mount decorated in the same way may also be dated to the early 7th century (for hinge buckles, see Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 1-2). The mount from grave 1 in Vynohradne was part of the decoration of the halters and the leads of the horse buried next to a man, his sword, and his bow (Орлов / Рассамакин 1996, 109, fig. 5/1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 112, fig. 7/1-9). The man’s belt had a strap end made of gilded silver and decorated with a granulated ornament, very similar to those found in Krupskoi, Arcybashevo, and Madara, all dated to the second half of The only variation is on the buckle from Bratei (List 9, 4), on the back of which the two slots are placed vertically, but one underneath the other. 53 The two exceptions are the mounts from Cherencha and an unknown location in Bulgaria (List 9, 24, 32). In the latter case, the two vertical slots are placed one underneath the other. 54 A date within the second half of the th 6 century may also be advanced for the assemblage in grave B79 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței and, therefore, for the mount with crescent found in that grave. The associated buckle with cabochon on the tongue has good analogies in burial assemblages of the last phase of the row-grave cemeteries in Hungary (Csallány 1961, pl. LXXXIII/8; Bóna / Nagy 2002, 305 pl. 31/11.1). 52 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 101 Fig. 46. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron. Numbers refer to List 9 Fig. 47. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with crescent or fleuron. Numbers refer to List 9 the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century (see above; Fiedler 1997, 132-33). Another buckle from Skalyste was found on the poorly preserved remains of a skeleton in burial chamber 331 together with a second buckle, a variant of the Syracuse class, which in Crimean cemeteries is dated only after 600 (Гавритухин / Обломский 1996, 68; Гавритухин 2019, 308). A date within the 7th century may also be advanced for the assemblage in grave 88 in Varni (Семенов 1980, 107, pl. I/15, 19; Голдина 2012c, 401). An even later date, definitely after 700, must be accepted for the assemblage in grave 132 in Abony: the associated earrings, the needle cases, and especially the melonseed-shaped beads are all diagnostic artifacts for the Late Avar age (Éber 1902, 260; Staššíková-Štukovská 2004, 41). In the absence of any information about its position in the grave, the belt buckle with a much-deformed fleuron (perhaps a miscast) must therefore be regarded as an heirloom. At a quick glimpse at the distribution map(s) for the belt buckles and mounts with crescent or fleuron, two clusters are readily distinguishable, one in the northeastern part of Bulgaria, the other in the Crimea (figs. 46, 47)55. The earliest specimens are from the latter region, but whether or not the type originated in the Crimea remains unclear. Unlike other types of the Sucidava class, belt buckles and mounts with a crescent or a fleuron appear both in male (List 9, 10) and in female burials (List 9, 12, 20), as well as in graves of children (List 9, 4, 13). List 10 55 This distribution remains basically the same if one adds the buckles said to be of the same type, but for which no illustration has been published: Alekovo, Svalenik and Vidin in Bulgaria (Даскалов 2012, 63); as well as Artek and Suuk Su in the Crimea (Репников 1906, 17-19, 36, 63). Buckles with three holes (fig. 48) 1. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found in grave 52, together with a bronze earring; bronze; Bârzu 1979, 66, fig. 13/9. 2. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found in grave 124, together with a knife and an earring; bronze; Bârzu 2010, 204-205, 205, fig. 154, 300, pl. 22/G124, 339, pl. 61/ G124.3. 3. Bratei (Sibiu county, Romania); found in grave 194; bronze; Bârzu 2010, 231 with fig. 214, 312, pl. 34/G194.1, 347, pl. 69/G194.1. 102 Fig. 48. Belt buckles decorated with three holes. Numbers refer to List 10 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 49. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with three holes. Numbers refer to List 10 4. Chernomorec (near Sozopol, Bulgaria); Христов 2013, 66, 67 (middle row, first on the left). 5. Ljubinci (near Aleksandrovac, Serbia); found inside the early Byzantine fort at Gradište; Рашковић et al. 2010, 29, pl. 8/2. 6. Medzhybizh (Kheml’nyts’kyi region, Ukraine); stray find; bronze; L=3.4; Погорілець et al. 2016, 83, 76, fig. 34. It would be tempting to see the three holes as derived from the two-hole motif that appears on buckles of the Sucidava-Kranj type (figs. 17-19). Alternatively, they could represent a simplification of the “eyes” and the “nose” of the human face (“mask”) on buckles and mount of the Sucidava-Beroe V type (figs. 22-27). However, the arrangement is different, with two of the tree holes at the bottom of the chape, which has no analogy on any buckle of the Sucidava class. The shape of the chapes on the specimens from Bratei and Chernomorec is different from the other types of the Sucidava class, which suggests that the inspiration for this decorative pattern may have come from elsewhere, i.e., from belt sets of a different kind. That half of all known specimens come from one and the same site in Transylvania is an indication that the type was not very popular (fig. 49). However, it is not easy to explain the striking similarities between the buckles found in graves 52, 124, and 194 in Bratei. All of those burials have been robbed, but the few surviving artifacts, besides the buckles, point to a date within the second half of the 6th or the early 7th century56. For example, the bronze earring from grave 52 is an imitation of a type of earring known from 6th-century burial assemblages in the Lower Danube region, in Greece, as well as in Croatia (Petre 1987, pl. 128, fig. 206b; Σωτηρίου 1956, pl. 41β; Δεριζιώτης / Κουγιουμτζόγλου 2004, pl. 25α; Vinski 1989, 62, pl. XIII/10). That the Ljubinci buckle was found Two of the three buckles have been found in the eastern part of the cemetery, which is characterized by a larger number of graves with horse bones and tack, as well as handmade pottery. This area is believed to be the later phase of the cemetery dated to the late 6th and the first half of the 7th century (Bârzu / Harhoiu 2008, 528, 530, 568, fig. 36, with the wrong symbol). 56 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 103 inside an early Byzantine hillfort substantiates the idea of a date within the (second half of the) 6th century. That buckle, however, seems to be a miscast (fig. 48/5). Not only does it have more than three holes, but two of them were cut next to each other, as if to correct an error. Moreover, the buckle has no frame (which is supposed to be cast together with the chape). Instead, the prong was cast together with the chape, although it is separate and normally attached to the chape after casting. The Ljubinci buckle has only one slot on the back, in a vertical position. This is true for all other buckles in this small group, except that the slot is positioned in the lower, not the upper part of the chape backside. List 11 Fig. 50. Belt buckles and mounts decorated with multiple holes. Numbers refer to List 11 Buckles with multiple holes (fig. 50) (Histria-Beroe IV [Petre]) 1. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea county, Romania); found in grave B64; Petre 1987, 71, pl. 129, fig. 205b. 2. Strazhata (near Pleven, Bulgaria); Даскалов 2012, 63, 226, fig. 56/21. 3. Unknown location (region of Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria); lead model; Даскалов 2012, 64, 227, fig. 57/15. Belt mounts with multiple holes (fig. 50) (Histria-Beroe IV [Petre]= B I [Traykova]) 4. Abrit (near Dobrich, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.9; Даскалов 2012, 99, 250, fig. 80/6. 5. Artek, in Hurzuf (district of Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine); Репников 1906, 36-37, pl. X/22. 6. Blăskovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze: L=2.75; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 20/1408. 7. Botevo (near Varna, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.45; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483 pl. 20/1405. 8. Constanţa (Romania); found on the ilium of the skeleton in the burial chamber 21, together with 3 other belt mounts with open-work decoration and two strap ends with open-work decoration; Bucovală / Paşca 1992, 249, pl. 6, pl. 11. 9. Grozd’ovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress at the Sherba site; bronze; L=2.75; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 20/1407. 10. Novakovo (near Varna, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fortress; bronze; L=2.75; Трайкова 2017b, 317-318, 483, pl. 20/1411. 11. Piatra Frecăţei (Tulcea district, Romania); found between the legs of the skeleton in grave B14, together with 11 other belt mounts with open-work ornament, two bronze buckles (one with open-work ornament), 6 strap ends with open-work ornament, and a bone purse mount; Petre 1987, 71, pl. 130, fig. 207d. 12. Riakhovo (near Ruse, Bulgaria); found inside the early Byzantine fort; bronze; Хараламбиева 1993, 37, 39 pl. III/11. 13. Shumen (Bulgaria); bronze: L=2.55; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 20/1404. 14. Unknown location (northeastern Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.85; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 20/1410. 15. Unknown location (region of Shumen, Bulgaria); bronze; L=2.75; Трайкова 2017b, 317, 483, pl. 20/1409. Belt buckles and mounts of the Histria-Beroe IV type (so called by Petre 1987, 71) best illustrate the opinion of the Slovak archaeologist Vladimír Varsik: there are many types in the Sucidava class, but numerous specimens show an open-work ornament that makes no sense and cannot therefore be used for classification (Varsik 1992, 78). on some mounts (fig. 50/5 12, 13), the symmetrical arrangement can still be distinguished, which reminds one of the human face (“mask”) of 104 FLoRIN CURTA Fig. 51. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts decorated with multiple holes. Numbers refer to List 11 Fig. 52. The distribution of belt buckles and mounts of the Sucidava class. Small symbols mark one specimen, larger ones mark 2. Stars are for more than 3 specimens. Finds in Turkey and Italy have not been plotted on the map the Sucidava-Beroe V type. In most other cases the ornament is broken and hardly recognizable. Neither the buckle from Piatra Frecăței (fig. 50/1), nor the belt mount from Botevo (fig. 50/7) may be interpreted as miscasts. Moreover, the broken ornament could be transferred on a belt mount of a different shape, such as that from Constanța (fig. 50/8), for which there are no known analogies. The buckles from Strazhata and an unknown location in the region of Blagoevgrad show another tendency, namely the simplification of various shapes, now turned into circular holes (fig. 50/2, 3). CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 105 The rectangular belt mount from Constanța was found in one of the burial chambers brought to light by salvage excavations carried out in 1992 immediately next to the city harbor. The associate strap end with open-work ornament has a good analogy in Magyarcsanád, which has recently been dated to the middle third of the 6th century (Bucovală / Paşca 1992, 249, pl. 6, pl. 11; Cseh et al. 2005, 251, pl. 21/1; Balogh 2014, 41). However, one of the other belt mounts with openwork ornament from Constanța is a specimen of Somogyi’s class C, which is commonly dated to the early 7th century (Balogh 2004, 263). A date shortly before or shortly after the year 600 may also be accepted for the fittings of a belt with multiple straps found between the legs of the skeleton in grave B14 of the cemetery excavated in Piatra Frecăței. The belt mount of the Histria-Beroe IV type was one of many; two other mounts are specimens of Somogyi’s classes A5 and A7 (Petre 1962, 227, fig. 13/10, 11; for the belt, see also Даскалов 2015, 83)57. There is a clear cluster of finds in northeastern Bulgaria and southeastern Romania (in the Dobrudja), with only one belt mount known from Crimea (fig. 51). This strongly suggests that the type originated in the same area of the Balkan Peninsula in which other types of the Sucidava class are believed to have come into being for the first time. The two mounts from Grozd’ovo, Novakovo and Riakhovo (List 11, 9, 10, 12) are said to have been found inside early Byzantine hillforts, which suggests a date before ca. 620. 58 one could add three more specimens of unknown types (Ваклинова 1989, 131; Лилчиќ 1998, 50; Торбатов 2009, 399). Soon after this paper was finalized, more finds have been published that I could not take into consideration anymore: two belt buckles from the 2015-2018 excavations in the St. Nedelya Square in Sofia—one of the SucidavaBeroe I B type, the other of Madgearu’s type II A (Станев 2020, 175, 177, 185, 176 fig. 5/6, 7); a belt buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type from Brezovica (Serbia); a belt mount of the SucidavaBeroe I B type from Petina (Serbia); a belt buckle with crescent and two holes from Bresnica (Serbia); a belt mount with fleuron and two holes from Petina (for all four, see Рашковић 2020, 353, 354, 363 pl. I/3, 364 pl. II/1, 3, 4); a belt buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type from Vinkovci (Croatia; Rapan Papeša 2020, 174 and fig. 1). 59 That number is even higher if one adds specimens from burial assemblages that have been published with little or no contextual information (Khairedinova 2007, 30 fig. 3/8, 9, 13, 20, 25; Khairedinova 2010, 63 fig. 3). 57 Conclusions Even at a quick glimpse at the distribution map for the Sucidava class (fig. 52), it is quite clear that the Sucidava class was very popular in Southeastern Europe. When Joachim Werner first wrote about that class, he knew only 13 specimens from the Balkans and three from Hungary (Werner 1955, 45, in addition to another two from Egypt, three from Italy, two from Bavaria, and three from France). Half a century later, Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm’s plotted on maps 74 specimens of her type D 1, and 23 of her type D 2. Writing a decade later, Andrei Gândilă knew of a “large inventory of ca. 150 buckles from the Middle and Lower Danube area” (Gândilă 2018, 94). This paper has taken into consideration 606 specimens, of which over 64 percent (391 specimens) are buckles58. Probably the greatest contribution to this rapid increase in numbers is that of the corpus compiled by Lyuba Traykova in her dissertation. Many entries in that corpus are finds from northeastern Bulgaria, but there is now a surge in finds from the Crimea59. Those are in fact the two clusters of finds on the distribution map (fig. 52), one in the northeastern region of the Balkan Peninsula now divided between Bulgaria and Romania, and the other in the Crimea. However, not all types have the same distribution. While finds of all types considered in this paper are known from the Balkans, no specimens of the SucidavaSolin, Sucidava-Kranj, and Sucidava-Diergardt types have been so far found in the Crimea. only three specimens of the Sucidava-Solin type are known from outside the territories that were within the Empire in the 6th century, one in Moldavia, the other two in Hungary. By contrast, no less than 19 specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe I B class have been found outside the 6th-century Empire, and within a larger distance from its northern frontier – as far as Bohemia to the northwest and the Middle Dnieper to the northeast. out of those 19 specimens, 13 have been found in the Carpathian Basin, nine of them in presentday Hungary. A comparably large number of specimens is also known 106 FLoRIN CURTA from the lands outside the 6th-century Empire for the II B Beroe type. However, in that case, out of 16 specimens, 9 are from Eastern Europe (Left-Bank Ukraine, central Russia and the Kama region), with only three from the Carpathian Basin. The same is true for the type with a crescent or fleuron as main ornament: 7 out of 11 finds are from Eastern Europe. While the only specimen of Madgearu’s type IIa is from Left-Bank Ukraine, all four specimens of the Sucidava-Beroe V type are from Carpathian Basin and the regions farther to the northwest. No finds outside the 6th-century Empire are known for the Sucidava-Diergardt and Histria-Beroe IV types. The marked differences in the distribution of types bespeaks regional preferences, which are not easy to explain. Igor Gavritukhin believed that the Sucidava class was popular because of its association with a Roman “military style” during Justinian’s age (Гавритухин 2009). If so, that style is conspicuously absent in the region that was the most exposed to cultural influences during that age. Indeed, most astonishing is the lack of any finds from the region closest to the Danube frontier of the Empire – Wallachia (southern Romania). As Andrei Gândilă has recently put it, ”the same people who were so eager to obtain Byzantine artifacts such as fibulae, crosses, and various types of jewelry appear to have been relatively uninterested in Byzantine buckles” (Gândilă 2018, 97)60. Gândilă suggests that at stake may have been questions of group identity, for the fashion of simple belts with buckles of the Sucidava class, or belts with multiple straps decorated with mounts of that same class were associated with certain political allegiances (Gândilă 2018, 99-100; for a similar argument in regards to finds of ”Slavic” bow fibulae from regions farther to the north, see Barford 2004). This is a very strong argument against treating the Sucidava class as ordinary dress accessories (Uenze 1992, 184), or as reaching barbarians by means of trade (Csallány 1962, 60; Varsik 1992, 79; Blay / Samu 2016, 302)61. However, if buckles of the Sucidava class were rejected by the inhabitants of the lands immediately to the north of the frontier, they were accepted and prized by those living much farther away. Whether or not political and, perhaps, military alliances could be traced by such means is unclear, at least in the present state of research (however, see Kiss 2015, 168). It is important to note that in the Carpathian Basin, as well as in the steppe lands north of the Black Sea, belt buckles of the Sucidava-Beroe I B class typically appear in graves with weapons, a situation directly mirroring the association of the Sucidava class with military sites in the Balkans. In other words, what was borrowed from the Empire was not just the artifact, but a cultural form linked to a specific social status. The large number of miscasts found in the northeastern region of the Balkans, especially for the Sucidava-Beroe I B and the II B Beroe types, is a clear indication of local production, but so far no mould has been found for any buckle of the Sucidava class. This may well be the result of a simple technology of production, involving clay moulds, which could in turn explain the gradual simplification and alteration of the open-work ornament. However, pairs or sets of three slots on the backside, for fastening to the belt, seem to have been cast at the same time as the buckle or the mount, which suggests the use of two-piece moulds. Belt mounts similar to the II B Beroe type were certainly cast in one-piece moulds, such as that found in the postern of the southern only three finds are so far known from Moldavia (eastern Romania), but there are 6 specimens known from Transylvania (central Romania). This is hardly the result of the current state of research. 61 Гавритухин 2009, 160 believes that the buckles of the Sucidava class found in Hungary were acquired by Gepids raiding the Balkans provinces of the Empire in the Avar armies. A similar argument was made by Profantová 2015b, 108, but with Slavs from Bohemia, instead of Gepids from the Carpathian Basin. Both authors lack any evidence in support of their claims. 60 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS 62 This is the argument of Samu 2018, 243 regarding the disfigured mask: the arrangement of the resulting multiple holes is “ganz ätherisch,” but still decorative. 107 rampart of the Upper Town in Caričin Grad (Ivanišević 2018, 713, fig. 2/2, 714, fig. 3/1). Mounts of the same type, however, were produced outside the empire by different means, namely the lost-wax technique, as implied by the models found in an unknown location in Bulgaria (List 11, 3), in the Kuzebaevo hoard and in the Petropavlovo cemetery. Moreover, morphological or ornamental features of buckles found outside the territories that were within the Empire during the 6th century, such as that from Borniş, which has no analogies, suggest local production, no doubt employing very simple casting techniques. The most recent tendency in studies of the Sucidava class has been to shift the emphasis from shape or form of the buckle or the belt mount to its decoration (Samu 2018). This is regarded as a better approach to the meaning of buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class, especially their open-work ornament. According to Levente Samu, the idea of decorating buckles and belt mounts with open-work ornamental patterns derives from the earlier practice of decorating them with cloisonné (Samu 2018, 243; for buckles with cloisonné ornament, see Buškariol 1985; Horváth 2012; Трайкова 2017b, 33-34). When emptying the cells of the cloisonné ornament, one is left with an open-work ornament. However, the ornamental patterns based on the cross or the human face (“mask”) – Schulze-Dörrlamm’s types D1 and D2 – cannot be traced back to the cloisonné ornament of earlier belt fittings. Samu identified 12 ornament patterns for the belt mounts and 11 for the buckles, each divided into three groups: centrally arranged motifs, masks, and cross with crescent (Samu 2018, 243,248). However, at a closer examination, none of those groups is sufficiently discrete for classification. How can one classify the relatively large number of “abnormal” cases in which, for example, the crescent and the cross merge, or of miscasts, in which the multiple holes turn into an incomprehensible ornament? Samu is right in one respect, though: only a careful examination of the decoration can answer questions about the significance of the belt fittings of the Sucidava class beyond their practical function. The alteration of the cross ornament is a particularly relevant case in point. on buckles and, to some extent, belt mounts of the Sucidava-Solin, Sucidava-Beroe I B, Sucidava-Kranj, and SucidavaBeroe V, the cross is sometimes so deformed that it is very hard, if not impossible to recognize it as such. This raises serious questions about the usual interpretation of the cross ornament as a distinctly Christian symbol, even when the function of the artifact (belt buckle or mount) is regarded as apotropaic (Teodor 1991a, 85; Varsik 1992, 78; Covacef 1999; Moga 2000, 434; Гавритухин 2009, 156; Samu 2018, 249; for the apotropaic significance of the mask ornament, see Khairedinova 2010, 65). If the cross ornament was so deformed, how would it be still recognized as a cross, and without that, how would the buckle or the mount still have an apotropaic function? If, on the other hand, whoever produced buckles or belt mounts with modified or completely mangled crosses was indifferent to the presumed symbolism of the ornament, then that must have been the result of a different concern, namely to create something in the way of open-work ornament, irrespective of the shape62. Be that as it may, any discussion of the meaning of those belt fittings cannot ignore any more the large numbers of cases that do not really match the expected pattern of decoration. Whether the underlying reason was haste or lack of technological skills, the para- 108 FLoRIN CURTA mount concern was definitely not linked to the precise reproduction of that pattern of decoration. Knock-offs and “authentic” specimens of the Sucidava class could not be distinguished any more, but imitations were by no means “fake” buckles or belt mounts of that class. Instead, the goal may well have been to introduce variation by whatever means possible. That much results from the lack of any examples in which a buckle of a certain type was associated with a belt mount of that same type63. More often than not, belt mounts of the Sucidava class were not even combined with belt buckles of that class within one and the same belt set. While pairs or multiple mounts of the same type may have been used for belts with multiple straps, probably on one and the same strap, there are also examples of single mounts of a particular type combined with mounts of a completely different kind, either singly or in multiple specimens. Despite any variation that either the sloppiness or the lack of skills of the producer may have caused, each individual type of the Sucidava class considered in this paper is actually quite homogeneous. Homogeneity is most obvious in the case of the Sucidava-Beroe I B, and because that is also the type with the greatest number of specimens, one is led to questions about the cultural, economic and political circumstances in which homogeneity was expected or possible. Since no evidence exists that those buckles and belt mounts were mass-produced in some workshops, the answers to those questions will have to address the archaeological context64. In the northern and central regions of the Balkan Peninsula, many more specimens of the Sucidava class have been found in forts than in burials, while in the Crimea quite the opposite is true (table 1). This seems to confirm earlier suggestions that buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class were part of the military dress, worn primarily by men (Varsik 1993, 208-209). The skeletal evidence from graves discovered both inside and, especially outside the territories of the Empire, substantiates that conclusion, especially where sex has been determined anthropologically. As a matter of fact, the number of male burials with buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class is more than double that of female burials (table 2)65. Since in several cases, those men were buried with specimens of the Sucidava class, but with weapons as well, it is tempting to interpret the deposition of the buckles and belt mounts in question as signaling the military status of the deceased, whether real or imagined. Igor Gavritukhin believed those men to have been mercenaries in Justinian’s armies (Гавритухин 2009, 164). The idea that in the Middle Danube region, as well as elsewhere outside the Empire, the buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class signaled military status when deposited in graves is clearly supported by the archaeological evidence. Nonetheless, because of the chronology of the Sucidava class, weapon burials with buckles of that class most likely post-date Justinian’s death. Despite Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm’s claims being reproduced by many in recent times (e.g., Kiss 2015, 227-228; Samu 2018, 248), there is basically no chronological distinction between the many types of the Sucidava class, all of which coexisted throughout the second half of the 6th century (table 3). Nor is there any evidence that the Sucidava class came into being during the second quarter of the 6th century, during Emperor Anastasius (491-518) or Emperor Justin I’ That is why the reconstruction proposed by Трайкова 2016, 85 fig. 2 has no support in the archaeological record. 64 There is absolutely no evidence to support Igor Gavritukhin’s claim that the production of buckles of the Sucidava class was run and/or controlled by the state (Гавритухин 2009, 156). 65 Khairedinova 2010, 64-65 notes that in the Crimea buckles of the SucidavaSolin, Sucidava-Beroe I B, and SucidavaKranj types appear only in male graves, while those of the Sucidava-Beroe V type have been found only with female skeletons. 63 CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS Table 1. Buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class found within the Empire Forts 4+2 33 + 2 7 9+8 0+3 1+3 List 1 List 2 List 3 List 4 List 5 List 6 List 7 List 8 List 9 List 10 List 11 9+6 1 1 0+3 Male 2 4 1+2 Female Children 1 2 1 4 1 Table 3. Chronology of the Sucidava class Burials 2 10 + 3 5 7+3 2 4+0 3+1 6 + 11 6+2 Table 2. Burials with buckles and belt mounts of the Sucidava class List 1 List 2 List 6 List 7 List 8 List 9 109 1 3 2 66 The implications of wrongly dating the Sucidava class so early are quite serious. For example, on the basis of SchulzeDörrlamm 2002, buckles of the Sucidava class are dated before the middle of the 6th century, then used as chronological indicator for the dating of the row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania (Dobos 2018, 627). By contrast, at Razgrad (Abritus), a Sucidava buckle is an indication of the last phase of occupation, much like a hoard of coins struck for Emperor Justin II, and a an isolated coin of Tiberius II (Aladzhov 2016, 264). 67 This paper is the last version of a number of drafts, the quality of which greatly improved due to the corrections and suggestions made by Dr. Lyuba Traykova, National Archaeological Institute with Museum at Sofia. Many thanks are due to her, while all remaining errors are entirely mine. reign (518-527) (for such claims, see Teodor 1991b, 125; Fiedler 1992, 73; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 155; Даскалов / Трендафилова 2005, 9; for a critique of dating methods based on coin dates, see Gândilă 2018, 96)66. The earliest chronological indication is that of the specimen of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type from Szőreg (List 2, 102), which was found together with a S-shaped fibula dated to the middle third of the 6th century (and not “ca. 568,” as in Uenze 1992, 186). Similarly, the archaeological evidence contradicts Joachim Werner’s old idea that the Sucidava class cannot be dated after ca. 600 (Werner 1955, 39; Werner 1989-1990, 594). With the exception of the Sucidava-Kranj type and of Madgearu’s type IIa, all other types continue well into the first half of the 7th century. According to Attila P. Kiss, it is unclear whether the Avars and the Gepids living under Avar rule used the buckles of the Sucidava class (Kiss 2019b, 477). Nonetheless, the presence of such buckles in assemblages clearly dated to the Avar-age is undeniable. Igor Gavritukhin believed that such buckles had been “held up” (Гавритухин 2009, 156). However, the association of a buckle of the Sucidava-Solin type (List 1, 7), most likely of local manufacture, with a coin struck for Emperor Constans II cannot be attributed to any “delayed” fashions or use, especially since the buckle was fully functional. Dating the Sucidava class between the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century implies that buckles of that class coincided in time, at least partially, with other types until now regarded as of a much later date – the Syracuse, the Pápa, the Bologna, the BolyŽelovce, and the Pergamon types (Uenze 1966, 152; Ibler 1992, 138, 140; Varsik 1992, 84; Riemer 1995, 783). Cemetery sites in the Crimea and on the western coast of the Black Sea, with a chronology stretching over several centuries between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, have indeed produced buckles of all those types, as well as of the Sucidava class. The systematic publication of all excavated burial assemblages in Luchyste and Nesebăr could elucidate the chronological overlap and show that, far from being a manifestation of cultural retardation, the presence of the Sucidava class in Avar-age assemblages of the Carpathian Basin may very well reflect similarly prolonged use of buckles and belt mounts of that class within the shrunken Empire of the 7th century67. 110 Bibliography Айбабин, А. И. / Хайрединова, Е. А. 2014. Могильник у села Лучистое. Раскопки 1984, 1986, 1991, 1993-1995 годов. Симферополь / Керчь. Айбабин, А. И. / Юрочкин, В. Ю. 1995. Могильник “Баклинский окраг” по материалам раскопок 1992-1993 гг. In: Могаричев, Ю. М. / Храпунов, И. Н. (eds.). Проблемы археологии древнего и средневекового Крыма. Сборник научных трудов. Симферопол. 125-135, 206-235. Аксенов, В. С. 2012. Комплексы предсалтовского и раннесалтовского времени с територии Харьковской обл. – Старожитності лівобережного Подніпровья 3, 32-50. Антонова, В. 1992. Античното наследство в средновековна Мадара. In: Велков, В. (ed.). Мадара III. Шумен. 133-135. Антонова, В. 1987. Шуменската крепост през ранновизантийската епоха. – Годишник на музеите от Северна България 13, 53-68. Антонова, В. 1986. Старобългарски коланни украси от Окръжния Исторически Музей в Шумен. – Годишник на музеите от Северна България 12, 49-54. Атавин, А. Г. 1996. Погребения VII-начало VIII вв. из Восточного Приазовья. In Кочкина, А. Ф. / Кузнецова, Л. В. / Сташенков, Д. А. (eds.). Культуры евразийских степей второй половины I тысячелетия н. э. Самара. 208-264. Атанасов, Г. / Йорданов, И. 1994. Средновековният Ветрен на Дунав. Шумен. Афанасьев, Г. Е. 1979. Хронология могильника Мокрая Балка. – Краткие сообщения Археологии АН СССР 158, 43-51. Ахмедов, И. Р. 2016. Византийские и славянские находки в рязано-окских древностях. In: Никитин, А. О. (ed.). Древности Поочья. Сборник научных работ к 60-летию В. В. Судакова. Рязань. 64-87. Ахмедов, И. Р. 2015. Плети из рязаноокских могильников. Новые данные. In: Золотова, А. А. (ed.). Археология без границ. Колекции, проблемы, исследования, гипотезы. Санкт Петербург. 30-65. Ахмеров, Р. Б. 1970. Уфимские по- FLoRIN CURTA гребения IV-VII вв. н. э. и их место в древней истории Башкирии. In: Смирнов, А. П. (ed.). Древности Башкирии. Москва. 161-193. Борисова, В. В. 1959. Могильник у высоты “Сахарная головка” (по раскопкам и разведкам 1951 и 1953 годов). – Херсонесский сборник 5, 169-205. Ваклинова, М. 1989. Погребения от периода на Великото преселение при Плевен. – Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура 1, 129-142. Васић, М. 1982-1983. Чезава – Castrum Novae. – Старинар 33-34, 91-122. Веймарн, В. E. / Айбабин, А. И. 1993. Скалистинский могильник. Киев. Волков, С. / Пастушенко, И. 20052006. Исследования Усть-Иргинского могильника неволинской культуры. – Finno-Ugrica 9, 5-39. Володарець-Урбанович, Я. В. 2016. Деталі поясних наборів V – першоï половини VIII ст. iз Полтавщини: знахідки від початку 2000-х рр. – Археологiя 3, 89-105. Гавритухин, И. О. 2019. Пряжки типа Сиракузы и северо-восточная зона их распространения. In: Гавритухин, И. О. / Воронцов, А. М. (eds.). Лесная и лесостепная зоны Восточной Европы в эпохи римских влияний и Великого переселения народов. Конференция 4. Часть 2. Тула. 295-353. Гавритухин, И. Г. 2016. Пряжки типа Сиракуза на Восточно-Европейской (Русской) Равнине. In: Chudzińska, B. / Wojenka, M. / Wołoszyn, M. (eds.). od Bachórza do Światowida ze Zbrucza. Tworzenie się słowiańskiej Europy w ujęciu źródłoznawczym. Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Michała Parczewskiego. Kraków / Rzeszów. 151-170. Гавритухин, И. О. 2011. Фибулы типа Удине-Планис. In: Шаров, О. В. (ed.). Петербургский апокриф. Послание от Марка. Кишинев. 463-490. Гавритухин, И. О. 2009. Элементы “Юстиниановского” воинского стиля у северных варваров (Пряжки типа Сучидава). In: Aparaschivei, D. (ed.). Studia antiqua et mediaevalia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXV peragentis Professoris Dan Gh. Teodor oblata. Bucureşti. 153-184. Гавритухин, И. О. 2002. Фибулы и ременные гарнитуры из цистерны П-1967 г. в Херсонесе. – Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии 9, 217-228. Гавритухин, И. О. / Обломский, А. М. 1996. Гапоновский клад и его культурно-исторический контекст. Москва. Гатев, И. 1998. Спасителни разкопки на късноантичен некропол край курорт Русалка, Каварненско. – Археологически вести 1, 27-31. Гатев, И. 1997. Ново дарение в Националния археологически музей. – Известия на Националния археологически музей 10, 358-370. Голдина, Р. Д. 2012a. Неволинский могильник VII-IX вв. в Пермском Предуралье. Ижевск. Голдина, Р. Д. 2012b. О датировке и хронологии неволинской культуры (конец IV-IX в.). In: Голдина, Р. (ed.). Древности Прикамья эпохи железа (VI в. до н. э. – XV в. н. э.): хронологическая атрибуция. Ижевск. 203-285. Голдина, Р. Д. 2012c. О датировке поломской культуры. In: Голдина, Р. Д. (ed.). Древности Прикамья епохи железа (VI в. до н. э. – XV в. н. э.): хронологическая атрибуция. Ижевск. 399-414. Голдина, Р. Д. / Водолаго, Н. В. 1990. Могильники Неволинской культуры в Приуралье. Иркутск. Григоров, В. 2010. Крепостта Красен до Панагюрище. В памет на Димитър Топтанов. София. Даскалов, М. 2015. Коланни гарнитури със странични ремъци от VI-VII век южно от Дунав. – Археология 56/1-2, 79-103. Даскалов, М. 2012. Колани и коланни украси от VI-VII век (от днешна България и съседните земи). София. Даскалов, М. 2009. Токи и коланни украси (VI-VII в.) от околностите на гр. Котел. In: Петрунова, Б. / Аладжов, А. / Василиева, Е. (eds.). Laurea. In honorem Margaritae Vaklinova. Том 2. София. 89-102. Даскалов, М. 2007. Археологически проучвания на средневековни обекти по южното българско Черноморие през 2006 и 2007 г. – Известия на Народния музей Варна 48, 86-109. Даскалов, М. / Думанов, Б. 2003. Метални предмети от периода VI- CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS VII в. във фонда на ИМ-Хасково. – Известия на Историческия музей – Хасково 2, 193-206. Даскалов, М. / Трендафилова, К. 2007. Нови постъплениия на метални накити от V-VI век във фонда на ИМПерник. – Известия на Историческия музей – Кюстендил 13, 381-390. Даскалов, М. / Трендафилова, К. 2005. Коланът в южнодунавските византийски провинции през VI-VII в. In: Йотов, В. / Павлова, В. (eds.). Българските земи през средновековието (VII-XVIII в.). Международна конференция в чест на 70-годишнината на проф. Александър Кузев. Варна. 7-18. Дероко, А. / Радојчић, С. 1950. Откопавање Царичина града 1947 године. – Старинар 1, 119-142. Димитров, Д. П. / Чичикова, М. / Димитрова, А. / Султов, Б. / Божилова, Б. / Василчин, И. 1974. Археологически разкопки в източния сектор на Нове през 1967-1969 г. – Известия на Археологическия институт 34, 138-176. Димитров, Д. П. / Чичикова, М. / Султов, Б. 1964. Археологические раскопки в восточном секторе Нове в 1962 году. – Известия на Археологическия институт 27, 218-235. Дражева, Ц. 2002. Археологически проучвания на късноантичната и средновековна крепост в м. “Градището-Голое” край село Лозарево. In: Калев, Р. / Момчилов, Д. (eds.). История и култура на Карнобатския край. Том 4. София. 171-185. Засецкая, И. П. 1997. Датировка и происхождение пальчатых фибул боспорского некрополя раннесредневекого периода. – Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии 6, 394-478. Засецкая, И. П. / Казанский, М. М. / Ахмедов, И. Р. / Минасян, Р. С. 2007. Морской Чулек. Погребения знати из Приазовья и их место в истории племен Северного Причерноморья в постгуннскую епоху. Санкт Петербург. Йотов, В. 2013. Эргастирий начала VII в. в византийской крепости на мысе Св. Атанас в городе Бяла, Варненской области (предварительные сообщение). – Нартекс. Byzantina Ukrainiensis 2, 426-439. Кашкин, А. В. / Родникова, В. Е. 2010. Памятники суджанского региона эпохи великого переселения народов. – Верхнедонской археологической сборник 5, 80-92. Ковалевская, В. Б. 1979. Поясные наборы Евразии IV-IX вв. Пряжки. Москва. Комар, О. В. 2008. Кочевники Восточной Европы VI-IX вв. In: Досымбаева, А. (ed.). Еуразияның турк мұрасы VI-VIII ғғ. Астана. 192216. Комар, А. В. / Куйбышев, А. И. / Орлов, Р. С. 2006. Погребения кочевников VI-VII вв. из северо-западного Приазовья. In: Евгелевский, А. В. (ed.). Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Том 5. Донецк. 245-374. Комар, О. В. / Орлов, Р. С. 2006. Погребение кочевника 2-й пол. VII в. у села Черноморское. In: Евгелевский, А. В. (ed.). Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья, том 5. Донецк. 387-398. Корзухина, Г. Ф. 1996. Клады и случайные находки вещей круга “древностей антов” в среднем Поднепровье. Каталог памятников. – Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии 5, 352-435, 586705. Костромичев, Д. А. 2019. Пряжки типа Сиракуза в собрании Государственного музея заповедника “Херсонес Таврический”. In: Гавритухин, И. О. / Воронцов, А. М. (eds.). Лесная и лесостепная зоны Восточной Европы в эпохи римских влиянии и Великого переселения народов. Конференция 4. Часть 2. Тула. 354-362. Кропоткин, В. В. 1958. Из истории средневекового Крыма (Чуфут Кале и вопрос о локализации города Фуллы). – Советская археология 28, 198-218. Левченко, Д. И. 2001. Знахідки VI-VII ст. з околиць Градізька в зібранні Полтавського краєзнавчого музею. – Археологiчний літопис Лівобережної України 1, 26-28. Лилчиќ, В. 1998. Доцноантички комуникации и тврдини во регионот на средното Повардарије I. Регион на Велес. – Македонско наследство 4, 13-54. Лилчиќ, В. 1996. Научноистражувачки проект северо-западна Македонија во доцната антика 111 и средниот век: Полог, Кичевија, Порече. – Македонско наследство 2, 53-84. Липкинг, Ю. А. 1974. Могильники третьей четверти I тыс. н. э. в Курском Посемье. In: Третьяков, П. Н. (ed.). Раннесредневековные восточнославянские древности. Сборник статей. Ленинград. 136-152. Любенова, В. 1995. Бронзови предмети от късноантичната вила при рудник “Бела Вода”, Перник. – Археология 37/3, 7-17. Любенова, В. 1981. Селището от римската и ранновизантийска епоха. In: Иванов, Т. (ed.). Перник I. Поселищен живот на хълма Кракра от V хил. пр. н. е. до VI в. на н. е. София. 107-203. Мастыкова, А. В. 2020. Пряжки типа Митилена в Крыму и на северном Кавказе: византийская традиция или византийско-сасанидская мода. In: Зинько, В. Н. (ed.). XXI Боспорские чтения. Боспор Кимерийский и варварский мир в период античности и средневековья. Объекты искусства в археологическом контексте. Материалы международной научной конференции. Симферополь / Керчь. 235-242. Машов, С. 1990. Късноантичният кастел и ранновизантийският град Augusta при село Хърлец, община Козлодуй. – Известия на музеите в Северозападна България 16, 21-45. Микулчиќ, И. / Билбија, М. 1981-1982. Маркови Кули, Водно, Скопје 1979 и 1980. – Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 7-8, 205-220. Микулчиќ, И. / Лилчиќ, В. 1995. Фибули и појасни украси од 6. и 7. век во Македонија. – Годишен зборник. Филозофски факултет на Универзитет Скопје 48, 255-275. Микулчиќ, И. / Нилуљска, Н. 1978. Рановизантиски град “Маркови кули” на Водно. – Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 4, 137-150. Милинковић, М. 2010. Градина на Јелици. Рановизантијски и средњовековно насеље. Београд. Момчилов, Д. 2013. Коланни украси V-VII в. от археологическия фонд на карнобатския музей. – Преслав 7, 402-416. Момчилов, Д. / Димитрова, Р. 2014. Коланни украси от втората половина на VI – началните десетилетия 112 на VII в., от Акве Калиде – Терме (Термополис). – Годишник на Университета ”Проф. Асен Златаров” – Бургас 43/2, 15-20. Монгайт, А. Л. 1951. Археологические заметки. – Краткие сообщения Института Истории Материальной Культуры 41, 124-130. Никитина, А. В. 2017. Некоторые случайные находки эпохи великого переселения народов и раннего средневековья Ульяновского региона. – Вояджер. Мир и человек 8, 59-86. Обломский, А. М. / Терпиловский, Р. В. 1993. Новые погребения раннесредневековных кочевников на Сумщине. In: Тайров, А. Д. (ed.). Кочевники урало-казахстанских степей. Сборник научных трудов. Екатеринбург. 167-172. Орлов, Р. С. / Рассамакин, Ю. Я. 1996. Новые памятники VI-VII вв. из Приазовья. In Erdélyi, I. et al. (eds.). Материалы I тыс. н. э. по археологии и истории Украины и Венгрии. Киев. 102-116. Останина, Т. И. / Канунникова, О. М. / Степанов, В. П. / Никитин, А. Б. 2011. Кузебаевский клад ювелира VII в. как исторический источник. Ижевск. Петровић, Д. 1962-1963. Средневековна некропола на Донићком Брду (Градац код Крагујевац). – Старинар 13-14, 275290. Погорілець, О. Г. / Панікарський, А. В. / Володарець-Урбанович, Я. В. 2016. Ранньосередньовічні знахідки з Меджибожа-Рибгоспа. – Sclavenia terra 1, 91-31. Приходнюк, О. М. / Евдокимов, Г. Л. / Данилко, Н. М. 2001. Ранньосередньовічне поховання кочовика из с. Суханове на Херсонщині. – Археологія 2, 77-82. Приходнюк, О. М. / Падин, В. А. / Тихонов, Н. Г. 1996. Трубчевский клад антского времени. In: Erdélyi, I. et al. (eds.). Материалы I тыс. н. э. по археологии и истории Украины и Венгрии. Киев. 79-102. Рашев, Р. 2000. Прабългарите през V-VII век. София. Рашковић, Д. 2020. Делови појасних гарнитура од 5. до 7. века из Народног Музеја Крушевац. – Гласник Српског археолошког FLoRIN CURTA друштва 36, 349-366. Рашковић, Д. 2016. Налази из рановизантијског и средневековног периода на налазишту Укоса у Граду Сталаћу. – Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 32, 285-304. Рашковић, Д. / Димовски, Н. / Црнобрња, С. 2010. Рановизантијско утврђење Градиште у Љубинцима – жупа Александровачка. – Жупски зборник 5, 29-56. Репников, Н. И. 1909. Разведки и раскопки на южном берегу Крыма и в Байдарской долине в 1907 году. – Известия Императорской археологической коммиссии 30, 99-126. Репников, Н. И. 1907. Некоторые могильники области Крымских готов. – Записки Одесского общества истории и древности 27, 101-148. Репников, Н. И. 1906. Некоторые могильники области Крымских готов. – Известия Императорской археологической коммиссии 19, 1-80. Семенов, В. А. 1980. Варнинский могильник. In: Генинг, В. Ф. (ed.). Новый памятник поломской культуры. Ижевск. 161-193. Семенов, В. А. 1967. Петропавловский могильник VI-VII вв. в южной Удмуртии. – Вопросы археологии Урала 7, 164-171. площад “Света Неделя”. София. 169186. Станилов, С. 1995. Гарнитури за ремък от Вътрешния град на Преслав. In: Тотев, Т. / Йорданов, И. / Рашев, Р. / Георгиев, П. / Бонев, С. (eds.). 1100 голини Велики Преслав. Том 1. Шумен. 161-171. Табакова-Цанова, Г. 1981. Късноантичният некропол в местността Стражата край град Плевен. – Известия на Националния исторически музей 3, 102-184. Тихомиров, Н. А. 1990. Княжинский и Лебяжинский могильники. – Материалы и исследования по археологии Днепровского Левобережья 1, 134-161. Торбатов, С. 2009. Градището Острия камък при с. Овчеполци, Пазарджишко. In: ВладимироваАладжова, Д. et al. (eds.). Сборник в памет на професор Велизар Велков. София. 387-413. Тошић, Г. / Рашковић, Д. 2009. Хришћански мотиви на археолошком материалу из околине Крушевца и Алексинаца. In: Ракоција, М. (ed.). Ниш и Византија VII. Симпозиум, Ниш, 3-5 юни 2008. Зборник радова. Ниш. 179-195. Скиба, А. В. 2016. Поясні набори слов’ян: геральдичний стиль. Київ. Трайкова, Л. 2017a. Късноантични метални части за колан от фонда на музея в Силистра. – Добруджа 32, 465-485. Смирнов, К. Ф. 1960. Кургани біля м. Великого Токмака. – Археологічні пам’ятки УРСР 8, 164-189. Трайкова, Л. 2017b. Коланът южно от Долен Дунав края на III-началото на VII в. Ph. D. Dissertation. София. Спасов, Р. 2001. Новопостъпила колекция с находки от ранновизантийската и средновековната епохи в Исторически музей – Кюстендил. – Трудове на научната група 1, 38-50. Трайкова, Л. 2016. Ажурни апликации към колани с токи тип Сучидава. – Археология 57/1-2, 83-90. Спицын, А. А. 1901. Древности бассейнов рек Оки и Камы. Санкт Петербург. Сретеновић, М. 1984. Мокрањске стене, вишеслојно насеље. Извештај о археолошким истраживањима у 1980. години. – Ђердапске свеске 2, 221-230. Станев, А. 2020. Археологически находки от VI-VII в. или финалния период на антична Сердика (наблюдения от проучванията на площад “Света Неделя”, гр. София). In: Кацарова, В. / Петкова, К. (eds.). Археологическото наследство на Турова, Н. П. / Черныш, С. А. 2015. Раннесредневековый могильник Алония на южном берегу Крыма (по материалам раскопок 1998, 2001, 2002 гг.). – Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии 30, 133-184. Филов, Б. 1914. Новооткрити старини. – Известия на Варненското археологическо дружество 4, 278-293. Фурасьев, А. Г. 2010. О времени появления пальчатых фибул днепровской подгруппы (по материалам могильников Южного Крыма). In: Воронцов, А. М. / Гавритухин, И. О. (eds.). Лесная и лесостепная зоны Восточной Европы в эпохи римских CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS влияний в Великого переселения народов. Конференция 2. Часть 2. Тула. 128-142. Хайдеринова, Е. А. 2019. Византийские пряжки с изображением льва второй половины VII в. из Юго-Западного Крыма. In: Алексеенко, Н. А. (ed.). Миры Византии. Сборник научных трудов. Симферополь. 79-102. Хайрединова, Е. А. 2003. Обувные наборы V-VII вв. из Юго-Западного Крыма. – Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии 10, 125-160. Хайрединова, Е. А. 1999. Женский костюм с большими пряжками с христианской символики из ЮгоЗападного Крыма. – Херсонесский сборник 10, 334-348. Хараламбиева, А. 1993. Коланни токи от IV-VII в. от Добричкия музей. – Добруджа 10, 32-43. Хардаєв, В. М. 2015. Кочівницькi поховальні комплекси кінця VI-VII ст. біля с. Василівка на Херсонщині. – Археологiя 3, 107-117. Хрисимов, Н. 2014. Курганные погребения VI-VII вв. со стременами из восточноевропейских степей. In: Евгелевский, А. В. (ed.). Степы Евразии в эпоху средневековья 12. Хазарское время. Сборник научных трудов. Донецк. 215-238. Хрисимов, Н. 2006. Късноантични и ранносредневековни метални накити и части от костюма от фонда на Исторически музей – Омуртаг. In: Тошев, М. (ed.). Град Омуртаг и омуртагският край. История и култура. Велико Търново. 221-243. Христов, И. 2013. Предмети от метал и камък. In: Христов, И. (ed.). Акра. Проучване на ранновизантийска крепост на полуостров Свети Никола при град Черноморец. София. 65-69. Шаблавина, Е. А. 2007. Техника изготовления художественных металлических изделий раннесредневекового Боспора. Ph. Dissertation. Санкт Петербург. Aibabin, A. I. / Khairedinova, E. A. 2009. Das Gräberfeld beim Dorf Lučistoe. Band 1: Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1977, 1982-1984. Mainz. Aibabin, A. I. / Khairedinova, E. A. 2000. Un nouvel ensemble de fibules digitées provenant de la nécropole de Loutchistoe. In Kazanski, M. / Soupault, V. (eds.). Les sites archéologiques en Crimée et au Caucase durant l’Antiquité tardive et le Haut Moyen Age. Leiden / Boston. 65-87. Aladzhov, A. 2016. The final stage in the development of the early Byzantine towns on the Lower Danube. In: Schwarcz, A. / Soustal, P. / Cholakova, A. (eds.). Der Donaulimes in der Spätantike und im Frühmittelalter. Wien. 259-278. Atanasov, G. 1997. Martyrium et ἁγιασμόν dans le castel bas-byzantin près du village de Golech, région de Silistra (communication préliminaire). In: Kholiolchev, Khr. / Pillinger, R. / Harreither, R. (eds.). Von der Scythia zur Dobrudža. Wien. 127-139. Bálint, Cs. 2019. The Avars, Byzantium and Italy. A Study in Chorology and Cultural History. Budapest. Bálint, Cs. 2000. Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des vielteiligen Gürtels. In: Bálint, Cs. (ed.). Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert. Budapest. 99-162. Bálint, Cs. 1992. Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe. Das Grab von Üç Tepe (Sowj. Azerbajdžan) und der beschlagverzierte Gürtel im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. In Daim, F. (ed.). Awarenforschungen, vol. 1. Wien. 309496. Balogh, Cs. 2014. Masque type mounts from the Carpathian Basin. In: Doncheva-Petkova, L. / Balogh, Cs. / Türk, A. (eds.). Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars on the Middle and Lower Danube. Sofia / Pilicsaba. 37-54. Balogh, Cs. 2004. Martinovka-típusú övgarnitúra Kecelről. A Kárpát-medencei maszkos veretek tipokronológiája – Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve. – Studia Archaeologica 10, 241-304. Baltag, Gh. 2000. Sighişoara înainte de Sighişoara. Elemente de demografie şi habitat în bazinul mijlociu al Târnavei Mari din preistorie până în secolul al XIII-lea d.Hr. cu privire specială asupra zonei municipiului Sighişoara. Bucureşti. 113 rules or did they make up their own? – East Central Europe 31/1, 77-123. Bârzu, L. 1979. Continuitatea creaţiei materiale şi spirituale a poporului român pe teritoriul fostei Dacii. Bucharest. Bârzu, L. 2010. Ein gepidisches Denkmal aus Siebenbürgen. Das Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei. Cluj-Napoca. Bârzu, L. / Harhoiu, R. 2008. Gepiden als Nachbarn der Langobarden und das Gräberfeld von Bratei. In: Bemmann, J. / Schmauder, M. (eds.). Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008. Bonn. 513-578. Bavant, B. 1990. Les petits objets. In: Bavant, B. / Kondić, V. / Spieser, J.-M. (eds.). Caričin Grad II. Le quartier sudouest de la ville haute. Belgrade / Rome. 191-257. Bemmann, J. / Schneider, K. / Gercen, A. G. / Chernysh, S. / Mączyńska, M. / Urbaniak, A. / Freeden, U. von 2013. Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Adym Čokrak, Južnyj I und Južnyj II am Fuße des Mangup. Mainz. Benkő, E. 1992. A középkori Keresztúrszék régészeti topográfiája. Budapest. Bitenc, P. / Knific, T. (eds.). 2001. od Rimljanov do Slovanov. Predmeti. Ljubljana. Blay, A. / Samu, L. 2016. Über die mediterranen Kontakte des frühawarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken am Beispiel ausgewählter Fundgruppen. In Bugarski, I. / Heinrich-Tamáska, o. / Ivanišević, V. / Syrbe, D. (eds.). GrenzÜbergänge. Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch-archäologischen Forschung an der mittleren Donau. Akten des 27. internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Ruma, 4.7.11.2015. Remshalden. 273-290. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, I. / MărgineanuCârstoiu, M. 1975. Consideraţii asupra caracterului ultimei locuiri în civitas Tropaeum (sec. VI-VII e.n.). – Revista Muzeelor 12/2, 59-62. Banner, J. 1926. Jelentés a Magyarcsanád-bökényi próbaásatásokról. – Dolgozatok a Ferenc JózsefTudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből 2, 72-122. Bóna, I. / Nagy, M. 2002. Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Budapest. Barford, P. M. 2004. Identity and material culture. Did the early Slavs follow the Bospachieva, M. 1998. The eastern necropolis of Philippopolis in the light of 114 the latest archaeological investigations. – Thracia 12, 147-157. Brather-Walter, S. 2010. SchlangeSeewesen-Raubvogel? Die S-förmigen Kleinfibeln der älteren Merowingerzeit. – Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 37, 47-110. Bucovală, M. / Paşca, C. 1992. Cercetări în necropola romană de vest a Tomisului. – Pontica 25, 241-272. Buškariol, F. 1985. Nakit ukrasen tehnikom cloisonné iz Arheološkom Muzeja u Splitu. – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 78, 83-94. Covacef, Z. 1999. Christian symbols on objects discovered at Capidava. In Gudea, N. (ed.). Roman Frontier Studies. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress on Roman Frontier Studies. Zalău. 813-826. Covacef, Z. 1995-1996. Accesorii vestimentare, de toaletă şi podoabe descoperite în sectorul estic al cetăţii Capidava. – Pontica 28-29, 95-120. Csallány, D. 1962. Byzantinische Schnallen und Gürtelbeschläge mit Maskenmuster. – Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10, 55-77. Csallány, D. 1961. Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken. Budapest. Cseh, J. / Istvánovits, E. / Lovász, E. / Mesterházy, K. / Nagy, M. / Nepper, I. M. / Simonyi, E. 2005. Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II. Budapest. Csiky, G. 2015. Avar-age Polearms and Edged Weapons. Classification, Typology, Chronology, and Technology. Leiden / Boston. Culică, V. 1969. obiecte cu caracter creştin din epoca romano-bizantină găsite la Pîrjoaia-Dobrogea. – Pontica 2, 355-371. Curta, F. 2020. Slavs in the Making. History, Linguistics, and Archaeology in Eastern Europe (ca. 500-ca. 700). London / New York. Curta, F. 2019. Ethnicity in the steppe lands of the northern Black Sea region during the early Byzantine times. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 23/1, 33-70. Curta, F. 2016. Shedding light on a murky matter: remarks on 6th to early 7th century clay lamps in the Balkans. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 20/3, 51-116. FLoRIN CURTA Curta, F. 2012. “Slavic” bow fibulae: twenty years of research. – Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission 93, 235-342. Curta, F. 2010. Still waiting for the barbarians? The making of the Slavs in “Dark-Age” Greece. In: Curta, F. (ed.). Neglected Barbarians. Turnhout. 403478. Curta, F. 2008. The earliest Avar-age stirrups, or the “stirrup controversy” revisited. In: Curta, F. (ed.). The other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden / Boston. 297-326. Curta, F. 2004. Werner’s class I H of “Slavic” bow fibulae revisited. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 8/1, 59-78. Curta, F. / Gândilă, A. 2013. Sixthcentury fibulae with bent stem. – Peuce 11, 101-176. Curta, F. / Gândilă, A. 2011. Too much typology, too little history: a critical approach to the classification and interpretation of cast fibulae with bent stem. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 15/3, 51-81. Curta, F. / Szmoniewski, B. S. 2019. The Velestino Hoard. Casting Light on the Byzantine “Dark Ages”. Cham. Custurea, G. 2000-2001. Descoperiri arheologice şi numismatice de pe raza localităţii Satu Nou (com. oltina, jud. Constanţa). – Pontica 33-34, 583-594. Delougaz, P. / Haines, R. C. 1960. A Byzantine Church at Khirbat al-Karak. Chicago. Diaconu, P. 1991. Un tip necunoscut de piesă din sec. VI-începutul sec. VII. – Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 42/1, 81-84. Dimitrijević, D. / Kovačević, J. / Vinski, Z. / Girić, M. 1962. Seoba naroda – arheološki nalazi jugoslavenskog Podunavlja. Katalog. Zemun. Dobos, A. 2018. Transformations of the human communities in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin between the middle of the 5th and the 7th century. Row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania, Partium and Banat. – Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico de Roland Eötvös nominatae 6, 621-639. Doncheva-Petkova, L. / Torbatov, S. 2001. Zur Chronologie der Architektur der spätrömischen und frühbyzantinischen befestigten Siedlung bei odărci (Provinz Skythien). In: Wendel, M. (ed.). Karasura, I. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Thrakien. 15 Jahre Ausgrabungen in Karasura. Internationales Symposium Čirpan, Bulgarien, 1996. Weissbach. 237-245. Dymaczewski, A. 1979. Die Ergebnisse polnisch-bulgarischer Ausgrabungen in odărci, Bezirk Tolbukhin. In: Chropovský, B. (ed.). Rapports du III-e Congrès international d’archéologie slave. Bratislava 7-14 septembre 1975, vol. 1. Bratislava. 221-224. Éber, L. 1902. Abonyi sírleletek a régibb középkorból. – Archaeologiai Értesitő 22, 241-263. Erdélyi, I. 1958. A jánoshidai avar temető. Budapest. Fiedler, U. 1997. Nochmals zur Datierung von Grab 5 im Hügel III von Madara. – Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура 3, 125-40. Fiedler, U. 1992. Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau. Bonn. Gândilă, A. 2018. Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500-700. Coins, Artifacts and History. Cambridge. Garam, É. 1995. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred. Budapest. Golofast, L. A. 2003. Cherson in the 7th century A.D. The archaeological aspect. – Ancient West & East 2/1, 96-115. Gulyás, B. / Lőrinczy, G. 2018. SzabolcsSzatmár-Bereg megye avar sírleletei V. Kora avar kori padmalyos temetekezés Tiszavasvári-Eszenyi-telekről. In: Varga, M. / Szentpéteri, J. (eds.). Két világ határán. Természet- és társadalomtudományi tanulmányok a 70 éves Költő László tiszteletére. Kaposvár. 89-109. Harhoiu, R. 2010. Where did all the Gepids go? A sixth- to seventh-century cemetery in Bratei (Romania). In: Curta, F. (ed.). Neglected Barbarians. Turnhout. 209-244. Horváth, E. 2012. Egy “mediterrán” övcsat Rákoczifalva-Kastélydombról. A műhelykérdés archeometriai megközelítése. In: Vida, T. (ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére. Budapest. 319342. Husár, M. 2016. Spears and harpoons from the territory of the Slovak Republic and Republic of Macedonia/ CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS FYRoM dated to the 6th-10th/11th centuries. – Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 32, 95-124. Ibler, U. 1991. Studien zum Kontinuitätsproblem am Übergang von der Antike zum Mittelalter in Nord- und Westjugoslawien. Ph. D. Dissertation, Rheinische FriedrichWilhelms-Universität. Bonn. Ivanišević, V. 2018. Metal workshops of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima). In: Drauschke, J. et al. (eds.). Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte. Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Mainz. 711-724. Ivanišević, V. 2010. Caričin Grad – the fortifications and the intramural housing in the Lower Town. In: Daim, F. / Drauschke, J. (eds.) Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil 2, 2. Schauplätze. Mainz. 747-778. Ivanišević, V. / Kazanski, M. / Mastykova, A. 2006. Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations. Paris. Janković, Ð. 1981. La partie danubienne de la région d’Aquis au VIe et au début du VIIe siècle. Belgrade. Kazanski, M. 1996. Les Germains orientaux au nord de la Mer Noire pendant la seconde moitié du Ve s. et au VIe s. – Материалы по археологии, истории и етнографии Таврии 5, 324-337, 567581. Khairedinova, E. A. 2007. Le costume des barbares aux confins septentrionaux de Byzance (VIe-VIIe siècle). In: Aibabin, A. I. / Ivakin, G. Iu. (eds.). Kiev-Cherson-Constantinople. Ukrainian Papers at the XXth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Paris, 19-25 August 2001). Kiev / Simferopol / Paris. 11-44. Khairedinova, E. A. 2010. Byzantinische Elemente in der Frauentracht der Krimgoten im 7. Jahrhundert. In Daim, F. / Drauschke, J. (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil 3. Peripherie und Nachbarschaft, Mainz, 59-94. Kiss, A. P. 2019a. Between Wotan and Christ? Deconstruction of the Gepidic belief system based on the written and archaeological sources. In: Vida, T./ Quast, D. / Rácz, Zs. / Koncz, I. (eds.). Kollaps, Neuordnung, Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungsakten der internationalen Konferenz and der Eötvös Loránd Universität, Budapest, 14.-15. Dezember 2015. Budapest. 369-408. Kiss, A. P. 2019b. Waffengräber der Mitte und zweiten Hälfte des 6. Jahrhunderts im östlichen Karpatenbecken. Die männliche Elite zwischen Gepidenkönig und Awarenkagan? In Vida, T./ Quast, D. / Rácz, Zs. / Koncz, I. (eds.). Kollaps, Neuordnung, Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungsakten der internationalen Konferenz and der Eötvös Loránd Universität, Budapest, 14.-15. Dezember 2015. Budapest. 471-494. Kiss, A. P. 2015. «... ut strenui viri...» A Kárpát-medencei gepidák története. Budapest. Kiss, A. 1996. Das awarenzeitlich-gepidische Gräberfeld von KölkedFeketekapu A. Innsbruck. Kovrig, I. 1957. Kora-avarkori sírok Törökbálintról. – Folia Archaeologica 9, 119-133. Kovrig, I. 1946-1948. Avarkori sírleletek Csengödről. – Archaeologiai Értesitő 7-9, 339-349. Kurnatowska, Z. / Mamzer, H. 2007. Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen aus den polnischen Untersuchungen in Stărmen und odărci. In: Henning, J. (ed.). PostRoman Towns, Trade, and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Vol. 2. Berlin / New York. 527-542. Lipp, V. 1884. A keszthelyi sírmezők. Budapest. Madgearu, A. 1998. The Sucidava type of buckles and the relations between the Late Roman Empire and the barbarians in the 6th century. – Arheologia Moldovei 21, 217-222. Mikulcić, I. 2002. Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen in Nordmakedonien. Städte, Vici, Refugien, Kastelle. München. Milavec, T. 2007. Prispevek h kronologiji S-fibul v Sloveniji. – Arheološki vestnik 58, 333-355. Miletić, N. 1956. Nekropola u selu Mihaljevićima kod Rajlovca. – Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 11, 9-39. Milinković, M. 2020. Ein Gebäude mit Speicherraum auf der JelicaGradina (nördliches Illyricum des 6. Jahrhunderts). In: Popović, I. / Petković, S. (eds.). Illyricum Romanum. Studiola in honorem Miloje Vasić. Beograd. 115 268-86. Mitrea, I. 2015. Așezarea medievală timpurie de la Ștefan cel Mare-Gutinaș, județul Bacău. onești. Moga, V. 2000. observaţii asupra unor piese paleocreştine inedite. – Apulum 37/1, 429-436. Müller, R. 1989. Vorbericht über die Freilegung des Grabes eines hohen Militärs aus der Mittelawarenzeit in Gyenesdiás. – Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 141-164. Neeft, K. 1988. Byzantijnse gespen en riembeslag in Amsterdam. – Vereniging van Vrienden Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam. Mededelingenblad 43, 4-6. Nuțu, G. 2011. Belt buckles, strap ends and appliques from Halmyris (Moesia inferior/Scythia). – Novensia 22, 171-99. Nuţu, G. / Iacob, M. 2011. Piese de centură romane descoperite la Argamum, sector «extra muros». – Studia antiqua et archaeologica 17, 197-230. Nyárádi, Zs. 2010-2011. Gepidák a Nagy-Küküllő felső folyásának dombközi medencéiben. In: Körösfői, Zs. (ed.). Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában. Székelykeresztúr, 321-376. Opaiţ, A. 1990. o săpătură de salvare în oraşul antic Ibida. – Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 41/4, 1954. Parczewski, M. 1991. Metalowe zabytki naddnieprzańskie z VI-VIII w. w zbiorach Krakowskiego Muzeum Archeologicznego. – Archaeoslavica 1, 115-126. Pekars’ka, L. V. / Kidd, D. 1994. Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. Innsbruck. Petre, A. 1987. La romanité en Scythie Mineure (IIe-VIIe siècles de notre ère). Recherches archéologiques. Bucarest. Petre, A. 1962. Предварительные сведения в связи с хронологией могильника с Пятра Фрекацей. – Dacia 6, 215-234. Petrinec, M. / Šeparović, T. / Vrdoljak, B. M. 1999. Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog muzeja u Livnu. Split. Pippidi, D. M. / Bordenache, G. / Eftimie, V. 1961. Şantierul arheologic Histria. – Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7, 229-264. Popovici, R. 1988. Două piese vestimen- 116 tare din secolele VI-VII descoperite la Borniş-Neamţ. – Arheologia Moldovei 12, 249-51. Poulter, A. G. 1988. Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria: an interim report on the excavations 1985-7. – Antiquaries Journal 68, 69-89. Profantová, N. 2013. Nové nálezy zbraní a kování z hradiště Rubín (k. ú. Dolánky a Pšov, okr. Louny) a okolí. – Archeologie ve středních Čechách 17, 179-84. Profantová, N. 2015a. Bronzefunde des 7. Jahrhunderts aus Městec Králové (Bez. Nymburk, Böhmen). In: HeinrichTamáska, o. / Herold, H. / Straub, P. / Vida, T. (eds.). „Castellum, civitas, urbs“. Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen ostmitteleuropa. Rahden. 249-264. Profantová, N. 2015b. Славяне на територии Чехии и их контакты в VIVII вв. – Stratum+ 5, 97-116. Radoslavova, G. 2011. Abritus – eine spätrömische-byzantinische Stadt in Moesia Secunda. In: HeinrichTamáska, o. (ed.), KeszthelyFenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia. Budapest / Leipzig / Keszthely / Rahden. 249-256. Rapan Papeša, A. 2020. Arheološki spomenici Velike seobe naroda u Srijemu – 60 godina poslije. In: Jarak, M. / Bunčić, M. (eds.). Zdenko Vinski. Život i znanenstvi rad. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zagrebu 2016. Godine. Zagreb. 173-183. Riemer, E. 2000. Romanische Grabfunde des 5.-8. Jahrhunderts in Italien. Rahden. Riemer, E. 1995. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen aus der Sammlung Diergardt im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln. – Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 28, 777-809. Ristov, K. 2015. Gradishte Taor: late antique settlement and fortress. – Folia archaeologica Balcanica 3, 361-392. Rusu, M. 1962. The prefeudal cemetery of Noşlac (VI-VIIth centuries). – Dacia 6, 269-292. Samu, L. 2018. Über die Zusammenhänge den Gürtelschnallen mit festem Beschlag und Motiven in Durchbruchornamentik und den Gürtelbeschlägen der zweiten Hälfte des 6. und beginnenden 7. Jahrhunderts. In: Rácz, Zs. / Koncz, I. / Gulyás, B. FLoRIN CURTA (eds.). Hadak útján. A népvándorláskori fiatal kutatóinak XXVI. konferenciája. Gazdaság – kereskedelem – kézművesség. Budapest. 233-256. Samu, L. / Daim, F. 2018. Die Pseudoschnallen in der Awarenzeit und ihre Transformation. – Antaeus 35-36, 205-244. Schmauder, M. 2000. Vielteilige Gürtelgarnituren des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts: Herkunft, Aufkommen und Trägerkreis. In: Daim, F. (ed.). Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter. Innsbruck. 15-45. Schulze-Dörrlamm, M. 2010. Der Handel mit byzantinischen Metallwaren aus archäologischer Sicht (Gürtelschnallen, Frauenschmuck, Zaumzeug, Bronzegefässe). In: Kislinger, E. / Koder, J. / Külzer, A. (eds.), Handelsgüter und Verkehrswege. Aspekte der Warenversorgung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum (4. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Akten des internationalen Symposiums Wien, 19.-22. oktober 2005. Wien. 241-273. Schulze-Dörrlamm, M. 2009. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum. Teil 2: Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenem Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts. Mainz. Schulze-Dörrlamm, M. 2002. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums. Teil I: Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 6. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Mainz. Somogyi, P. 1997. Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit. Innsbruck. Somogyi, P. 1987. Typologie, Chronologie und Herkunft der Maskenbeschläge: zu den archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften osteuropäischer Reiterhirten aus der pontischen Steppe im 6. Jahrhundert. – Archaeologia Austriaca 71, 121-54. Špehar, P. 2010. Materijalna kultura iz ranovizantijskih utvrđenja u Đerdapu. Beograd. Stadler, P. 2008. Avar chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar qaganate. In: Curta, F. (ed.). The other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden / Boston. 47-82. Staššíková-Štukovská, D. 2004. Sklené koráliky z pohrebiska v Prši II. – Slovenská Archeológia 52/1, 35-54. Stoian, I. / Sâmpetru, M. 1970. Şantierul arheologic Histria. Săpăturile din 1961 şi 1963 efectuate în sectorul central al cetăţii Histria (punctul D). – Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 9, 186-90. Szymański, W. 1976. Wstępne sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych w Haćkach koło Bielska Podlaskiego przeprowadzonych w latach 1970-1973. – Rocznik Białostocki 13, 487-493. Talmaţchi, G. / Șova, C. 2016. Despre cercetările arheologice din cartierul romano-bizantin (sector sud-CI) de la Tropaeum Traiani. In Panaite, A. / Cîrjan, R. / Căpiță, C. (eds.). Moesica et Christiana. Studies in Honour of Professor Alexandru Barnea. Brăila. 173-192. Tănase, D. / Mare, M. 2001. Piese de port şi de podoabă din secolele III-VII în colecţia Pongrácz. Catalog. – Analele Banatului 9, 181-206. Tejral, J. 2012. K současnému stavu archeologického i historického bádání o nejčasnějším středověku na Moravě. In: Doležel, J. / Wihoda, M. (eds.). Mezi raným a vrcholným středověkem. Pavlu Kouřilovi k šedesátým narozeninám přátelé, kolegové a žáci. Brno. 29-68. Tejral, J. 2008. Zur Frage langobardischer Funde nördlich der mittleren Donau. In: Hegewisch, M. (ed.). Die Langobarden. Das Ende der Völkerwanderungszeit. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, 22.8.200811.1.2009. Bonn / Darmstadt. 53-71. Tejral, J. 2002. Beiträge zur Chronologie des langobardischen Fundstoffes nördlich der mittleren Donau. In: Tejral, J. (ed.). Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum. Brno. 313-358. Tejral, J. 1990. K chronologii spon z langobardských pohřebišť v Podunaji. In : Nekuda, V. (ed.). Pravěké a slovanské osídlení Moravy. Sborník k 80. narozeninám Josefa Poulíka. Brno. 231-250. Teodor, D. Gh. 2003. Spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic în mileniul marilor migraţii. Buzău. Teodor, D. Gh. 1991a. Creştinismul la est CRITICAL REMARKS oN THE SUCIDAVA CLASS de Carpaţi de la origini şi pînă în secolul al XVI-lea. Iaşi. Teodor, D. Gh. 1991b. Piese vestimentare bizantine din secolele VI-VIII în spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic. – Arheologia Moldovei 14, 117-138. Tömörkény, I. 1904. Szőreghi leletek. – Archaeologiai Értesitő 24, 192. Tsivikis, N. 2012. Considerations on some bronze buckles from Byzantine Messene. In: Böhlendorf-Arslan, B. / Ricci, A. (eds.). Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts. Istanbul. 61-80. Tudor, D. 1965. Sucidava. Une cité daco-romaine et byzantine en Dacie. Brussels. Tudor, D. 1945-1947. Sucidava III. Quatrième (1942), cinquième (1943) et sixième (1945) campagnes de fouilles et de recherches archéologiques dans la forteresse de Celei, département de Romanaţi. – Dacia 11-12, 166-208. Tudor, D. 1937-1940. Sucidava II. Seconde (1937) et troisième (1940) campagnes de fouilles et recherches archéologiques dans la forteresse de Celei, département de Romanați. – Dacia 7-8, 359-400. Uenze, S. 1992. Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec. Ergebnisse der deutsch-bulgarisch-österreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934-1937. München. Uenze, S. 1966. Die Schnallen mit Riemenschlaufe aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. – Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 31, 142-181. Varsik, V. 1993. Zu manchen Problemen der Verbreitung byzantinischer Schnallen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum. In: Pavuj, J. (ed.). Actes du XII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1-7 septembre 1991. Vol. 4. Bratislava. 207-212. Varsik, V. 1992. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. – Slovenská Archeológia 40/1, 77-103. Vasić, M. 1990. Čezava-Castrum Novae. La stratigraphie, la chronologie et les phases architectoniques. In: Vetters, H. / Kandler, M. (eds.). Akten des 14. internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum. Wien. 897-911. Velkov, V. 1935. Eine Gotenfestung bei Sadowetz (Nordbulgarien). – Germania 19, 149-158. Vinski, Z. 1989. Razmatranja o iskopavanjima u Kninu na nalazištu Greblje. – Starohrvatska prosvjeta 19, 5-73. Vinski, Z. 1967. Kasnoantički starosjedioci u Salonitanskoj regiji prema arheološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata. – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 69, 5-98. Völling, Th. 1992. Byzantinische Kleinfunde aus olympia. In: Brehm, o. / Klie, S. (eds.). MoYΣIKoΣ ANHP. Festschrift für Max Wegner zum 90. Geburtstag. Bonn. 491-498. Werner, J. 1989-1990. Byzantinisches Trachtzubehör des 6. Jahrhunderts aus Heraclea Lyncestis und Caričin Grad. – Starinar 40-41, 273-77. Werner, J. 1988. Eine goldene byzantinische Gürtelschnalle in der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung München. Motive des Physiologus auf byzantinischen Schnallen des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts. – Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 53, 301-308. Werner, J. 1974. Nomadische Gürtel bei Persern, Byzantinern und Langobarden. In: Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La civiltà dei Langobardi in Europa (Roma, 24-26 maggio 1971) (Cividale del Friuli, 27-28 maggio 1971). Roma. 109-139. Werner, J. 1955. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts aus der Sammlung Diergardt. – Kölner Jahrbuch für Vorund Frühgeschichte 1, 36-48. Zaseckaia, I. P. 2004. on the chronology 117 of eagle-head buckles from the necropolis of Bosporus and South-Crimean burial-grounds of the early medieval period (6th-early 7th centuries AD). – Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 10/1-2, 77-138. Živić, M. 2009. Early Byzantine metallurgical object at the site GamzigradRomuliana in Eastern Serbia. – Journal of Mining and Metallurgy 45/2, 197-206. Δεριζιώτης, Λ. / Κουγιουμτζόγλου, Σ. 2004. Ανακαλύπτοντας την άγνωστον χριστιανικήν Περραιβικήν Τρίπολιν. In: Κακούρης, Ι. / Χούλια, Σ. / Αλβάνι, Τζ. (eds.). Θωράκιον. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Παύλου Λαζαρίδη. Αθήνα. 63-74. Μαρκή, Ε. 1997. Λουλουδιές 1997. – Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 11, 289-296. Προκοπίου, Ε. 1997. Βυζαντινές πόρπες από την Αμαθούντα και την Παλαιά Συλλογή του Κυπριακού Μουσείου. In: Χατζησάββας, Γ. (ed.). Η Κύπρος και το Αιγαίο στην Αρχαιότητα από την προϊστορική περίοδο ως τον 7ο αιώνα μ.Χ. Λευκωσία 8-10 Δεκεμβρίου 1995. Λευκωσία. 333-342. Σωτηρίου, Γ. Α. 1956. Ανασκαφαί εν Νέα Ανχιάλω. – Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 111, 110-118. Χαμηλάκη, Κ. 2009. Νεκροταφείο στο λόφο Αγρίλεζα στο Δήλεσι Βοιοτίας. In: Μαζαράκις-Αινίαν, Α. (ed.). Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερέας Ελλάδας. 2 Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης Βόλος, 27.22.3.2006. Βόλος. 1167-1186. Χαμηλάκη, Κ. 2010. Ταφικά σύνολα υστερορωμαϊκών χρόνων από νεκροταφείο στο Δήλιον Βοιωτίας. Πρώτης παρατηρήσεις. Ιn: ΠαπανικόλαΜπακιρτζή, Δ. / Κουσουλάκου, Ν. (eds.). Κεραμική της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας από τον Ελλαδικό χώρο (3ος-7ος αι. μ.Χ.). Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Θεσσαλονίκη 12-16 Νοεμβρίου 2006, τ. Β. Θεσσαλονίκη. 580-609. 118 FLoRIN CURTA Критични бележки за токите от групата „Сучидава“ Флорин КУРТА (резюме) Тази група ранновизантийски токи е разграничена през 1955 от немския учен Йоаким Вернер. Оттогава тя е предмет на многобройни изследвания. Значителен брой от тях са посветени на групата в отделни археологически обекти (наример, некропола Пятра Фрекъцей в Северна / румънска Добруджа) или държави (Румъния, България). Но липсва проучване върху всички находки от групата в цяла Източна Европа. Настоящата статия е посветена на токите и апликациите от тази група, разпределени в 11 списъка въз основа на ажурната им украса. Хронологията и разпространението на всеки тип (списък) са изследвани детайлно, преди да се направят заключения. Без съмнение, групата „Сучидава“ била много популярна в ЮИ Европа, като изпъкват две наситени зони – СИ Балкани, днес разделени между Румъния и България, и Крим. Все пак, не всички типове имат едно и също разпространение. Докато на Балканите са представени всички типове, то някои очевидно липсват в Крим. Непосредствено северно от Долен Дунав са известни малко екземпляри, но по-далеч техният брой нараства значително. Тези разлики в териториалното разпространение подсказват регионални предпочитания. Различни са и производствените техники за тези токи в различните области на тяхното разпространение. Големият брой бракувани отливки в СИ Балкани доказва местното им производство, въпреки че все още не е открит калъп за който и да е тип от групата „Сучидава“. Най-вероятно тези токи и апликации били част от военно облекло, защото повечето са открити в крепости в този регион. Тази дреха била имитирана на Среден Дунав, където такива токи били поставяни в гробове на мъже заедно с оръжие. Всички типове от групата „Сучидава“ били използвани през втората половина на VІ век. Prof. Dr. Florin Curta University of Florida Department of History 202 Flint Hall, P.o. Box 117320 USA-Gainesville, FL 32611-7320 fcurta@ufl.edu