Chapter IV “Goths and Chernyakhov culture” is dedicated to studying of historical, geographical, socio-economical and cultural aspects of the problem in the light of comparative analysis of data from narrative, linguistic and archaeological sources. Paragraph 1 considers stages of the Ostrogothic history in context of Chernyakhov culture evolution. Special attention is paid to the ‘age of Ermanaric’ (333—375 AD), which was marked with a heyday of classic Chernyakhov culture in Phase C3. Paragraph 2 defines the territory of Ermanaric’s kingdom. In IVth century AD the enormous area occupied by Chernyakhov culture was a scene of complex processes marked by spreading of uniform items, homebuilding traditions, funeral rituals, and also information, experience and innovations. The Ostrogothic society of IVth century AD was characterized by the quick synthesis of achievements of late ancient civilization and local barbarian culture.
Paragraph 3 throws light on a contemporary approach to the problem of Goths in the south of Eastern Europe. Today no one of the scholars is doubtful that linguistically Goths belong to East German group (vocabulary of Ulfila’s Bible, runic inscriptions, etc.). But all that complex conglomerate united under the reign of Gothic kings was perceived by Greeks and Romans as ‘Scythians called Goths’ (Dexipp., Chron., 16). It is not impossible that such a definition masks a wish of Greek and Roman authors to emphasize some special, non-Germanic features of Goths, which had to emerge in the process of‘finding of native land’ in Black-Sea Scythia.
Paragraph 4 deals with a question about the area of Oium and a pre-Gothic substrate in connection with the problem of Spali. Paragraph 5 analyzes the basic ethnic components of Chernyakhov culture to the east from the Dniester. Now we reveal more and more distinctive archaeological ethnic indicators of the presence of Eastern Germans in the south of Eastern Europe in III—IVth centuries AD: long houses, inhumations with northern orientation and cremations in urns, hand-made ceramics of Wielbartype, arms, many details of clothing, first of all fibulae, decorations, as well as horn combs. Certainly, one of the most definitive Germanic elements was represented by the runic script. Anthropological research testifies that Chernyakhov population also included ethnic groups close to the population of Northern and Central Europe of the Roman age. A late Scythian tradition in Chernyakhov culture shows itself in stone homebuilding 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’).