V článku je probráno několik postřehů k interpretaci dvou zpráv antických autorů o poměrech v České kotlině v období přelomu letopočtů. Strabón (Geogr. VII 1,3) neprohlašuje Kvády za jeden ze suébských kmenů, ale staví oba termíny na tutéž úroveň. Búiaimon mohlo ležet na území jedněch i druhých. Pouze z téže pasáže není zcela zřejmé, že jen část Suébů podle Strabóna žije v Hercynském lese a část mimo něj, a teprve v pasáži, která následuje vzápětí, je to řečeno explicite. Búiaimon Strabón velmi pravděpodobně pokládal za královské sídlo, nikoli zemi. Argument uváděný ve prospěch této druhé možnosti není přesvědčivý a jiné, představené zde, nejsou samy o sobě dostačující. Tacitovi (Germ. 42,1) není bezpodmínečně nutné rozumět tak, že podle něho vyhnali Bóje z Boiohaema Markomani. Jeho formulace není jednoznačná, nicméně tento význam mít může a současně Tacitus neměl jinou možnost, jak se přirozeně vyjádřit, pokud to na mysli opravdu měl. and In the paper some observations are presented concerning two accounts by ancient authors on the conditions in the Czech Basin during the period at the turn of calendar eras. Strabo (Geogr. VII 1,3) does not claim Quadi to be one of the Suebian tribes: both the terms he juxtaposes at the same level. Bouiaimon could have been situated in the territory of the former as well as of the latter. It is not clear from the same passage that only a part of Suebi was living in the Hercynian Forest, while the other part outside: it is clear only from the passage immediately following the one in question. Concerning Bouiaimon, Strabo very likely considered it a kingly seat and not a territory. The evidence for the latter produced or defended by some Czech scholars is not convincing and the new pieces introduced here are not themselves sufficient. Tacitus (Germ. 42,1) need necessarily not be understood as claiming Marcomanni to have themselves expelled Boii from Boiohaemum. His wording is not unambiguous, but at the same time it definitely could have been meant so, and Tacitus had no other way to naturally express such an idea, had he really this in mind.
The authors deal with the development of the settlement of the Malá Haná region on the border of historical Moravia during the Late Roman Period (stages C3–D1) and during the Migration Period. After the intense settling of settlements by the Suebi with the Roman-provincial, Przeworsk culture and Chernyakhov culture contacts, which culminate in stage D1, there are strong ties to South Moravia and the Central Danube region at Malá Haná in stages D2 and D3, or alternatively to the Danube-East Germanic cultural group from the 5th century (finds of fibulas, buckles, ironwork in the style of Untersiebenbrunn, probably a Hun sax, skeletal grave from Knínice). Through Malá Haná we can assume the movement of the Lombards on their way from Bohemia to South Moravia, as evidenced by the unique finds of parts of the belt garnitures from Jevíčko and probably also by unique finds of swords (spathae) from two other sites.