Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 29/3. (2009)
Fábián István: Artefacts and Ethnic Group sin the North-Danubian Area int he 4th-7th Centuries
Artefacts and Ethnic Groups in the North-Danubian Area in the 4,h-7th Centuries 163 a “motivation” for the conflicts between different barbarian tribes or between the barbarians and the Empire. In Western Europe there are many cases (emphasised also by the historical sources) in which the military campaign was started with the clear purpose of capturing and transferring the royal treasure. The conflicts between Franks and Lombards, having as a result the surrender of the Lombards to the Franks constitutes an obvious example: the loss of the treasure (in the diplomatic symbolistics of those times) was equivalent with the loss of independence. A question arises: beyond the classic hypothesis of the existence of a foedus between the Germanic populations in Transylvania and the Roman Empire, it cannot be presumed that those treasures were war-loots brought in this area from another regions and buried with the one ‘who earned it (i.e. Omahar), or they were buried in the idea of later creating a centre of power, a fact that never happened because of the migratory dynamics? Another category of artefacts with a special status concerning the ethnic assignment is the weaponry. Besides clothing, weapons represent one of the main sources for ethnic assignment. The same Ammianus and St. Augustine were, if not the first, but anyway the most systematic observers of the barbarian strategy and weapons establishing descriptive patterns for those who followed. The most interesting description of the “ethnic weapons” is given by Iordanes at the battle from Nedao: “the Goth fought with the spears, the Gépid made his way with the sword, (...) the Hun with the arrows, the Alans with their heavy armour stood in rows and the Heruli fought lightly armed”9. Later, Mauritius in his “Strategikon” made roughly the same description concerning the weaponry of the populations living at the frontiers of the Empire. From the descriptions of the Ancient historians a conclusion can be drawn: at a certain moment a certain ethnic group was symbolised by a specific weapon: for instance the battleaxe used mostly by the Francs was named Francisca even though it was used by all Germanic tribes as a hand to hand combat or as a throwing weapon. Another weapon connected with the Germanic tribes is the Sax. This short single bladed sword was used mostly by the Saxons. The only thing is that in the 4th-5th centuries this weapon is not mentioned by the historians of the time, precise descriptions appear only in the 7th century. We are dealing with purely imaginary etymology in which there was an attempt of linking a certain population with a certain war strategy or a specific weapon. For instance Isidor of Sevilla explained the name of the Gepids by their way to fight as infantry (Gipedes) or of the Sarmatian by their heavy armour (S-armatae)10. What is certain is the fact that beyond the (more or less artificial) ethnic separations, weapons represent elements of identification only if they are linked with other pieces of inventory. Import pieces, war-loots, copies after Roman models the weapons symbolise the “multicultural” aspect of those times. If Mauritius underlined in his Strategikon the multitude of weapons and tactics “imported” from the Barbarians (which is not new since the Romans “borrowed” in the beginning weapons from the Samnites or Hispanic populations), we also can presume that the Barbarians did the same way. “More than in any other domain of artefacts, a fundamental distinction between Roman and Barbarian weaponry in the Late Antiquity has no use. The great difficulty of distinguishing 9 Iordanes, Getica, 50, after Pohl - Reimnitz 1998, 27. Pohl - Reimnitz 1998, 37.10
