ANTIQ_TRD_Goths on the Lower Danube

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.

THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

F H GBegijnhof 67 B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium)

Tl. : +32 14 44 80 35 Fax : +32 14 42 89 19 [email protected] www.brepols.net

21 - 2013

Mondes ruraux en orient et en occident - ii

Revue internationale dhistoire et darchologie (ive- viiie s.)publie par lAssociation pour lAntiquit Tardive

ant

iQu

it

tar

diV

e21

- 20

13 antiQuit tardiVeantigedad tarda Late antiquity

sptantike tarda antichit

H F

La revue annuelle Antiquit tardive (Antigedad Tarda Late Antiquity Sptantike Tarda Antichit), dite par Brepols, est une revue multilingue rdige sous la responsabilit de l Association pour lAntiquit tardive prside par Fr. Baratte et reconnue par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique franais.Chaque numro est centr sur un thme principal mais comporte trois autres sections : des Varia dhistoire, dhistoire du droit, darchologie et de philologie ; une Chronique sur des sujets ponctuels dactualit ; un Bulletin critique rserv des comptes rendus gnralement dtaills douvrages importants, suivi de Notes de lecture sous la forme de brves fiches.Un rsum en anglais (ou en franais pour les articles en anglais) prcde chaque article. Antiquit Tardive est dsormais accessible en ligne sur le site Priodiques de Brepols (pour plus de prcisions, voir lditorial 2005).

Tables des maTires eT Thmes

Tome 20. 2012. Mondes ruraux en Orient et en Occident IIMondes ruraux en Orient et en Occident. 6 le vocabulaire J.-M. Carri, Nommer les structures rurales entre fin de lAntiquit et Haut Moyen

ge : le rpertoire lexical grco-latin et ses avatars modernes (2e partie). 7 les campagnes en priphrie de lempire romain A.S. Esmonde Cleary, Northern Britain in Late Antiquity ; A. Stuppner, Die lndliche Besiedlung im mittleren Donauraum von der Sptantike bis zum Frhmittel-alter ; A. Poulter, Goths on the lower Danube: their impact upon and behind the frontier. 8 les formes de lhabitat Cl. Negrelli, Le strutture del popolamento rurale tra IV e IX secolo in Emilia Romagna e nelle Venezie ; E. Ario, El hbitat rural en la Pennsula Ibrica entre finales del siglo IV y principios del VIII: un ensayo interpretativo ; M. Veikou, Settlements in the Greek countryside from 4th to 7th century: forms and patterns ; C. Duvette, avec G. Charpentier, C. Piaton, Maisons paysannes dun village dApamne, Serilla (ive-vie sicles Massif calcaire de la Syrie du Nord) ; I. Taxel, Identifying social hierarchy through house planning in the villages of Late Antique Palestine: the case of orvat Zikhrin ; D. Mattingly, M. Sterry, V. Leitch, Fortified farms and defended villages of Late Roman and Late Antique Africa. 9 le rle des implantations ecclsiales G. Cantino Wataghin, Le fondazioni ecclesiastiche nelle vicende delle aree rurali: spunti di riflessione per lOccidente tardo antico (IV-V secolo) ; Y. Codou, Lglise et lhabitat dans le Midi de la France aux ve-xe sicles ; M. A. Cau, C. Mas, Christians, peasants and shepherds: the transformation of the countryside in Late Antique Mallorca (Balearic islands). 10 les rapports entre villes et campagnes D. Fernandez, City and countryside in Late Antique Iberia ; F. Cantini, Aree rurali e centri urbani tra IV e VII secolo: il territorio toscano.

Varia : V. Goncalves, Aleae aut tesserae ? Les significations dune opposition ludique dans la Rome dAmmien Marcellin ; A. J. Kosto, The transfor-mation of hostageship in Late Antiquity ; Chr. Freu, Les salaris de la terre dans lAntiquit tardive ; St. Del Lungo, Provincia Lucania: topografia e agrimensura in un paesaggio che cambia, dalla Tarda Antichit allAlto Medioevo (prima parte) ; P. Grossmann, berlegungen zum ursprnglichen Grundriss der Kirche von Orlansville (Chlef, Algeria) und ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der christichen Basilika ; S. Ordez Agulla, J. Snchez Velasco, E. Garca Vargas, S. Garca-Dils de la Vega, M. A. Tabales Rodrguez, Novedades arqueologicas de las sedes episcopales de la Btica Occidental ; A. Uscatescu, Visual arts and paideia: the triumph of the theatre revisiting the Late Antique mosaic of Noheda.

Chronique : S. Ratti, Paens et chrtiens au ive sicle : points de rsistance une doxa ; B. Laszo Toth, Regards nouveaux sur le trsor de Nagyszent-mikls, la suite dune publication majeure.

bulletin critique de de Sylvain Destephen, Adam Kosto, Sylvain Janniard, Hendrik Dey, Maria Grazia Bajoni, Jitse Dijkstra, Liudmila Khrushkova, Jean-Louis Charlet, Antonino Metro, Jean-Pierre Coriat, Michael Whitby, Laury-Nuria Andr.

Tome 1, 1993. les sarcophages daquitaineTome 2, 1994. la ttrarchie (293-312) : histoire et archo-

logie (1re partie) Tome 3, 1995. la ttrarchie (293-312) : histoire et archo-

logie (2e partie)Tome 4, 1996. les glises doubles et les familles dglisesTome5, 1997. largenterie de lantiquit tardiveTome 6, 1998. les gouverneurs de provincesTome 7, 1999. figures du pouvoir : gouverneurs et vquesTome 8, 2000. le de dificiis de procope: le texte et les

ralits documentairesTome 9, 2001. la dmocratisation de la culture dans

lantiquit tardiveTome 10, 2002. lafrique vandale et byzantine (I)

Tome 11, 2003. lafrique vandale et byzantine (II) Tome 12, 2004. tissus et vtements dans lantiquit tardiveTome 13, 2005. la vaisselle de bronze palobyzantineTome 14, 2006. conomie et religion dans lantiquit tardiveTome 15, 2007. Jeux et spectacles dans lantiquit tardiveTome 16, 2008. Lpoque des Thodoses Tome 18, 2010. Lecture, livres, bibliothquesTome 19, 2011. Christianisation et imagesTome 20, 2012. Mondes ruraux en Orient et en Occident (I)

En prparation :Tome 22, 2014. LOrient chrtien de Constantin et dEusbe

de Csare

Rappel des tomes 1 20 (tous disponibles) :

Couv Antard21.indd 1 19/11/2013 12:29:16

ISBN 978-2-503-55066-4

9 782503 550664

at_21_cover.indd 1 21/11/13 09:03

H BREPOLS PUBLISHERS

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

AnTard , 21, 2013, p . 63-76

GOTHS ON THE LOWER DANUBE: THEIR IMPACT UPON AND BEHIND THE FRONTIER

$3

Les Goths du Bas Danube : leur impact sur et au-del de la frontire

Cet article traite dun certain nombre daspects relatifs linstallation des Goths dans le Bas Danube. Il ne semble pas que laccord de 382 ait eu limpact suppos jusqu maintenant. Bien quil soit admis, grce au bas-relief de la colonne dArcadius, que les populations indignes reconnaissaient les Goths par leurs vtements et, bien entendu, par leur langue, rien dans la documentation archologique ne permet de distinguer ces derniers des natifs . Par ailleurs, la culture de Sntana-de-Mure / Cherineakov ne parat pas avoir exist : le seul lment trouv dans les installations attribues cette culture (et aux Goths) est en ralit dorigine romaine et il ny a aucune preuve que les autres lments soient gothiques . Enfin, la lumire des tmoins archologiques concernant la priode suivant la bataille dAndrinople et la premire moiti du e sicle, il apparat que, quelle quait t lorigine ethnique des occupants, une nouvelle politique a t engage vers 400, qui a entran la construction de nouveaux forts et le ramnagement de plus anciens de manire accueillir des soldats-fermiers. Malgr la disparition du systme conomique des villas, lexploitation agricole a continu jusqu larrive des Huns. Durant cette priode (400-445), lautorit militaire romaine et limpt de lannone ont jou un rle capital dans la prservation de la paix et les garnisons de soldats, qui taient galement engages dans lagriculture, ont assur la scurit sur la frontire comme lintrieur des terres, en mme temps quelles ont continu exploiter la richesse des ressources agricoles. [Auteur, trad. de la Rdaction]

The catastrophic defeat of Valens in the battle of Adrianople in 378 marked a signal change in the fortunes of the Eastern Empire. Valens army was almost annihilated, losing perhaps as many as 20,000 to 26,000 men, two thirds of its total strength.1 For the lower Danube, the devastation

Abbreviations: Heather, Goths and Romans = P. J. Heather, Goths and Romans 332-489, Oxford, 1991. IGL = E. Popescu (ed.), Inscripiile Greceti i Latine din Secolele 6-13 descoperite n Romnia, Bucharest, 1976. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops; Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, Oxford, 1990. Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity = A.G. Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 2007.

1. N. Lenski, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD, 2002, Berkeley, 2002, p. 339. A more conservative view estimates losses of c. 10,000-12,000; Heather, Goths and Romans, p. 147. Whatever the exact number, it is certain that the remnants of

of Moesia and Thrace disrupted no doubt, at least in the short term, the agricultural economy which underpinned the regions evident prosperity under the Antonine, and especially the Severan dynasties.2 The long term impact was LQQLWHO\ZRUVH(VWLPDWHVDVWRWKHQXPEHUVRI*RWKVZKRremained in the region vary but the total, including men,

WKHDUP\LQKHULWHGE\7KHRGRVLXVZHUHLQVXIFLHQWWRGHIHDWWKH*RWKVdespite relentless measures taken to levy new recruits. I would like here to record my thanks to Wolf Liebeschuetz whose advice and comments have made an invaluable contribution to my understanding of this complex period at the end of the 4th century.

2. For the region bordering the Danube, plundering raids were already devastating the lands around Marcianopolis when the Gothic revolt broke out in 377 (Amm. Marcell., 31, 5, 7-9). Then, after the battle of Adrianople, the whole of Thrace was at the mercy of the Goths (Amm. Marcell., 31.6.4). For the destruction of the villa economy, see below, pp. 72-73.



ANDREW POULTER AnTard , 21, 201364

women and children may have been as many as 200,000.3 $EVRUELQJ VXFK VLJQLFDQWQXPEHUV LQWR WKHSUHH[LVWLQJRoman system of land tenure must have caused incal-FXODEOHGLIFXOWLHV6RPXFKFDQEHDFFHSWHGRU DW OHDVWpresumed. However, the reality of the situation is less easy to reconstruct. The literary sources for the period from the death of Valens until the departure of Alaric are singularly unhelpful, as will be explained below, and the almost total ODFNRIKLVWRULFDODFFRXQWVIRUWKHUVWKDOIRIWKHth century leaves a blank hole in the sequence of events leading up to the arrival of Attila and the Huns. Inevitably, the only possible way forward is for archaeological research to plug the gap, at least as far as it can, and not always in adequate ways resolve key issues of interest to ancient historians. A joint Anglo-Bulgarian research initiative has been active in researching the transition between the Roman and early Byzantine periods on the lower Danube. It started with the excavation of the Roman and early Byzantine city of Nicopolis ad Istrum (1985-1991), and was then followed by the excavation of the late Roman fort of Dichin (1996-DQGWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDQHZIRUPRIVLWHVSHFLFsurvey to explore the countryside. These two programmes were followed by the excavation of a late Roman fortress, Dobri Dyal (2011-). All three sites and the survey help WRSURYLGHDUHPDUNDEOHLQVLJKWHVSHFLDOO\IRUWKHUVWKDOIof the 5th century, which goes some way towards explaining what actually happened, especially when compared with reliable results from other excavations within the region.4

The settlement of the Goths

After the Roman defeat, the Goths were at liberty to plunder the North Bulgarian plain (Dacia Ripensis, Moesia II and Scythia) as well as the southern half of the Thracian diocese, the hinterland of Constantinople.5 The situation was critical; all attempts by Theodosius to restore imperial control over Thrace met with little success; military

3. Eunapius (Hist. Fr. 42) claims that the number of Goths who crossed the Danube was as many as 200,000; whether only warriors or the total number, including men, women and children is unclear. This might just be a rough estimate of the total number of new arrivals; it could hardly EHWKHQXPEHURIJKWLQJPHQ1/HQVNLFailure of Empire, cit. (n. 1), p. 354-345. As to the number of Gothic warriors which faced Valens in the battle of Adrianople, a number of 20,000 seems to be a reasonable assessment; Heather, Goths and Romans, p. 139, note 44.

4. The excavations at Nicopolis have been published: A.G. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City, London, 1995; Id. Nicopolis ad Istrum, a Roman to Early Byzantine City: The Pottery and the Glass, London, 1999; Id., Nicopolis ad Istrum, a Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: The Finds and the Biological Remains /RQGRQ 7KH QDO UHSRUWV IRU H[FDYDWLRQV DW 'LFKLQare in preparation, although the principle results and implications of this large-scale programe have been published: Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity. A report on the excavations at Dobri Dyal is to be published in the Journal of Roman Archaeology, 26, 2013, pp. 362-383.

5. See above, n. 2.

operations against the Goths ended in defeat for the hastily reconstructed army. For four years, the lower Danube was at the mercy of the invaders and newcomers from across the Danube, no doubt attracted by the prospects for plunder. Eventually, in October 382, a settlement was reached between the Goths and the Empire, though it was one ZKLFKGLGQRWIROORZD5RPDQVXFFHVVRQWKHEDWWOHHOG6 What is certain is that the peace involved the provision of land for the Goths to settle and farm.7 Themistius claimed WKDW WKH*RWKVWXUQHG WKHLUZHDSRQV LQWRSORXJKVKDUHVHowever, such a rhetorical view does not help to recon-struct the terms of the settlement and it provides no useful LQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHOHJDODUUDQJHPHQWV$PRUHVSHFLFreference by Pacatus takes us a little further: some of the Goths became farmers, others became soldiers. A year before peace was agreed, after the death of the Gothic chieftain Athanaric, some of his followers certainly not those involved in the revolt and the Battle at Adrianople ZHUHVWDWLRQHGLQQRUWKHUQ7KUDFHZKHUHWKH\NHSWZDWFKRQWKH'DQXEHDQGIRUDORQJWLPHSUHYHQWHGDQ\DWWDFNon Roman territory (Zosimus 4.34.5). Where the Goths were given land is easy enough to determine. Themistius refers broadly to Thrace, but Jordanes (Getica 25.133) names Dacia Ripensis, Moesia and Thrace, provinces close to or bordering the river Danube (J).8 There is also independent evidence for Gothic soldiers in Scythia at some date in the 380s; Gerontius, the Roman commander of troops within the city of Tomis, set upon a Gothic garrison stationed close-by (Zosimus 4.40).9 The account is plausible; during the 4th century, Tomis was the capital of Scythia, and the residence of the dux Scythiae; members of his ofcium were based there, as well as a military detachment (IGL 2, 5, 30).

Unfortunately, the manner of the settlement of 382 remains uncertain. The allusions to the agreement provided by Themistius and Pacatus must be considered seriously; they were contemporaries of the events they describe, but they did not write history, but panegyrics of Theodosius; they were not impartial: eulogies of the emperor would inevitably downplay any unacceptable aspects of the agreement and exaggerate whatever interpretation might meet with imperial approval. The current view holds that the terms were uniquely favourable to the Goths, that they retained a large degree of social and military freedom and that they were only obliged to supply troops en masse, under their own chieftains, when required to do so, and only

6. Cons. Const. 382 (CM I, 243).7. Synesius, De Regno 21; Pacatus 22.3; Themistius, Or.16 and 34.8. Jordanes knew the region well and is here likely to be correct, even if

his understanding of the nature of the settlement is much less reliable: see below, pp. 64-65.

9. From the account it is clear that these Goths were serving the Empire and were paid as regular soldiers, if somewhat better, it seems, that the Roman garrison within the city.



AnTard , 21, 2013 GOTHS ON THE LOWER DANUBE: THEIR IMPACT UPON AND BEHIND THE FRONTIER 65

IRUVSHFLFFDPSDLJQVLQHIIHFWSUHVHUYLQJDVHPLDXWRQ-omous identity.10 However, whether or not Theodosius had been forced to make radical concessions because his military position was so weak remains uncertain.11

10. For example: Heather, Goths and Romans, pp. 161, 164, 165, 166, 177, 183; R. M. Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius,Chapel Hill, 2006, pp. 64-68; H. Leppin. Theodosius der Grosse, Darmstadt, 2003, pp. 46-54; H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, Los Angeles / London, 1987, p. 133.

11. Shortly before, the Goths were in Illyricum but had been forced back into Thrace by the emperor Gratian. There is every reason to suspect WKDWWKHGHYDVWDWLRQWKH\KDGDOUHDG\LQLFWHGRQWKHULYHULQHSURYLQFHVZRXOGKDYHPDGHLWGLIFXOWWROLYHRIIWKHODQGVLPLODUSUREOHPVRIsupply were to force the Goths in Gaul to agree terms, more favourable to the Roman state than would otherwise have been the case; Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, p. 73. Blocking the passes over

Jordanes (Getica 27.141-29.146) provides what appears to be the clearest description of the Goths military role; he calls the Goths foederati, serving alongside the Roman army and receiving payment for their partici-pation. Unfortunately, this statement is suspect; writing 150 years after the event, his belief that the treaty of 382 granted similar terms to those held by Gothic warlords in the second half of the 5th century is most probably anach-ronistic. Certainly, no other source uses the term foederati

the Haemus to prevent the Goths from reaching fresh food supplies in Thrace was a tactic already applied in the early stages of the Gothic uprising (Amm Marcell., XXXI.8.1). Despite the military weakness of the Roman army, the Goths themselves may well have been anxious to reach an accommodation with Theodosius.

Fig. 1 Map of the Lower Danube region ( A. Poulter).




LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHDJUHHPHQW7KHUVWSRVLWLYHDWWHV-tation of the term, in a technical sense, dates to AD 422 when the Gothic commander, Ariobindus, was comes foederatorum in Thrace, although the nature and origin of WKLVRIFHDUHREVFXUH12

The military arrangement which formed part of the agreement is the key to understanding the terms of the treaty and whether it favoured the Empire more or less than it did the Goths. As has been pointed out by Heather, the details of the treaty can only be surmised in the light of subsequent events, but the view that the Goths were obliged to support the Empire only when required to do so, and that they fought as an independent force, commanded by their own leaders, 13LVGLIFXOWWRDFFHSWWhat we can glean from the sources does not fully justify this claim. In 388, Theodosius marched West to confront the usurper Maximus. Pacatus (32.4) observes that Goths, the former enemies of Rome, marched under 5RPDQEDQQHUVFRPPDQGHGE\5RPDQRIFHUV$WIDFHvalue, this seems to mean that the Goths were enrolled in the army and that they were not an independent force, but included recruits from Thrace and perhaps other volunteers picked up on the march through Illyricum.14 That this did happen is supported by another reference 3DFDWXV ZKLFK GHVFULEHV KRZ *RWKV RFNHG WRMRLQ WKH HPSHURU DWWUDFWHG E\ 7KHRGRVLXV NLQGQHVV(for kindness read pay and booty). There is no reason, based upon the meagre sources available, to accept that the Goths fought as a separate entity, or that they fought under the command of their own leaders.

The next attempt at usurpation is a little different. For the battle of the Frigidus against Eugenius in 394, Theodosius employed a substantial number of Goths; the JXUHRI*RWKLFGHDG2URVLXVWKRXJKQRdoubt exaggerated for effect, at least suggests that Gothic IRUFHV VXIIHUHGD VLJQLFDQWQXPEHURI FDVXDOWLHV They PXVW KDYH SOD\HG D FHQWUDO UROH DV FDQQRQ IRGGHU Dtraditional Roman tactic, using auxiliary forces to bear the EUXQWRIWKHJKWLQJLQVWHDGRIVDFULFLQJ5RPDQYHWHUDQVLQWKHHOGDUP\7UXH*RWKVVXFKDV*DLQDVDQG$ODULFwere in charge of Gothic contingents (Zosimus IV.58) but there is no reason to believe that they were chieftains, in charge of their own clans; Gainas surely, and quite SUREDEO\$ODULFZHUHRIFHUVLQWKH5RPDQDUP\XQGHUthe overall command of Timasius, the Roman commander-in-chief, and were not free to act independently or on their own initiative. Until after the elimination of Eugenius, there is no reason to believe that the Goths had acquired

12. Heather, Goths and Romans, p. 262. A possible context for this command is noted below, p. 75.

13. Heather, Goths and Romans, p. 160; H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1987, pp. 133-134.

14. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, p. 29.

any unparalleled level of independence which marks them out from all previous settlements of barbarians within the Empire. The claim that few Goths entered into military service15 is not easy to accept, or at least to presume. In particular, the regular distribution of Roman units along the Danube, as seen in the Notitia Dignitatum, is unlikely WR UHHFW WKH UHDO VLWXDWLRQDIWHU WKHFROODSVHRIPLOLWDU\control in 378. There is a cogent argument against the proposition that this section of the Notitia dates back to the late 4th century.16 Consequently, the Notitia Dignitatum cannot be used to maintain that Roman units were still operating on the lower Danubian frontier. But the possi-bility exists that, apart from voluntary enlistments in the HOGDUP\*RWKVDOVRWRRNRYHUWKHUROHRISURWHFWLQJWKHfrontier. Could not the reference by Zosimus (4.34.5) to Goths keeping watch on the Danube and protecting the (PSLUH EH RIZLGHU VLJQLFDQFH LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW*RWKLFforces served in the Roman army, replacing regular units lost c. 378 or subsequently withdrawn to join Theodosius GHSOHWHG HOG DUP\"$V H[SODLQHG EHORZ WKH DUFKDHR-logical evidence tends to support such a proposition.

If the activity and status of the Goths in the 380s remains uncertain, what is clear is that all changed in 395 when Alaric rebelled against the Eastern Empire. His demands for JROGDQGRIFLDOVWDWXVDVDKLJKUDQNLQJRIFHUSUREDEO\the post of magister militum SUHVDJHV WKH ELWWHU FRQLFWVbetween Constantinople and Gothic leaders in the second half of the 5th century. The army Alaric commanded was most certainly an independent force, serving their leader and QRWWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKH(PSLUHXQOHVVLWSURYHGSURWDEOHWRdo so. Its commander must have learnt and adopted Roman military tactics and the core of his army must have been the troops which survived the battle of the Frigidus. The success Alaric achieved marks a step change in the military capability of Gothic forces. Even after Adrianople, the Goths had been incapable of capturing walled cities.17 Under $ODULFVLHJHZRUNVZHUHXVHGWRFDSWXUH,WDOLDQFLWLHVUVWamongst which was Rome itself. The commander and his soldiers represented a new generation which had not been involved in the Danube crossing and subsequent events. No

15. Heather, Goths and Romans, pp. 63-64.16. There is an unexpected regularity in the system of forts and units listed

in the Notitias description of the lower Danubian frontier, but this is not what would be expected post-Adrianople. No Theodosian units are recorded: this is most surprising if this section of the Notitia postdates a reorganization of the limes which, most certainly, would have been a high priority following the agreement of 382. The distribution of late Roman legionary tile-stamps indicates that legionary detachments were outposted, upstream and downstream from the primary bases of the legions. This arrangement matches the description in the Notitia and, since the tile-stamps must surely belong to the Diocletianic reconstruction of the frontier, this section of the document is most SUREDEO\ FRPSLOHG ZLWKLQ WKH UVW KDOI RI WKH th century and not later; see A. G. Poulter, The transition to Late Antiquity, in Idem, The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 32-34.

17. See below, p. 69.




doubt many, even most, of the Gothic force had served in the Roman army, and Alaric applied what he had learnt to gain the upper hand in his relations with Constantinople. This involved bleeding the provinces on the lower Danube, especially Macedonia and Dacia. 18 The lower Danubian provinces seem to have been largely immune from further PROHVWDWLRQ %XW LW ZDV WKH QDO GHSDUWXUH RI$ODULF DQGhis Gothic army for Italy in 408 which paved the way for a period of relative calm on the lower Danube or so we must presume until the Hunnic invasions again wreaked havoc throughout the region.

Finding Goths on the Column of Arcadius

The column, the central monument for the new forum of Arcadius, was under construction by AD 402. ,WV FDUYHG VFHQHV PXVW UHSUHVHQW WKH RIFLDO LPSHULDOversion of events surrounding the defeat of Gainas and his Gothic army.19 Although only the base survives, the drawings, made before the its demolition, and preserved LQWKH)UHVKHOGIROGHULQWKHOLEUDU\RI7ULQLW\&ROOHJHCambridge, provide a remarkably detailed and apparently accurate copy of three sides of the column.20All columns erected in Rome, and then in Constantinople, invariably offered a convenient opportunity for imperial propaganda; the column of Arcadius is no exception. Some episodes in the removal and subsequent death of Gainas were portrayed in detail and are as close to the truth as artistic licence would permit, especially the failed attempt by the Goths to build boats and cross to $VLD0LQRU(YHQVRWKHPRVWVLJQLFDQWHSLVRGHLQWKHfall of Gainas, the massacre of Goths by the citizens of Constantinople, is omitted from the narrative; it was an aspect of the story which did no credit to Arcadius, the Christian emperor.21 But it is the detail, in particular the representation of the Goths, which is of interest here. Especially when events depicted occurred a conside-rable distance from the location of such a monument, details could be used, not necessarily to provide a true image, but to offer a narrative which could be clearly understood by its intended audience.22 However, in

18. Heather, Goths and Romans, pp.199-224.19. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, pp. 121, 273.20. For a full discussion RI WKH )UHVKHOG GUDZLQJV DQG WKH RWKHU OHVV

accurate copies, see Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, appendix II, pp. 273-278.

21. The burning of a church in which the Goths had sought refuge was not an act which did much for the emperors public image; Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, pp. 121-122.

22. Trajans column shows legionaries in lorica segmentata and auxiliaries in scale armour or chainmail. For the citizens of Rome, this presented the image of Roman power, assisted by faithful auxiliary units. However, the monument of Adamklissi on the lower Danube, closer to the scene of battle, provides a different image where

the representation of the imperial city and the partici-pants in the revolt of Gainas, it is improbable that the reliefs on the column of Arcadius distort the reality, at least in the details of appearance of Romans and Goths. The people addressed, in this case the citizens of Constantinople, were all too familiar with the dress and appearance of the Goths who had been only recently expelled from the capital. Any misrepresentation would confuse rather than assist the onlooker, trying to follow the story told in the reliefs. One scene is of particular interest (J $). It shows the enemy being escorted by clean shaven, Roman soldiers with spears or pikes and wearing plain, no doubt linen cloaks. In contrast, three horsemen ride by; all have beards and wear a short chamlys, made of coarser material, surely intended to represent sheepskins, an item of clothing commonly worn by Goths.23 Beards were also known to have been a Gothic fashion, as was long hair, all shown in this and other scenes.24 Conspicuous, behind the riders, although apparently inserted without any connection with the primary subject of the scene, there is a cart, containing people. Carts were used by the Goths for transporting goods and their families and, when threatened, were used to form a defensible lager (carago).25 It is reasonable to assume that the inclusion of the wagon and its occupants was to remind the citizens how the enemy relied upon a barbarian mode of transport, emblematic of the Gothic lifestyle; its inclusion must have been intended to ridicule the barbarism of this non-Roman custom. The same scene shows a woman, not riding a horse as the male Goths behind her, but directly facing the onlooker in an anatomically impossible position for riding the horse VKHDSSHDUVWREHVLWWLQJRQ(YLGHQWO\WKHVLJQLFDQFHRIWKLVIHPDOHJXUHPXVWKDYHEHHQXQGHUVWRRGE\WKHonlooker. It seems that presenting her face on was done to emphasize the fact that this person was female. One possible explanation could be that this was not a human JXUHDWDOO'XULQJWKHSHUVHFXWLRQRIWKH&KULVWLDQ*RWKVin 369-372, Athaneric had ordered that a pagan image should be sent to each village in a cart and that all were UHTXLUHG WRPDNH VDFULFHV WR LW WKRVHZKRGLVREH\HG(Christians) would be burnt alive (Sozomen VI.37).

legionaries and auxiliaries both wear chainmail, which is likely to mean that, at least on the lower Danube, lorica segmentata was not, at the time, worn by legionary troops. For the column in Rome, a handy convention was used to distinguish legionaries from auxiliaries.Very few of the onlookers in Rome would have known better.

23. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, p. 274. 24. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Habitus barbarus: did barbarians look

different from Romans?, in P. Porena, Y. Rivivre (dir.), Expropriations et conscations dans les royaumes barbares, Rome, 2012, pp. 13-28. (forthcoming).

25. U. Wange, Die Gotenkriege des Valens, Studien zu Topographie und Chronologie im unteren Donauraum von 366 bis 378 n. Chr., Frankfurt am Main, 1990, pp. 152-157.




How many of the Goths in Constantinople were still pagan is an impossible question but it seems quite likely that many still worshiped their traditional gods, like Athaneric himself who had died in Constantinople in 381, less than twenty years before the revolt of Gainas. 3HUKDSV WKH IHPDOH JXUH ZDV WKH HIJ\ RI D SDJDQJRGGHVVWLHGWREXWQRWULGLQJDKRUVH7KHVLJQLFDQFHof this part of the scene, if correctly understood, would be that the depiction of Goths as being pagans, like the appearance of the cart, was used to remind the citizens of Constantinople how barbaric practices distinguished them from Romans. That this was a conscious attempt to ridicule the Goths would not be out of keeping with their portrayal as barbaric people, justly defeated by the emperor, supported by divine providence. However, none of these attributes of the Goths can be found in the archaeological record, nor is the knowledge that they used a clearly Germanic language any help; dead bones do not speak.

However, further up the column, but still in clear view for anyone looking up from ground level, there are scenes which depict, in a rural landscape, triangular structures occupied E\PDOHDQGIHPDOHJXUHVJ%). It has been suggested

that these structures were tents.26 In a late 5th century illus-tration (Ilias Ambrosiana Miniatura XXXVII) a military tent is shown with vertical not slanting sides, and so must have been supported by a timber framework, allowing soldiers to stand up inside while also providing room for more than a couple of occupants: a similar design to the tents used by the Roman imperial army.27 At least two of those reclining within these structures have beards which, as with the procession out from Constantinople, was surely LQWHQGHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHPDV*RWKV7KHWULDQJXODUSUROHindicates that the roof came down to the ground, a wigwam VKDSHGVWUXFWXUHZKLFKFORVHO\ UHVHPEOHV WKHSUROHQRWof a Roman tent, but of a grubenhaus. Since the inclusion and prominence of these structures was considered so

26. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, p. 176.27. For what it is worth, all the tents depicted on Trajans Column have

vertical side-panels and would therefore not have had a triangular SUROH$WHQWIURP9LQGRODQGDDOVRKDGVLGHSDQQHOVDOORZLQJVROGLHUVto stand within it, and large enough, just about, to accommodate 8 men (a contuburnium); C. Van Driel-Murray, A Roman tent: Vindolanda Tent 1 LQ9$0D[HOG0-'REVRQGLURoman Frontier Studies 1989, Exeter, 1991, pp. 367-375.

Fig. 2 Scenes on the Column of Arcadius (Trinity College, Cambridge).




important, it seems reasonable to conjecture that, like the FDUWVDQGSRVVLEO\WKHLPDJHRIDJRGGHVVWKHLQFOXVLRQof these structures was intended to ridicule the use of this primitive form of housing which has not been found in the region before at least the very end of the 4th century. But, if Grubenhuser were associated with the Goths, then at least some of them must have been observed using such structures. At this point, it appears to introduce a possible way of identifying the presence of Goths and, as will be seen below, in the case of the Roman fort of Dobri Dyal, the DSSHDUDQFHRIWKHVHVXQNHQEXLOGLQJVPLJKWDWUVWJODQFHbe one way of proving the existence of a non-Roman, perhaps Gothic settlement.

Can a material culture identify the presence of Goths?

It has been widely assumed that the Goths can be LGHQWLHGZLWKPDWHULDOQGVLQWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHFRUGUnfortunately, pottery is not one of them. During the 2nd-4th centuries, the regional market was dominated by oxidized red wares but, commencing around the middle of the 4th century (at least at Nicopolis), new black ware forms ZHUHLQWURGXFHGQRWDEO\WKHQHZDUHNQRZQDVIRHGHUDWLZDUHZKLFKHPSOR\HG5RPDQIRUPVEXWVRPHQHZYHVVHOtypes, not previously attested in the region.28 By the 5th century, black wares dominated and red ware production FHDVHG H[FHSW IRU WKH UDUH DSSHDUDQFH RI LPSRUWHG QHwares. But, this change in fashion need not have any impli-cations for the ethnicity of the population this type of pottery is so widespread throughout Thrace that it must have been used by all the inhabitants, Thracians, Getae DVZHOODVQHZFRPHUV1RUGRVPDOOQGVKHOS LQGLVWLQ-guishing between locals and new immigrants. Even the wide-spread use of composite bone combes, so typical of the period, have no proven connection with Goths. Romans had hair, though perhaps generally not so long, but which also required grooming.29 Another misguided presumption LV WKDW WKH 6vWQWDQDGH0XUH &KHUQLDNKRY FXOWXUHwas developed by the Goths and that, wherever it occurs, both North and South of the Danube, it must attest their presence.30 The material evidence is not heterogeneous, far

28. R. K. Falkner, The pottery, in A. G. Poulter (dir.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: the Pottery, cit. (n. 4), p. 734; Id., Vagalinski Burnished Pottery from the First Century to the Beginning of the 7th Century AD from the Region South of the Lower Danube6RD>%XOJDULDQ@

29. Settled close to the city of Nicopolis c. 347/348. Goths may well have OLYHGLQDQH[WUDPXUDOTXDUWHULGHQWLHGGXULQJH[FDYDWLRQVEXWDOOWKHPHWDOQGVDUH5RPDQDQGGRQRWVKRZDQ\EDUWEDULDQWUDLWV$3RXOWHUNicopolis ad Istrum: The Finds, cit. (n. 4), pp. 15-64; Id., Invisible Goths within and beyond the Roman Empire, in J. Drinkwater, B. Salway (dir.), Wolf Liebeschuetz Reected, London, 2007, pp. 169-183.

30. Cf. P. Heather, The Goths, Oxford, 1996, pp. 14-25. H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1987, pp. 61, 73, 419.

from it. House types include timber rectangular buildings and Grubenhuser. Cemeteries include both inhumations DQGFUHPDWLRQVDQGDPRQJVWVPDOOQGVWKHRQO\FRPPRQdenominator is the presence of purely Roman objects which were evidently exported in large quantities to the inhabi-tants North of the Danube. Presumably, Goths in the 4th and 5th centuries did use what was commonly available but so did native Getae.31 At Nicopolis, from the middle of the 4th century, there existed a substantial number of mudbrick houses, very different from the mortar built houses within the FLW\6LQFHLQWKH*RWKVRI8OODKDGEHHQVHWWOHGbetween Nicopolis and the Haemus; it would be tempting to believe that this relatively poor extra-settlement was RFFXSLHGE\*RWKV+RZHYHUQRWDQ\RIWKHQGVDUHRWKHUthan typically Roman and provide no grounds for assuming WKDW WKH RFFXSDQWV FRXOG EH LGHQWLHG E\ WKHLU PDWHULDOculture. Although too large a question to be dealt with in this paper, there is equally no proven association between the rich hoards found to the North of the Danube and the Goths. All the techniques of production were well-known in the Mediterranean world by the 3rd century and, for example, the so-called Germanic symbolism of the eagle motif is well attested within the Late Roman Empire. These treasures must have been owned by barbarian chieftains. The acquisition of these items and regularly associated purely Roman objects are most likely to represent gifts, manufactured, not by German settlers, but by craftsmen in the imperial workshops of Constantinople. It cannot be maintained that the recipients were Germanic in origin. The owner may have been a Goth but, equally, could have been any powerful prince who had accepted alliance with Rome and was consequently favored with precious gifts.

Forts, towns and the countryside LQWKHODVWTXDUWHURIWKHth century

The most intensively researched of the frontier forts is Iatrus.32$OWKRXJKLWVIRUWLFDWLRQVDUHPDVVLYHO\GHIHQVLYHthe internal layout of the fort contained a range of structures not dissimilar to those of the Early Empire. It had a standard principia, probably a praetorium, and barracks, arranged either side of the main colonnaded road from the eastern gate, as well as other barracks at the western end of the defences, behind the principia.33 The fort shows no sign of

31. A. Poulter, Invisible Goths, cit. (n. 29), pp. 171-174.32. L. Bartosiewicz et al., Iatrus-Krivina V. Sptantike Befestigung und

frhmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau (Studien zur Geschichte des Kastells Iatrus, Forschungsstand, 5), Berlin, 1989, and G. von Blow, The fort of Iatrus in Moesia Secunda: observations on the Late Roman defensive system on the lower Danube (fourth-sixth centuries AD), in Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 459-478.

33. More barracks may well have existed on the northern side of the fort, but here erosion of the Danube bank has destroyed most of the




GHVWUXFWLRQE\UHEHIRUH WKHPLGGOHRI WKHth century.34 1HLWKHU KDYH DQ\ WUDFHV RI GHVWUXFWLRQ EHHQ LGHQWLHGwithin the legionary fortress of Novae (Svishtov) in the late 4th or early 5th century.35 But, outside the western gate, built over a peristyle building (which had burnt down in the 3rdFHQWXU\DQHZODUJHVWUXFWXUHZDVGHVWUR\HGE\UHat the end of the 4th century.36 Some additional evidence comes from northern Thrace, south of the Danubian frontier. A quadriburgium at Koula, with one of its corner towers still standing 16.30 m high, must have been built in early 4th century. Here, a reinterpretation of the stratigraphy points, not to three destruction levels as the excavator DVVXPHGEXW WRRQO\RQH WKDWFDQEHUPO\GDWHGWRWKHmiddle of the 5th century and not earlier.37

Somewhat more substantive is the information available IRUXUEDQVXUYLYDO7KHFLW\RI3KLOLSSRSROLVZDVIRUWLHGby AD 172 and the walls remained in use during the 4th and into the 5th FHQWXU\ZLWKRQO\DVOLJKWPRGLFDWLRQWRthe curtain around the main gate.38 There was no reduction LQWKHIRUWLHGDUHDDQGQRHYLGHQFHIRUDGHVWUXFWLRQOHYHOdatable to the end of the 4th century.39 Large, luxurious houses were built in the late 3rd and continue in use until the 6th century.40 True, during the revolt of Procopius against Valens, the city was besieged by the forces of Valentinian,

northern wall and with it a substantial portion of the interior.34. G. von Blow, Die Entwicklung des Siedlungsbildes von Iatrus in der

Periode B/C, L. Bartosiewicz et al., Iatrus-Krivina V, cit. (n. 32), pp. 29-30; Id., The fort of Iatrus, cit. (n. 32), pp. 466-467.

35. T. Sarnowski, Die principia von Novae im spten 4. und frhen 5. Jh., in S. Konrad, L. Vagalinski (dir.), Der limes an der unteren Donau von Diokletian bis Heraklios (Vortrger der internationalen Konferenz Svishtov, 1.-5. September 1998)6RDSS

36. K. Dimitrov, Kum vuprosa za rasvitieto na kompleks extra muros (sector VIII A) na Nove v Dolna i vtora Miziya, in Phosphorion, Studia in honorem Maria Chichikova6RDSS>%XOJDULDQ@

37. Three destruction levels are claimed, one under Valens, another in the early 4thFHQWXU\WKHQDQDOGHVWUXFWLRQDQGDEDQGRQPHQWLQWKHPLG5th century. Two sections have been published. In the western sector, there ZDVDSULPDU\RRUOHYHOZKLFKZDVEXUQWWKHQFRYHUHGE\WZROHYHOVof burnt debris in the report which cannot be interpreted as occupation GHSRVLWVWKHWRSVRIERWKGXPSVDUHLUUHJXODULQSUROHDQGLWLVDGPLWWHGLQ WKH UHSRUW WKDW WKHUHZHUHQRRWKHURRU VXUIDFHV$WDQDVRYDet al., Razkopki i Mpoouchvaniya 33, Kastra Martis, Kvadribourgii i Kastel %XOJDULDQSDQGJ7KHPDWHULDORYHUWKHSULPDU\RRUFDQ EH FRQGHQWO\ LGHQWLHG DV SDUW RI WKH VDPH UHGHSRVLWHG GXPSof destruction material. This interpretation is supported by the second SXEOLVKHG SUROH IURPZLWKLQ WKH QRUWKHDVWHUQ WRZHU ibidem, p. 39, DQGJ$JDLQRQO\RQHFRPSDFWHGVXUIDFHZDVIRXQGDERYHZKLFKthere was a single deposit of soil and burnt debris. In neither case was the rubble removed and the latest coin was an issue of Theodosius II. There is no reason to believe that there was more than one destruction level and that it dated to about the middle of the 5th century.

38. V. Gerasimova, Zwei frhchristliche Stifterinschriften aus der kleinen Basilica in Plovdiv (Philippopolis), in Archaeologia Bulgaria, 2, 2002, p. 78-79; E. Kesyakova, Philippopolis prez rimskata epoha6RDpp. 23-24 [Bulgarian].

39. L. Botusharova, E. Kesyakova, Sur la topographie de la ville de Philippopolis lepoque de la basse antiquit, in Pulpidava: Semaines philippopitaines de lhistoire et de la culture Thrace, 4, 1980, pp. 265-270; E. Kesyakova, Philippopolis, cit. (n. 38), pp. 81, 93.

40. E. Kesyakova, Philippopolis, cit. (n. 38), pp. 18-19.

but was never captured (Amm. Marcell. XXVI. 10.4). The walls of Augusta Traiana, another large town, enclosed KDE\WKHWLPHLWZDVIRUWLHGXQGHU0DUFXV$XUHOLXVA late 4th century destruction is suggested.41 However, this is by no means certain; large town houses with notably elaborate mosaics, built in the early 4th century, seem to have continued in use without interruption into the 5th century.42 A large extramural house survived the 4th century and was later converted for use as a church.43 Serdica had originally FRYHUHG KD ZLWKLQ LWV IRUWLFDWLRQV DQ DUHD VXEVWDQ-tially increased to 84 ha in the late Roman period, probably during the 4th century, and seems to have continued into the 5th century. Nor is there any sign that Pautalia, in western Thrace, suffered destruction at the end of the 4th or early 5th century.44 Nicopolis ad Istrum continued to be defended by its late 2nd-century defences and there is no reason to believe that the Goths were able to capture and destroy the city.45 The agora remained in use and presumably its civic buildings.46 There was no sign of a decline in the range of agricultural products reaching the city in the late 4th or early 5th century. The only indication that these were XQVHWWOHGWLPHVLVWKHUHGXFWLRQDQGQDOGLVDSSHDUDQFHRIthe extramural settlement. Marcianopolis is a case apart. Its size, c. 70 ha, makes it one of the largest cities in the Danube plain. One impressive house of 4th century date, decorated with mosaics, has been excavated in the centre of the town although this appearance of prosperity may ZHOOUHHFWQRWORFDOZHDOWKEXWWKHFLW\VIXQFWLRQDVWKHcapital of Moesia II and, more particularly, its role as a military base, and imperial residence during Valens Gothic wars (367-369). That it had an arms factory is not at all surprising.47

Whether, as might be expected, many forts along the frontier were evacuated during the Gothic revolt remains unknown. But, certainly cities remained largely protected behind their defences, even when their walls were, for the time, simply the old-fashioned circuits built in the late 2nd century. Ammianus Marcellinus accredited Fritigern ZLWKWKHYLHZWKDWWKH*RWKVNHSWSHDFHZLWKZDOOV$PPMarcell. XXX1.6,4). This seems to have been generally true.

The fate of the countryside is more problematic. Some villas survived at least until the very end of the 4th century.48

41. Kr. Kalchev, Arheologichesiyat rezervat Augusta Traiana Beroe, prouchvaniya I problemi, in Sbornik, 1998, pp. 9, 92.

42. Ibidem, pp. 53-55.43. Ibid., p. 53.44. V. Katsarova, Pautalia i neinata territoriya prez I-VI vek, in Veliko

Turnovo, 2005, p. 146 [Bulgarian].45. A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum, cit. (n. 4), pp. 33-34.46. P. Vladkova, The late Roman agora, in Poulter, The transition to Late

Antiquity, p. 210.47. See Not Dig. Or XI. 34, and G0LKDLORYHSLJUDFDQRLQIzestia

Burgas, 11, 1965, pp. 150-153.48. See below, for the villas which do not have been directly affected by

the events of 378, pp. 72-73.




The ornate villa of Ivailograd, not surprisingly, since it lay within the territory of Adrianople, would seem to have been destroyed and abandoned about the time of the battle.49 That villas did not survive in the years immediately following Adrianople might be expected, but surprisingly many of those which have been excavated do seem to have continued to exist, even a decade after the event.50

Continuity and change RQWKHIURQWLHUF

Following the departure of Alaric and his army for Italy in 407, it seems that military control was re-established over the Danubian frontier. The provision of local VXSSOLHVIRUWKHDUP\DQGWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIIRUWLFDWLRQVwas underway in 408 (CTh, 11,17,4). In 412, orders were issued for the repair of military river craft in Scythia and Moesia II (CTh, 7, 17, 1). In 443, measures were again WDNHQWRPDLQWDLQWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKH'DQXELDQHHWin Thrace and Illyricum (NTh, 24.5)

On the ground, excavations support the evidence of the law codes. An inscription from Berkovitsa, south of Montana, proves that imperial building took place at some point between AD 408 and 423.51 Novae, still the base of legio I Italica, is one of the most informative sites. Nothing is known about military accommodation in the fortress, apart from the 3rd century abandonment of one barrack, excavated immediately to the South of the porta principalis dextra. The legionary baths also appear to have no longer functioned during the 4th century. But excavations in the principia have demonstrated that coin-loss continued down to the late 440s.52 Also, from the area of the headquarters building, small statue bases were recovered. They had been set up by primipilarii in 430, 431 and 432.53 The primipi-larii were responsible for the shipping of supplies to the legion and the inscriptions helpfully inform us that they were involved in the provision of the annona from the Mediterranean provinces of Hellespontus and Insulanea. Moreover, since the ceremonial role of the principia still existed, presumably it also continued to be the headquarters of the legion. Even so, there is good reason to believe that

49. Caution is required, even here, since no coin list has been published. In favour of a connection with the battle or immediately following, see Ya. Mladenova, Armira, krai Ivailovgrad6RDS>%XOJDULDQ@V. Dinchev, Rimskite vili6RDSS>%XOJDULDQ@

50. See below, pp. 72-73.51. A. Poulter, The transition to Late Antiquity on the lower Danube:

the city, a fort and the countryside, in Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 93-94.

52. T. Sarnowski, Die principia von Novae, cit. (n. 35), pp. 57-58.53. Idem, Drei sptkaiserzeitliche Statuenbasen aus Novae in Niedermsien, LQ00LUNRYL GLURmische Stdte und Festungen an der Donau, Akten der regionalen Konferenz, Belgrade, 2005, pp. 151-152.

much had changed in the way that imperial authority was maintained over the region.

The singular case of Iatrus illustrates changes which were no doubt taking place along the length of the ORZHU'DQXELDQ IURQWLHU'XULQJ WKH IRUWVUVW SHULRGRIoccupation (period A), its layout, as described above, exhibited the essential characteristics of a fort of the early HPSLUHH[FHSWIRUWKHGLIFXOW\RISURYLGLQJDVWDQGDUGSODQwithin a curtain wall which followed the topography and which did not adopt the traditional playing-card form.54 The end of period A is problematic.55 The argument that period A ended as early as c. 350/360 is insecure.56 A date c. 400 would seem more likely.57 In the ensuing period (period B/C) the principia still stood but was partly dismantled and used simply for metal-working, as was the praetorium.58 Barracks were dismantled and only fragments of the mortar-bonded walls were incorporated within irregularly planned houses and workshops, mostly built of stone with earth bonding.59 Such a radical change in the layout of the fort suggests a fundamental change in the character of its garrison and structure of command. There was no destruction deposit separating periods A and B/C which might have required rebuilding on this scale.

South of the Danube, auxiliary forts continued to be occupied, although by much smaller garrisons than the nominally 500 strong units of the Antonine and Severan periods. The quadriburgium at Koula survived until late in the reign of Theodosius II.60 But it is unlikely that the fort retained its strictly military function after c. 400.

54. See above, pp. 68-69.55. B. Dhle, Die Siedlungsperiode A in Iatrus, in L. Bartosiewicz et al.,

Iatrus-Krivina V, cit. (n. 32), p. 25. 56. This date is argued on the basis that a coin of Constantius II came from

the reconstruction level for period B; J. Hermann, Stand und Probleme der Ausgrabungen in Krivina nach den Grabungskampagnen 1966-1973, in G. von Blow, D. Schieferdecker, H. Heinrich (dir.), Iatrus-Krivina 1. Sptantike Befestigung und frhmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1966-1973, Berlin, 1979, pp. 11-12. G. von Bulw, Die Entwiklung, in L. Bartosiewicz et al., Iatrus-Krivina V, cit. (n. 32), pp. 29-30; Id., The fort of Iatrus, cit. (n. 32), p. 466. The discovery of a coin of Constantius II in the construction deposit (which also contained two coins, one of Honorius and another of Arcadius or Honorius) does not support the contension that the fort was reorganized at such an early date. For the regular use of 4th-century coinage well on into the 5th century, see P. Guest, Coin circulation in the Balkans in Late Antiquity, in Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity, p. 299. Surely, coins of Arcadius and Honorius point to the beginning of period B in the early 5th century.

57. See below, for the close similarity between Dichin and Iatrus, p. 74. $W'LFKLQWKHFRLQQGVSRLQWWRDFRQVWUXFWLRQGDWHRIFGHVSLWHthe presence of some earlier 4th-century coins which continued in use, even to the very end of the 5th century: P. Guest, Coin circulation, cit. (n. 56), p. 299.

58. D. Stanchev, S. Conrad, Die Objekte XLI und XVIII, in G. von Blow, B. Bttger, S. Konrad et al. (dir.), Iatrus 6:Iatrus-Krivina, Sptantike Befestigung und frhmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, 1992-2000 (Limesforschungen, 28), Mainz, 2007, pp. 119-125.

59. G. von Bulw, The fort of Iatrus, cit. (n. 32), p. 468.60. See above, note 37.




Buildings were of mudbrick and, notable amongst the QGV ZHUH DJULFXOWXUDO WRROV LQFOXGLQJ VLFNOHV DQGploughshares.61

The small fort of Dichin sat on a low ridge, 10 m above the river Rositsa and c. 11 km west of the city of Nicopolis.62 It was not on a Roman road but was located on the bank of a navigable river which gave access to the fertile country to the west and, downstream to the river Iantra, then north to the Danube. Its date is remarkable: unlike the known late Roman forts on the Danube which were mostly built in the Tetrarchic period, Dichin was constructed c. 400. Its walls, using brick courses alternating with stone facing blocks, was superbly designed and had both circular corner towers and rectangular medial towers set astride the curtain-walls; certainly the defences must have been designed and built by Roman military engineers. However, inside the fort, the layout, from the start, did not conform to traditional practice. No principia was found and, despite the lavish use of mortar in building the walls, almost all the interior structures used only earth-bonding with rough limestone blocks. The superstructure was completed in mudbrick, protected by tiled roofs, identical to the buildings excavated at Iatrus. Large rectangular buildings were roughly aligned along the central roadway whereas the western quarter ZDVRFFXSLHGE\ D VHULHVRIJUDQDULHVZLWK UDLVHGRRUVunexpectedly supported by mudbrick bases, not ones of mortared stone or tile. The fort survived, unusually, beyond WR EH QDOO\ GHVWUR\HG F$' $ GLVPHPEHUHGfemale skeleton was found in the destruction deposit. +RZHYHUWKHPLOLWDU\IXQFWLRQRIWKHIRUWLVFRQUPHGE\the discovery of three shield bosses, javelins, a plumbartum DQGVFDOHDUPRXU6LJQLFDQWO\WKHUHZHUHDOVRDJULFXOWXUDOimplements including ploughs, scythes and sickles. About 22 km south-east of Nicopolis ad Istrum, the fort of Dobri Dyal sits atop a steep-sided hill, overlooking what must have been a main road heading east towards Marcianopolis and the Black Sea coast. After two years of excavation, the main characteristics of the site have been established. A QHO\EXLOWLUUHJXODUFLUFXLWIROORZVWKHFUHVWRIWKHKLOOWKHouter face supported by regularly spaced pilasters; even at the corners, it did not have towers; the slope is so steep it was no doubt neither necessary nor practical to provide them. $JDLQWKHSOHQWLIXOFRLQQGVSURYLGHDUHDVRQDEO\SUHFLVHdating. Like Dichin, it was built c. 400. In order to provide DWZDONZD\VDURXQGWKHVXPPLWPDVVLYHTXDQWLWLHVRIFOD\were dumped against the slope and held in place by walls of stone and earth. It seems that the interior was stepped from the top down to the defences, providing level areas for buildings, some of which were certainly contemporary with the construction of the fort since they bonded with

61. I. Atanasova, I. G., Kabakchieva, A. Iotsova, Castra Martis, quadriburgium I kastel5D]NRSNLL3URRXFKYDQL\D6RDS>%XOJDULDQ@

62. A. Poulter, The transition, cit. (n. 16), pp. 82-94.

the retaining walls. What is remarkable is that the interior was carefully divided into two equal sections. Upstanding earth-bonded buildings lay on the eastern side of the fort, but the other half had no stone structures at all.63 Instead, the open area was occupied by Grubenhuser and it seems that this part of the fort was used only for these structures. No similar Grubenhuser have (so far) been recognized on the other side of the hill where the buildings were of stone and earth. None of the Grubenhuser contained Slav pottery, only standard late Roman wares. It seems possible that these very un-Roman structures were contemporary with the usual earth-bonded structures.64 Unlike Dichin, the life of this fort was more typical for the region; its latest coins were issues of Theodosius II and provide a terminus post quem of 435 for its abandonment, apparently following the GHPROLWLRQRIEXLOGLQJVQRWDIWHUDQ\GHVWUXFWLRQE\UH

The creation of these new forts in the interior marks a departure from the 4th century. Located at important road junctions, they must have provided the internal security which was now required, ranging from impressive defences, like those illustrated above, down to much smaller police posts such as that at Gostilitsa (0.8 ha),65 south of Nicopolis.

Survival and the militarization RIth-century towns

Survival is easily demonstrated for the cities, especially in the case of the wealthier ones south of the Haemus and DWVRPHUHPRYHIURPWKHWXUPRLOZKLFKKDGDILFWHG'DFLDRipensis, Moesia II and Scythia. However, there were diffe-rences. Already during the 4th century, some had garrisons. Tomis, capital of Scythia, was the residence for the dux Scythiae and his ofcium.66 Marcianopolis under Valens, was the capital of Moesia II and certainly had a garrison: the comes per Thracias was based there on the eve of the Gothic revolt (Amm. MarcellXXXI.4,9-5,9). No doubt it remained a key military centre, within easy reach of the

63. This was established by geophysical survey, carried out by Dr Michael Boyd, as well as by excavation.

64. Forts along the Danube regularly contain Grubenhuser but these are usely ascribed to the 9th/10th century. The only other case on the Danube where these structures might have been built within the Roman period is at Intercissa on the middle Danube. Here, three Grubenhuser were FXWLQWRWKHQDO5RPDQOHYHOZLWKLQWKHFRQQHVRIWKHODWH5RPDQfort. It seems possible that they were in use before the beginning of the 5th century; they contained black burnished ware, as well as handmade pottery, normal late Roman ceramics, and one of them produced two coins of Valentinian: S. Soproni, Die letzten Jahrzehnte des Pannonischen Limes (Verffentlichung der Kommission zur archologischen Erforschung des sptrmischen Raetien, Der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), Mnchen, 1985, pp. 44-48, 63-64.

65. B. Soultov, Arheologicheski proouchvaniya v Diskondouratera ot 1958-1961 godina, in Izvestiya Veliko Turnovo, 3, 1966, pp. 28, 35, 42 [Bulgarian].

66. See above, p. 63.




Danube, up the road to Durostorum (J). It is probable that barracks existed along the inside of the curtain-wall at Philippopolis.67 The massive defences at Diocletianopolis contained what are certainly barracks along its southern and eastern curtain-walls.68 Whether Nicopolis ad Istrum KHOG D JDUULVRQ LV XQNQRZQ EXW SHUKDSV VLJQLFDQWO\ LWdid not acquire the new style defences in the late Roman period.69 The agora was no longer in use by the middle of the 5th century.70 Extra defensive precautions were XQGHUWDNHQGXULQJ WKHUVWTXDUWHURI WKHth century; the external ditch was widened and deepened and a mudbrick revetment (proteichisma) was added to the outside edge of the berm. Occupation continued beyond AD 430 but ended in the violent destruction of the city, most probably within the second quarter of the 5th century.71 Thereafter the Roman city was abandoned, only to be replaced by a new IRUWLFDWLRQLQWKHODWHth or early 6th century AD, but one which was very different from the urban centre it replaced; the 6th century defences served ecclesiastical and military needs and contained very few if any civilians.72

The towns in southern Thrace have been extensively excavated and provide useful information. Philippopolis survives, not only the turmoil of the late 4th century but exhibits a remarkable level of prosperity throughout the 5th century. Large, luxurious houses, decorated with high quality mosaics, were built in the late 3rd and continued in use into 6th century.73 A synagogue was destroyed in the mid 3rd century but was rebuilt and continued in use until the middle of the 6th

century.74 There were changes but civilian occupation would seem to have continued; although the eastern baths were abandoned, they were replaced by a new two-storied building at the end of the 5th century.75 Notable is the construction of DODUJHEDVLOLFDGHFRUDWHGZLWKQHPRVDLFVPORQJDQG39m wide; erected in the 5th century; it also functioned as late as the 6th century.76A large public bath suite went out of use in the mid 5th century but was subsequently rebuilt.77 One small basilica with mosaics, attributed to the late 5th century,

67. L. Botusharova, E. Kesyakova, Sur la topgraphie, cit. (n. 39), pp. 265-270.68. K. Madzharov, Diocletianopolis6RDSS>%XOJDULDQ@69. There are strong indications that a military garrison was billeted

in the city during the 3rd century, but Nicopolis, as far as its archaic defences suggest, remained of no particular consequence in the late Roman period; A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum, cit. (n. 4), pp. 28-29.

70. P. Vladkova, The late Roman agora, cit. (n. 46), p. 210.71. A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum, cit. (n. 4), pp. 34-35. The fact that

not only the interior of the city but also the proteichisma were burnt and destroyed, could hardly have happened accidentally. Weapons and armour in the bottom of the newly-cut ditch and on the cobbled roadway outside the southern gate support the view that the destruction followed a hostile attack.

72. Ibidem, pp. 34-47.73. E. Kesyakova, Philippopolis, cit. (n. 38), pp. 18-19.74. Ibidem, p. 81.75. Ibid., p. 19.76. Ibid., pp. 20-21.77. Ibid., p. 43.

existed just within the defences.78$SDUWIURPWKHPRGLFD-tions carried out at the east gate and a cutting through an existing tower on the southern defences, providing a small, secondary entrance into the city, the late second century forti-FDWLRQVUHPDLQHGLQXVH79 There are no signs of destruction or a slackening in the pace of urban regeneration in the 4th or 5th centuries AD.80 At Augusta Traiana, it has been suggested that the town was destroyed at the end of the 4th century but the evidence seems based on historical grounds rather than upon archaeological evidence.81 The impressive circuit, enclosing 48.5ha, is not reduced in size. However, not all buildings remained in good repair. Some large town houses with mosaics of the highest standard, possibly laid, not by local craftsmen, but by Constantinopolitan specialists in the early 4th century, would seem not to have continued in use beyond the 5th century but were subdivided into smaller units with additional walls of mudbrick.82 Further signs of trouble around the middle of the 5th century include the destruction level which ended occupation of an extramural building. But, this was perhaps exceptional or accidental. Another large town house survived and was, at a late date, turned into a cemetery church and was surrounded by inhumation burials.83 Pautalia may well have been burnt down towards the middle of the 5th century but occupation had continued LQWRWKHUVWKDOIRIWKHth, even though mud brick replaced mortar in new buildings and the forum seems no longer to be in use.84

The destruction of the Roman rural economy

The pattern of coin-loss provides a generally reliable LQGLFDWLRQDVWRZKHQYLOODVZHUHQDOO\DEDQGRQHG1RUWKRIthe Haemus range, coins from the villa of Gorna Oryakovitsa end with issues of 392-94.85 There is less certainty about the three large villas around Montana, although the published evidence strongly suggests that their use terminated at the very end of the 4th century.860DQ\ZHUHGHVWUR\HGE\UHand the variety of metalwork left behind suggests that they were abandoned in haste, as in the case of Ourovene near Vratsa.877KHWHUPLQDOGDWHIRUWKHIWHHQYLOODVLWHVVXUYH\HGwithin the territory of Nicopolis cannot be securely established without excavation. However, none produced

78. V. Gerasimova,. Zwei frhchristliche Stifterinschriften aus der kleinen Basilica in Plovdiv (Philippopolis), in Arch. Bulg., 2, 2002, pp. 78-79.

79. E. Kesyakova, Philippopolis, cit. (n. 38), p. 23.80. L. Botusharova, E. Kesyakova, Sur la topographie, cit. (n. 39), pp. 265-270.81. See above, p. 69.82. Kr. Kalchev, Arheologichesiyat rezervat, cit. (n. 41), pp. 53-55.83. Ibidem, p. 53.84. V. Katsarova, Pautalia I, cit. (n. 44), pp. 146-147.85. This simple, small villa near Pernik produced a terminal issue of

392/395: V. Dinchev, Rimskite vili, cit. (n. 49), pp. 28-30.86. Montana 1, Montana 2 and Montana 3: ibidem, pp. 32-37.87. Ibidem, pp. 41-42.




FHUDPLFVGDWDEOHDIWHUF&RLQQGVDUHLQYDULDEO\th century in date. In each case, their association with burnt PXGEULFNSURYHVWKDWWKHYLOODVKDGEHHQGHVWUR\HGE\UHand several produced complete agricultural implements; it would be surprising if they had been simply abandoned.88

In southern Thrace, the villa of Chatalka existed down to at least the reign of Honorus (395-423).89 To the west, the villa of Kralev Dol also survived into the 390s.90 Even though the occupation of these sites as functioning villas seems to end in the last decade of the 4th century, many of the sites acquired simple mudbrick structures which were used for some time after the villas themselves had ceased to exist.91

What is clear is that, as in the systematic study of villas within the territory of Nicopolis, the villa economy along the Danube and in Thrace came to an abrupt, perhaps violent end. 0RUHVLJQLFDQWO\QRDWWHPSWZDVHYHU\PDGHWRUHEXLOGWKHruined estate centres. The Roman villa system and, with it, the traditional basis of the rural economy, appears to have ceased c. AD 400. However, as described below, this does not mean that agricultural production did not continue during the 5th century. But the evidence that this was so comes not from the villas but from the forts and, exceptionally, from one city in the north Bulgarian plain.

The military and their supplies

Agricultural production and stock rearing between 400 and 450 continued around the city of Nicopolis.92 Although WKLVLVWKHRQO\XUEDQFHQWUHZKLFKKDVSURGXFHGDVWUDWLHGTXDQWLHG DVVHPEODJH LW LV UHDVRQDEOH WR EHOLHYH WKDWwhere cities existed (especially in Thrace), the farming of ODQGLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHIRUWLFDWLRQVPXVWKDYHEHHQVWLOOtaking place to sustain the urban population. It is unproven but probable that it contained a garrison, as argued above was the case in the less-exposed cities of southern Thrace.

88. A. Poulter, The transition, cit. (n. 16), p. 82; Id., Site-specic survey: the methodology, in Id., The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 583-595.

89. V. Dinchev, Rimskite vili, cit. (n. 49); D. Nikolov, The Thraco-Roman Villa Rustica Near Chatalka, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria (BAR, Sup. Series 17), Oxford, 1976, p. 45.

90. This simple villa near Pernik produced a terminal issue of 392/395; V. Dinchev, Rimskite vili, cit. (n. 49), pp. 28-30.

3RVWYLOODXVHRIVLWHVKDVEHHQUHJXODUO\LGHQWLHGLQFOXGLQJ2XURYHQHVrtatsa: V. Dinchev, Rimskite vili, cit. (n. 49), pp. 41-42; Veselchani, Kurdzhali (southern Thrace): ibidem, pp. 54-58, the three villas around Montana: ibidem, pp. 32-37, and more generally: ibidem, p. 25. Whether the new residents living in and around the abandoned villas were local inhabitants or newcomers remains unknown. Since the villas were all generally insubstantial structures, the reoccupation of the site would probably have taken place immediately or soon after the villas were abandoned by their occupants. No coins have been associated with this period of occupation; presumably they were not used for a long time: notably, none have produced 6th century coins.

92. See in A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum: The Finds, cit. (n. 4): M. Beech, pp. 154-197 (large mammal and reptile report), Z. Boev, M. Beech, pp. 242-253 (bird bones), M. Buysse, pp. 15-292 (botanical remains).

In the forts, the evidence for continued agriculture is compelling. At Dichin, fully processed crops included wheat, barley, millet and rye as well as peas, beans, lentil and bitter vetch.93 A wide range of meats was consumed; wild species were represented by pheasant, partridge, black grouse and pigeon, boar and deer. Domestic animals were also available: pig, cattle, sheep/goat and, above all, chickens.94 Skeletal representation analysis implies that some animals, notably sheep/goat and pigs, were butchered on site and probably kept close to the fort. The cattle elements were dominated by upper limb bones, indicating that prepared carcasses or joints of meat were SUREDEO\EURXJKWWRWKHVLWHIURPIXUWKHUDHOG+RZHYHUthe discovery of cow-bells suggests that cattle or perhaps oxen were also kept close by. Unlike the city of Nicopolis, the occupants showed a marked preference for pike.95 Dobri Dyal would seem to have been equally well-supplied with local produce, including limited quantities of wild species (rabbits and hares, wild birds and boar) but primarily the diet consisted of domestic animals: pig dominated the assemblage, followed by sheep/goat and then cattle. Skeletal representation again suggested that many of the larger domestic animals were supplied to the fort as joints of meat, even though some primary butchery did take place on site.96 Seeds included lentils, barley, wheat and beans and cover much the same range of produce as at Dichin.97 %RWK VLWHV FRQUP WKDW WKH ODQG ZDV EHLQJ LQWHQVLYHO\IDUPHGGXULQJWKHUVWKDOIRIWKHth century.

This is not to say that the occupants of Dichin and 'REUL '\DO ZHUH WRWDOO\ VHOIVXIFLHQW $W 'LFKLQ3RQWLFW\SH DPSKRUDH 2SDL % IURP WKH &ULPHD DQGSinope were present as well as LRAI amphorae, probably from Cilicia or possibly North Syria, LRA2 from the Argolid, East Aegean types and Tunisian as well as local products, copies of LR1/2. Dobri Dyal has also produced imitations of LRA1, LRA2 from the Argolid, other amphorae from Sinope and types typical of the Samos JURXS7KHUHLVDKLJKLQFLGHQFHRIORFDOEODFNQHZDUHIRHGHUDWLZDUH DQG W\SLFDO th century coarse wares, including locally produced transport amphorae. Notable DOVR LV WKHSUHVHQFHRI VRPHKLJKTXDOLW\ LPSRUWHGQHware: Late Roman C (red slip) and Pontic Red slip.98 $OWKRXJK WKH SUHVHQFH RI ORFDO DPSKRUDH FRQUPV WKDWUHJLRQDO SURGXFWLRQ UHPDLQHG LPSRUWDQW GXULQJ WKH UVWhalf of the 5th century, the importation of amphorae from

93. P. Grinter, Seeds of destruction: conagration in the grain stores of Dichin, in Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 283-284.

94. C. Johnstone, A short report on the preliminary results from the study of the mammal and bird bones assemblages from Dichin, in Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity, pp. 288-292.

95. R. Parks, The sh bones (report in preparation).96. Preliminary reports by R. Billson and F. Bowen (unpublished).97. Preliminary report by P. Grinter (unpublished).98. Information from J. Timby and P. Reynolds.




WKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQDORQJZLWKQHZDUHVPXVWPHDQWKDWluxury items (oil certainly, and probably wine) were being supplied for the military in the form of the annona.

Goths in residence?

On the lower Danube, the abandonment of standard military buildings (such as the principia and praetorium at Iatrus) suggests a rapid and complete change in the system of military organization. Since this was apparently not preceded by any destruction, the change did not appear to have been violent but part of a systematic reorganization. As to the forts build c. 400 at Dobri Dyal and Dichin, their massive defences were well-built and could only have been erected by Roman military engineers. What is remarkable is that, from the start, the interior buildings conformed to no traditional military layout. No principia was ever built at Dichin. Its rows of houses and store-rooms were almost exclusively built with mudbrick and earth-bonded stone walls. Mortar was used but sparingly: a striking contrast with the well-mortared defences. There seems to have been a disarticulation between the Roman provision of building materials and the occupants of the fort. Even so, the appearance of imported goods, including DPSKRUDHDQGHYHQVPDOOTXDQWLWLHVRI1RUWK$IULFDQQHZDUH GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW ERWK IRUWV ZHUH EHQHWLQJ IURPthe annona, no doubt organized and supplied through the fortress of Novae.99 7KH UHFRYHU\ RIPLOLWDU\ QGVarmour and weapons at Dobri Dyal and Dichin, as well as Iatrus, proves that the occupants performed military duties. But, equally, the presence of numerous agricultural implements at Iatrus, Dobri Dyal, Koula and especially Dichin must mean that the inhabitants of these forts were also engaged in agriculture. The discovery of a female skeleton in Dichin proves that the fort did not just contain soldier/farmers, but no doubt their families as well.100

Who these people were, it is impossible to say. It would be tempting, even likely, that these forts contained Goths, settled on the frontier and in its hinterland. However, there is no proof that this was the case. As in the contem-SRUDU\VHWWOHPHQWVQRUWKRIWKH'DQXEHWKHQGVRILURQcopper-alloy and bone are Roman in type and form, and FDQQRWEHUHJDUGHGDV*RWKLF7KLVDEVHQFHRIDOLHQmaterial is itself what might be expected, particularly since before crossing the Danube, as argued above, there GLGQRWH[LVWDSXUHO\*RWKLFFXOWXUDODVVHPEODJH,Qterms of jewellery and mundane artefacts, the Goths are likely to have been using the same objects as the native

99. For the role of Novae as a supply centre for the annona, see above, p. 70.

100. A. Poulter, The transition to Late Antiquity on the lower Danube, cit. (n. 51), p. 86.

provincials. True, as described above, in appearance and dress as well as language, most Goths would have been easily distinguished from a Thracian or inhabitant of Constantinople. But their distinguishing characteristics are ones which do not survive in the archaeological record. An exception, it could be argued, is the use of Grubenhuser, such as those depicted on the column of Arcadius, where they were associated with Goths and probably used as an object of derision since civilized Romans did not build such simple structures. Grubenhuser have not been found dating back to the Roman or even late Roman period, except possibly at Intercissa and more convincingly at Dobri Dyal. But if this structure had been introduced by the Goths, the rarity of its appearance would seem inexplicable. A possible explanation might be that Grubenhuser were used but not widely; none were found in Dichin. Moreover, the use of Grubenhuser cannot be taken as an ethnic indicator, but rather denoted low status and a lack of resources. Up until the early 20th century, Grubenhuser were used in Bulgaria.101 They have advantages: they can be erected without the use of a professional carpenter and do not involve the acquisition of good quality timber. They are cheap to construct. Also, there was no need to purchase roof tiles. At Dobri Dyal, the western half of the fort was occupied by such humble buildings which were certainly occupied and were not just for storage; they KDG FHQWUDO UHSODFHV ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH HDUWKERQGHGand mudbrick buildings on the eastern side of the fort involved greater investment; structural timbers were needed and invariably the supply of roof-tiles to create an overhang, protecting the mudbrick walls from getting wet and eventual collapse. Consequently, the presence of Grubenhuser suggests that those living on the western slope were not as well supplied with materials as those occupying the houses on the eastern side. Unfortunately, there presence does not mean that these structures must only have been used by Goths.102

7KHPLOLWDU\LQIUDVWUXFWXUHF

Some elements of military organization survived: notably the supply system, organized from the legionary base of Novae, was still operating during the 430s. The occupants of Dichin, Dobri Dyal, Iatrus and other forts on WKH'DQXEHIURQWLHUPXVWKDYHEHHQUPO\XQGHUPLOLWDU\

101. N. Spasova, Ouzemnoto zhilishte v Nikipolski I Plevensko, in Monoumenti I Pamenitsi na Kultura, 16/3, 1976 (Bulgarian), pp. 26-34. For early 19th century examples, see A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum, cit. (n. 4), pp. 49, 126-128, 172, and a 9th/10th century grubenhaus: ibid., pp. 166-170.

)RUIXUWKHUGLVFXVVLRQRI*RWKLFFXOWXUHDQGWKHIUXLWOHVVVHDUFKfor buildings which could be described as Gothic, see A. Poulter, Invisible Goths, cit. (n. 29), pp 169-183.




jurisdiction. The new policy was systematically imple-mented; the fortresses of Dobri Dyal and Dichin were built to contain soldier/farmers and were never intended to house a regular garrison. They could not have served as foederati, at least not in the sense in which the term was applied to the Gothic armies during the second half of the 5th century.103 But, if the forts were occupied by Gothic settlers which, despite the lack of archaeological proof, still seem likely, then the term, if applied to the inhabitants of these forts, had a totally different meaning. Speculative but possible, given the apparent status of the soldiers in these forts, is that the mysterious post of comes foederatorum was a command exercised over these new military bases, possibly also applying to Iatrus and other frontier forts. They were certainly part of the military establishment and KDG PLOLWDU\ GXWLHV EXW WKH\ ODFNHG WKH UHJXODU RIFLDOmilitary support, as in the provision of building materials, and were living with their womenfolk and no doubt children. That they were engaged in farming and care of livestock is not surprising; the villa-economy which had performed this role during the 1st-4th centuries AD had been totally destroyed. Whether this is the whole story remains unknown. Other settlers, who had no military duties, may have taken over the countryside. But until more intensive survey is carried out, there is no way of knowing what had happened to the abandoned villa estates.

The collapse of the system

The end of this period of relative prosperity can be dated with some precision. On the frontier, Iatrus was burnt to the ground in the second quarter of the 5th century; it remained unoccupied until c. 500.104 The same fate befell the legionary fortress of Novae.105 With such key installations abandoned, it can be safely assumed that the Danube was

103. See above, pp. 64-65.104. G. von Bulw, The fort of Iatrus, cit. (n. 32), pp. 468-470.7KH ODWHVW FRLQQGV IURP WKH principia are issues of 416-422:

T. Sarnowski, Die principia von Novae, cit. (n. 35), p. 58.

not defended after c. 450. In the interior, the quadriburgium of Koula was burnt down at some point late in the reign of Theodosius II; it was never reoccupied. The latest coins from Dobri Dyal provide a terminus post quem of 435 for its abandonment, after which, like Koula, it was never put back into commission. It would be not unreasonable to link these destruction deposits with the invasion of the Huns of Attila in 447 and the subsequent treaty which handed over Dacia Ripensis to the Hunnic Kingdom; Marcianopolis was also certainly destroyed by the Huns at this time. Despite this apparently plausible explanation, there were exceptions. $OWKRXJKWUDFHVRIEXUQLQJZHUHLGHQWLHGSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHgate-tower at Dobri Dyal, none of the excavated buildings produced roof tiles; they must have been removed for reuse HOVHZKHUH DQG WKH PDVV RI VWRQH EORFNV ZKLFK OOHG WKHexcavated building with earth and bonded walls must be the result of systematic demolition. This implies that the fort was not taken by a hostile force but was evacuated. Surprisingly, one fort was not given up: Dichin. It continued to exist down to the very end of the 5th century; because it was not located close to a Roman road, it might have escaped the attention of Hunnic raiding parties.

7KHUVW KDOI RI WKH th century witnessed a dramatic change in the character of Roman military control in the region: a decision which was inevitable, not only because of the need to absorb the Gothic settlers, but also because the agrarian system of villa estates had collapsed. If the annona brought in luxury imports and even basic foodstuffs, there must still have been a need for locally available supplies to support the military. Although the possibility remains that the Goths were settled in the new forts, this is still uncertain: archaeology is incapable of providing an answer. Whatever their status and ethnic origin, the employment of soldier/farmers proved an effective solution: it worked quite well for c. 50 years before the arrival of the Huns put an end to the system. Rather than 382, the crucial date for the implementation of these reforms would seem to be later, around the year 400. What happened in the interval between 382 and 400 is another problem which, at present, cannot be resolved.

University of Nottingham

Documents

ANTIQ_TRD_Goths on the Lower Danube