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 process are dated to the Hun Age. Obviously, it is necessary to examine the fibulas with nonwide rhombic foot characteristic of the other zones of the evolution of double-plate fibulas, primarily the Dnieper-Carpathian region where, contrary to the Dniester-Danube zone, the tendency to move the area of maximum extension of the foot closer to the bow is registered. In the Dnieper region (with the exception of the Zhurovka-Kurniki variant, whose characteristic signs exhibit the North Pontic region derivation), it is possible to designate the firmly local fibulas of the shape we are examining (fig. 7: 15-16, 23, map 4: 3). All their features - the relatively large width of the foot in comparison with the specimens from the North Pontic region, extended head-plate etc. - point to the Dnieper tradition, within the framework of which the fibulas with rhombic foot developed. The assemblages known at present do not allow us to date stages of this tendency precisely, and it is possible only to affirm that fibulas whose feet have an area of maximum extension situated closer to the bow are dated to the Hun Age, but the active use of fibulas whose feet are widened in the part opposite the bow had not ceased at this time. The Dnieper regional objects of "archaic" shape with rather narrow foot (fig. 1: 5, 7) are assigned to the prototypes of fibulas of the Maslovo circle (fig. 7: 15-16, 23). The half-made fibula from Pastyrskoe (fig. 7: 29, map 4 and 5: 14 + 4), dating to the Hun Age, judging by the size, shows the stability of the tradition of manufacturing fibulas with foot of non-lengthened contours in the Dnieper region. The features of some fibulas from the Dnieper region belong also to specimens with an extended head-plate (fig. 6: 28, 29), which makes them close to variants of Izvorul series, which are widespread in the Dniester region. In the Dniester-Danube zone there are also some fibulas with rather narrow rhombic foot. Let us examine single-spring specimens with narrow concentrated foot (fig. 13: 6, 7, 10, map 5: 4 + 12). The features of the post for the spring, the presence of platforms on the bow, the absence of a head-knob and the general decorative style of these objects point to DniesterDanube traditions of manufacturing. From the majority of the Dniester-Danube fibulas, the specimens in question differ only in the features of the foot; however, among the specimens of, for example, Marosszentanna/Síntana de Mure§ series, objects with pointed (fig. 13:8, 15-16) and with narrowed (fig. 2: 12, 13, 17) foot can be found. These objects are only formally united by the signs mentioned above; in fact, they are individual derivatives of Marosszentanna/STntana de Mures series. Most likely, the contours of the foot described above had developed as a result of internal updating within the framework of a series, though it can also reflect the influence of the style of other specimens. This latter supposition is also probably valid for the pair of fibulas from burial 40 in Marosszentanna/STntana de Mures (fig. 6: 33-34, map 4: 5 + 6), where the influence of Dnieper-Dniester traditions is confirmed by the spring and the post for the spring designed for upper string; but this specimen differs from the Dnieper fibulas with a pointed foot in the ledges at the transition area from foot to bow and in the more extended proportions of the foot, indicating, most likely, the local origin of manufacturing (fig. 2). The presence of platforms on a bow and the other features on the find from Izvorul (fig. 6: 36) allow us to rank this object with the individual derivatives of series of the Dniester-Danube circle, mentioned above. In the Dniester region, small fibulas with rhombic foot are known as well: the doublespring one from Dumanov (fig. 11:7, map 5:12 + 11 + 1), and the single-spring ones from Letcani and from grave 165 in Bräviceni (fig. 13: 11, map 4: 8 + 3). The platforms on the bow of the first one and the single-spring design of the second two specimens, as well as other