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 circle of prototypes and analogies allows us to define the date of small specimens within the framework of the middle - second half of the 4

th c. (they are derived from the fibulas of the "archaic" group, but lackfeatures that would date them exclusively to the Hun Age). The larger fibulas of this series, judging by the tendencies of evolution of the objects from the Dniester-Danube region, are certainly products of the Hun Age. In Uspenka grave 725, a fibula with wide foot is found with an extension area situated closer to the bow (fig. 7: 2), which indicates that this specimen belongs to the line of abovementioned Dnieper fibulas of the Hun Age. The post for the spring on this fibula is designed for two springs and upper string, which is characteristic of a number of finds in the North Pontic region. The combination of Dnieper and North Pontic features, together with its date, allows us to consider this object in the context of the intercultural communications that we referred to in the case of the earlier find from the cache of burial chamber 145/1904 in Kerch. Unfortunately, using the publications accessible to me, it is difficult to characterise in more detail some finds of fibulas with wide foot that are close to the above-mentioned series (fig. 7: 12-13, 27-28). The fibulas with wide foot from the Volga region and the Caucasus (fig. 7: 1, 11, map 4: 11, 12) could be considered as derivatives of specimens from the horizon Uspenka-Sumy-Sad (fig. 7: 2, 6-7, 17). The stylistic and technological features of such fibulas indicate their local manufacturing origin: the plates were made from unclenched thin metallic plate, the ornamental border from a pseudo-granular wire (AMBROZ 1966. 83 - variant IBB, N 1-2, AMBROZ 1980. 6, 8). The dating of these finds to the Hun Age is based not only on the chronology of the prototypes and technological features, but also on the assemblage from the grave found in Ufa, Zentsova Street (fig. 7: 10-11), which was quite correctly dated by Ambroz to the first half of the 5

th c. (AMBROZ 1980. 6). It is not possible to trace a clear tendency in the evolution of Crimean single-spring fibulas with lower string and widened foot (Crimean series) (fig. 3: 21-23, 26, 8: 30, probably 8: 20, ifit is not an alteration of a specimen with lengthened foot; map 2: 4). We can distinguish them from the prototypes (variant 1 - fig. 3: 24-25) not only by their larger size but also by the appearance of an "inverted" catch-plate, a knob (or its imitation) on the head-plate. Obviously, the small number and the weak expressivity of the evolutionary tendencies refer to a comparatively short time of existence of the whole series. Most of the Crimean double-plate fibulas are represented by objects originating from other traditions, i.e. ones that "muffled" the local tradition. Archaic variants of the West Bug-Volynsk type fibulas with wide foot and lower string (series Gródek - map 2: 5) were not very widespread either, at least in the local context. It is possible to specify only the find from Netta as their nearest continuation (fig. 3: 20). The appearance of the ledges at the transition area from foot to bow on this object probably indicates the existence of communications with the Dniester and Upper Danube zone (cf. fig. 3: 14); however, some features of "archaic" variants of a series (for example, the ornamental border) may also be explained by southern connections. The specimen of fibula of the Crimean series was found in the dated assemblage only once. Burial 2 of chamber grave 421 of Skalistoe did not contain other perfectly datable objects, but it was placed between burials 1 and 4, which had a basis for dating (fig. 8: 30-34). In burial 1 there were two P-shaped fibulas with inverted foot. One of them (fig. 8: 33) belongs to variant 3 according to Ambroz and is dated from the epoch of Constantine up to the turn of the 4

th and the 5

th c. (GOROKHOVSKI 1988A. characteristic N 22, SHAROV 1992. chronological 124