ilding in the Black sea region, some pottery shapes, partly — in anthropology; Sarmatian elements are perceptible in the spread of circular yurt-shaped dwellings, in some types of burial structures (pits with fillets, cuttings, catacombs), as well as in a custom of artificial deformation of skulls. ‘Sarmatian’ features serve not as a heritage of the pre-Gothic substrate, but as an evidence of the presence of scattered groups of Sarmatians and Alans among the population of already formed Chernyakhov culture.
Despite the intense search performed by several generations of Russian and Ukrainian scholars, a Slavic component in Chernyakhov culture is feebler. It finds its most distinct manifestation in a Trans-Dniester group of Cherepin-Teremci sites. It is represented by dwellings deepened in the ground — predecessors of early Slavic half-dugouts with stone stoves, some shapes of plastic pottery finding analogs in Praga culture of V—VIIth centuries AD, etc. Another, eastern group of sites, which was probably connected with a Slavic ethnos within Chernyakhov culture, is known in a forest-steppe area between the Dnieper and the Don rivers — these are the settlements of so-called Kiev tradition in Chernyakhov culture. Recently, a new type of sites has been discovered on the left bank of the Dnieper — it is so-called ‘Boromlya horizon’. They are associated with a forced migration of some population (Venetae) from Middle and Upper Dniester region under the pressure of Goths.
Chapter V “Social organization” analyzes the data of narrative and archaeological sources about the level of social development of Chernyakhov culture carriers. Types of settlements, absence of any testimonies for their growth into urban structures is completely consistent with traditional Gothic lifestyle, which remained mainly rural (Goth, haims, weihs) during the whole their history. Traces of fences around some Chernyakhov manors, findings of keys and locks may be considered as the evidence for emergence of village community and private ownership among Ostrogoths. Presence of a term ‘land ownership’ (Goth, haimojfii) in the Gothic Bible allows us to consider it as an institute close to a Germanic ôdal. Coexistence of different homebuild-ing traditions (long above-ground houses, half dugouts, etc.) in the same settlements denotes the development of social inequality among their dwellers. Materials from Chernyakhov burial sites and numerous hoards of Roman coins may be considered as markers of considerable property differentiation among the population of Ostrogothic kingdom. A question about its social stratification is more difficult. According to the archaeological data, in IVth century AD its main body was represented by free people (Goth, freis), there is also a small series of burials being close to Central European ‘princely’ tombs as well as warrior cremations in urns and inhumations. A special group of population was represented by persons, who left western-oriented burials. However, in general Chernyakhovo necropolises of IVth century AD still demonstrate a social equality of most society members.
Chapter VI “Level of economic development” comprises materials allowing us to specify a level of economic development of Chernyakhov culture in its heyday. Its economy was based on plough agriculture, which ensured certain prosperity of the Chernyakhov society and caused a real demographic explosion in IVth century AD. Presence of specialized workshops (potter’s, blacksmith’s, jeweller’s, bone-cutter’s) testifies the generation of commodity production, which is well consistent with the linguistic material of the Gothic Bible, where artisanal and other specialties are mentioned. From works of ancient authors we know that Ostrogoths had considerable monetary resources (Amm. Marc., XXXI.3.3; Zos., IV.38.3-4). The presence of currency circulation is testified by vocabulary of the Gothic Bible, as well as by widespread occurrence of Roman coins (more than 20,000 pcs. are found) in the territory of Chernyakhov culture. Most likely, the major part of this money found its way to the south of Eastern Europe in IVth century AD in noneconomic way: in the form of payments to barbarian federates, ‘gifts’ to Gothic kings, as well as prizes of war.
Chapter VII “Culture and religion” deals with a problem of spiritual and intellectual development of people living in Ermanaric’s kingdom. The Chernyakhov phenomenon showed itself in literacy of some people, who used Greek and Latin alphabets, in the use of a runic script, in emergence of complex calendar systems impressed on ritual vessels and, finally, in the spread of Christianity, though en masse Goths in IVth century AD remained pagans. Archaeological sources testify that during Ermanaric’s rule Ostrogothic society was already crossing the edge separating barbarity from civilization.
Chapter VIII “Ermanaric’s wars” contains detailed analysis of Jordanes’ list of arctoi gentes (Get., 116). The author offers an archaeological identification of one of them — Rogas Tadzans (Goth. *Rauastadians — ‘those living on the banks of Ra’ = Volga) with the population, which left the sites like Lbishche near Samara. This and other latest archaeological discoveries compel us to be much less skeptical to Jordanes’ data, including his list of ‘northern peoples’. Paragraph 2 throws light on Ermanaric’s wars with Heruli and Vandali. Paragraph 3 is dedicated to Ermanaric’s campaigns against Venetae. Analysis of all versions of their localization showed that the Ostrogothic king could lead a military expedition to the North to the Dnieper left-bank forest-steppe area, which was then inhabited by numerous tribes of Kiev culture. Paragraph 4 describes the war of Ermanaric’s successor — king Vinitarius — with Boz’s Antes (Get., 246—247). Entrance of Antes into historical arena was promoted by a unique ethnopolitical situation, which developed in East-European forest-steppe as a result of Hunnic invasion and destruction not only of Ermanaric’s ‘empire’, but also of Ostrogothic potes-tary formations, which emerged on its ruins (like Vinitharius’ ‘kingdom’).
Chapter IX is dedicated to a “conspiracy of Rosomoni” against Ermanaric. In this chapter, the author reviews various versions of Rosomones’ ethnicity: Slavic, Iranian and Germanic. According to comparative analysis of Jordanes’ evidence (Get., 129), Germanic epic tradition (Hervarar saga, 10-11) and an image on a Gottland stone of Ardre VIII, Rosomoni may initially mean ‘those around the ai)Ату Most likely, they were courtiers, servants of Ermanaric and not a special tribe (ethnos), which had been unsuccessfully looked for by lots of historians and archaeologists.
Chapter X “Ermanaric’s kingdom — an early ‘barbarian state” contains the reconstruction of Ostrogothic statehood formation based on the analysis of the whole set of narrative, linguistic and archaeological sources. Paragraph 1 contains the analysis of Ermanaric’s regnum. According to Jordanes’ account, Ermanaric was the sixth descendant of legendary Amalus and obtained a royal status by inheritance (in regno successit). Time of Ermanaric’s reign most likely fell on the period of 333—375 AD. Evidence of Ammianus and Jordanes leave no doubt that Ermanaric created a very large politico-military formation, which included a considerable part of Eastern Europe between the Lower Don region occupied by Alani-Tanaitae and the Dniester marking the boundary with the domain of Visigoths. Judging by a list of tribes conquered by Ermanaric (Get., 116-119), his ‘empire’ was very polyethnic (Goths, Heruli, Vandali, pre-Slavs — Venetiae, Aestiorum natio, Galindi). Perhaps, arctoi gentes also depended on Ermanaric’s kingdom. Therefore there is no cause to call Ermanaric’s domain as an ‘alliance of tribes’, as was traditionally accepted in Soviet science, since sources do not offer any evidence of their alliance relations with Ostrogoths. Vice versa, virtually all these peoples (excluding Aesti) turned out to be included in Ermanaric’s kingdom as a result of conquest. Huge extent of the territory controlled by Ermanaric and a great deal of dependant peoples serve as a direct evidence of the measure of his rule. Probably, it is also testified by his name, which could be a title (Erman — ‘great’ and riks — ‘king’) emphasizing the might of the last Ostrogothic ruler.
According to ancient Germanic tradition, Ostrogothic king ruled his people as a rex Gothorum. (Getarum) (Get., 118). But when describing Ermanaric’s deeds Jordanes uses Latin verbs imperare (Get., 120) and servlre (Get., 118-119) denoting absolute character of his royal power over the conquered peoples. The king wielded a supreme military authority. It is interesting that Jordanes wrote that the last Ostrogothic ruler forced all the conquered peoples suisque parère legibus fecit (Get., 116). He knew the genuine Gothic name of these legibus — belagines (Get., 69). Most probably, these were conventional rules used for legal proceedings within Goths themselves. However, it is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that Ostrogoths had a popular assembly like Germanic thing (Get., 129).
In Paragraph 2 Ermanaric’s kingdom is considered in the light of modern theories of potestarity. According to the typology of early polities, Ermanaric’s regnum had several features of an early state, but not those of a complex chiefdom. Numerous archaeological data denote the increase of cultural and social complexity of Ostrogothic society in IVh century AD, which is more characteristic for a stage of civilization. Probably, this explains the fact that Chernyakhov culture turned out to be the most developed among all the barbarian cultures of Late antiquity. Ermanaric’s empire’ demonstrated a historical possibility for formation of a ‘barbaric kingdom’ beyond the territory of Roman provinces, in East-European Barbaricum. But, unlike classical barbarian states of V—VI