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 the vessels based on the typological scheme of H. Eggers, the wider chronological frameworks (STRAUME 1987, 42-43) are not excluded either. These apparently terminological disagreements had led to the different outlines of the Cherniakhov chronology. Tejral dated grave 9 from Kosanovo to the final phase of the "crystallisation" of the Cherniakhov Culture preceding the horizon C3, for which the vessels of Kowalk type are characteristic (TEJRAL 1986), though later he used the fibula from this assemblage as an index of the period 3 of the Cherniakhov Culture that is synchronised with Central European C3, thereby defining the chronology of some objects within the first half of the 4

th c. (TEJRAL 1992, 234-235). I.A. Bazhan and O.A. Gei date grave 9 from Kosanovo to the period that is characterised by the vessels of Kowalk type, concurring with the opinion of Gorokhovski; he, however, considers "thick-walled" goblets reminiscent of the Kowalk type to be of later origin (GEI-BAZHAN 1997, 140, GOROKHOVSKI 1988, 38^41, 44). O.V. Sharov, accepting the periodisations of H. Eggers and U. Lund Hansen, speaks of the appearance of vessels of Ganzkow and Kowalk types at the end of C2 ("C2/C3") period, and he dates grave 9 from Kosanovo to this very time (SHAROV 1992, 175-179). As a result, the chronological frameworks of the mentioned assemblage vary from "280-310/320" (Sharov) to "325-375" (Gorokhovski). It is not possible to analyse terminological and substantial questions of the chronology of the Cherniakhov Culture and of European Barbaricum in details. I shall mention only the observations important for the estimation of the fibulas in question. It seems quite possible to single out the special horizon of assemblages marking the beginning of the final phase of the Late Roman Period (the composition of sites and typical types require a special discussion). Typical for this horizon are also the imitations of bell-shaped Roman provincial bowls, decorated with grinded ovals and lines (Ganzkow type). There is no basis for the revision of Rau's estimation of the basic assemblage used for dating such objects "not later than the first half of the 4

th c." The fibula from this assemblage is similar to the variant 3 of P-shaped fibulas with inverted foot (by Ambroz) and dates the assemblage to the time not earlier than the first decades of the 4

th c. (RAU 1972, 129, 174; AIBABIN 1990, 18, 59; SHAROV 1992, 181 with further references). The section of the bow of the mentioned fibula from Ganzkow belongs to the variant B2a by Gorokhovski which is typical for assemblages that are synchronous with Central European C3, and the comparison of such fibulas with the Kosanovo one with similar characteristics on the bow does not seemed misleading (GOROKHOVSKI 1988. 44; GOROKHOVSKI 1988A. characteristic N 32). The bowl of Ganzkow type from grave 20 in Jacobeni, Ionitä is synchronous with the beginning of phase C3 (IONITÄ 1995. 152-155 with further references). The lower date of the Ganzkow-Kosanovo horizon is also defined by a buckle (fig. 1: 17). This poorquality object should be regarded as an imitation of Roman provincial specimens. M. Kazanski reasonably considers such objects to have come into fashion in the age of Constantine the Great. This opinion is close to the one held by Gorokhovski (KAZANSKI 1994. 240-241). We have no reason to single out the Kosanovo specimen for special treatment merely because of the absence of a plate and furthermore to suppose its earlier date referring to the analogies (with plates!) from Varpelev and Gerlachsheim (SHAROV. 1992, 178-179). The dating of these assemblages to the period C2 is rather problematic: Kazanski has adduced well-founded proofs in favour of the synchronisation of grave 3/4 in Gerlachsheim with the period C3 according to E. Keller. The buckles and analogies to the vessel Eggers 231 clearly corroborate the late date of grave A from Varpelev (KAZANSKI 1994. 241, STRAUME 1987. 123, 33). Thus, the Roman 116