A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 44. (Nyíregyháza, 2002)

Régészet - Igor Gavritukhin: On the study of double-plate fibulas of the first subgroup

Igor Gavritukhin material and new ideas included in these works is obvious. But all of them are based on the typology (that is allocation of units of material) proposed by Ambroz more than thirty years ago or on variations of it. In a number of articles J. Tejral considered the significance of some indications that had not been reflected in the existing classifications of the double-plate fibulas, but he did not conduct systematic research on his separate notes (TEJRAL 1986., TEJRAL 1988., TEJRAL 1992. 234-238, TEJRAL 1997. 330). Only recently was a new grouping of finds suggested by A. Kokowski. He increased a number of the indications significant for the typology and attempted to ascertain their repeating combinations (KOKOWSKI 1996.). I consider his system compelling, though some of his concrete results did not satisfy me. Instead of engaging in a polemic on many concrete questions I prefer simply to speak about my observations of the material. Judging by the indications that have been taken into account in the descriptions of objects, one could assume that E.L. Gorokhovski had proposed to work in this direction (GOROKHOVSKI 1988A.), but in his research known to me, these possibilities were not realised and were not debated at all. The problem here is that each object has an infinite quantity of indications, but it is important to record only those that are informative for the work with finds. The main problem for archaeology is to pick out chronological and cultural local groups. Accordingly, a typological system should be constructed taking into account those characteristics of objects that can help to distinguish the required groups. The sketch offered here is not a complete strict typological system. I have only tried to consider all the available material and to formulate some observations of the rhythm and character of changes of the material discussing the possibilities of work regarding the determination of indications significant from the point of view of typology. It is a search for a working hypothesis and prospects for further research. For this reason, I have tried to avoid rigid formulas and I do not offer a precise and consecutive nomenclature. The typology, as well as the corresponding terminology, should be the result of the discussion and assessment of these observations, this being the most reliable way to resolve the problem, or more precisely, the algorithm of the typological definition of a concrete object.

3 It is logical to begin this sketch of the evolution of double-plate fibulas with the question of their origin. The critical analysis of existing hypotheses has led Ambroz to the conclusion that the initial pattern for smooth double-plate fibulas with a semicircular head-plate and rhombic foot were the magnificent finds from the north of Central Europe (Sackrau/Zakrzów type - fig. 1: 31-33) that were formed on the basis of Roman provincial specimens (AMBROZ 1966. 77-82). G. Diaconu stressed the duration of the process of formation of the type, emphasising the importance of the Roman forms and their derivatives (DIACONU 1973.) (cf. fig. 1: 30 and others). The weak point of these and other points of view is the lack of visible, documented 3 The system of typological terms, applied here and in some other works, is based on the point of view most distinctly formulated by AMBROZ (1966. 7-9). The variant unites in itself the objects identical in the basic parameters. Objects very close to one another are united in "narrow" variant. Similar variants are consolidated in a block of variants; if the allocation of variants is provided despite a lack of real material: then the term "variation" is used. Several interconnected variants form a "series". Variants reflecting some type of cultural impulse and temporarily rather compact are united in a "horizon". Objects, probably united only on the basis of several clear features are named "type" or "objects of circle..." if we can speak about stylistic affinity. Series, as well as the variants, form the "blocks", appropriate to the basic evolutionary lines within the frameworks of a "subgroup". The latter comprises the largest subdivision of a "group", i.e. set of typologically connected objects reflecting an important cultural or historical phenomenon or tradition (GAVRITUKHIN 1997/98., GAVRITUKHIN 1999. 161-163). 114