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

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

On the study of double-plate fibulas of the first subgroup quantitatively transitional communications that show on the basis of the individual prototypes how the original new expressive group of products was formed. In connection with the discussion of the prototypes of the double-plate fibulas I would like to call attention to some P-shaped crossbow fibulas with spring (Bügelknopffibel) with rhombic or similar foot and a plate near the spring, and the forms close to them (fig 1:15, 18-22, 24-25, 27-28 - Kosanovo circle, fig. 1: 27, 29 - Gälänesü series, list 1). I make no claim that they were the sole basis for the doubleplate fibulas. The process was certainly much more complex. They should rather be considered within a circle of quite real prototypes: the comparatively mass nature and the area of the designated objects (map 1, list 1) show "the creative environment" in which the actual formation of the double-plate fibulas took place. The fibulas of Kosanovo circle vary quite a bit in the details and do not form a stable series. Some of them can be distinguished only by nuances from the double-plate fibulas (e.g. fig. 1: 24 - practically all experts consider them to be doubleplate); the other specimens, similarity of the structure and some details notwithstanding, are hardly directly connected with the process of the genesis of double-plate fibulas (e.g. fig. 1: 21). It is interesting to note that although knobs on a head-plate or imitations thereof are encountered only among the finds from the Dnieper Basin or from more eastern territories (fig. 1: 20, 22, 24, map 1), no prototypes of these objects have been found in these regions. The objects from more western territories look, generally, more archaic; they exhibit more variations, though it is possible to point out some common features. The fibulas from Kosanovo and Bogdänesti are united by the presence of platforms on the bow (fig. 1: 15, 18); the ones from Kosanovo, Siniavka and Krinichki by rich decoration using a circle ornament (fig. 1: 15, 21, 28). The shape of the ends of a spring on the specimen from Krinichki is close to the one of a P-shaped crossbow fibula from Birlad with rectangular foot, associated with Roman provincial P-shaped crossbow fibulas with hinge (fig. 1: 36). It must be noted that many northern Pshaped crossbow fibulas with rectangular foot that are close to the Birlad specimen in several details have a button on their head (e.g. Greibau, "Gotland" - MEYER 1960. N 45, 42, map 1). The basic assemblage for dating the fibulas in question is grave 9 from Kosanovo. The bowls close to the one from Kosanovo (fig. 1:14) are examined in detail by I. Ionitä. He shows only the specimens with grinded ovals in combination with horizontal and "cellular" linear ornament and attempts to distinguish variant Jacobeni within the Ganzkow type, dating the specimens from the Eastern (Cherniakhov) zone of distribution of this variant to around the first third of the 4

th c. (IONITÄ 1995.). However, the materials provided in this work themselves show that such bowls differ from each other in several details and are met in assemblages dated within the late C2 and C3 periods. These objects were imported to Barbaricum, and typologically they are to be considered not as a compact variant but as simplified variations of vessels distributed from Syria up to Britain (magnificent bowls decorated with a combination of grinding and engraving) (e.g. ELBERN 1966. on other specimens - IONITÄ 1995. 162, COOL 1995. 12, fig. 2: 3 with further reference). G. Rau, analysing the glass vessels from the European Barbaricum, has attributed the Kosanovo bowl to the horizon of types Sackrau/Zakrzów II - Ganzkow, indicative of the beginning of the final phase of the Late Roman Period (about the second quarter of the 4

th c); such vessels are partially synchronous with the Kowalk type (about 325-375), but, as a whole, are replaced by this specimen (RAU 1972. 128-129, 164, 165-166). While disagreeing with the terminology of Rau, E. Straume admits his estimation of the basic assemblages that corresponds to the detailed analysis of the Scandinavian materials, though for