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

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

Igor Gavrítukhin features, indicate their local origin, and the proportions of foot speak, most likely, in favour of its correlation with specimens of Dnieper styles of Maslovo circle (fig. 7: 23 etc.), especially taking into consideration plenty of examples of Dnieper-Carpathian mutual influence mentioned above. We can link the find from Mogo§ani (fig. 14: 25, map 5: 18 + 1) with the same context. In comparison with Eastern Carpathian fibulas, the originality of this one is limited only by its narrow foot, widened closer to the bow. The nearest analogy to this object, judging by the sum of the characteristic features, is the specimen from Zhurovka (fig. 4: 6) dated to the Hun Age. In Mogosani this date is confirmed by a beaker of type 47f by Barkóczi (fig. 14: 24) (GAVRÍTUKHIN 1999). Even if we were to explain the narrowness of the foot of the Mogosani fibula by a singular departure from the norm, the short bow and the lengthened foot of fibulas from Mogosani and Zhurovka obviously reflect the style of the Migration Period, which is so clear in some series of the North Pontic region. We have practically no basis for dating the other fibulas mentioned with pointed and rather narrow rhombic foot; the only clear fact is that these objects cannot belong to the early variants of the series within the frameworks of which they are explained as their derivatives. Let us note only the unique character of the specimens mentioned, especially in comparison with the series of fibulas with a similar shape from the North Pontic region. We can see the parallel character of the tendencies to combine a massive foot with a short bow, noted for the fibulas of series of the North Pontic region, and of Dniester-Lower Danubian finds (map 3: 3), which can have a B-shaped post for the spring (fig. 6: 5-6, 21-22), as one spring with the lower string (fig. 3: 13, 14, 13: 12). The dating of finds to the Hun Age is based on the style, which is also confirmed by the composition of assemblages (fig. 6: 3-6, 17-27). Significant dating finds are the following: the thick-walled, conical beaker (fig. 6: 4), the shape of which indicates a rather late position in a line of similarly decorated vessels (GAVRÍTUKHIN 2001); the clay imitation of a glass beaker with closely situated ovals under the rim and with walls covered with polishing and engraving (fig. 6: 18); the buckle with a long tongue (fig. 6: 19); and other objects (GAVRÍTUKHIN 1999.). The short bows in combination with a foot, the length of which notably exceeds half of the fibula's length, were also noted above in connection with the Dnieper-Carpathian finds dated to the Hun Age (fig. 4: 4-6, 14: 24-25). It is difficult to determine if all these examples reflect the direct influence of the general shape of the corresponding North Pontic fibulas or if they reflect more universal regularities. In any case, the characteristic in question is a stylistic parameter of a definite horizon of antiquities (and, accordingly, the chronological basis). The deliberately massive foot and the expressed ledges at the area of transition to the bow are associated with the pair of fibulas from Nikolaevka (fig. 11: 5-6). These are clearly stylistically close to the objects (map 5: 15) found in the North Pontic region, in the western part of the Danube region, and also in the Caucasus (fig. 11: 1, 3, 13: 1-3, 5, 12: 19). The assemblage from Lermontovskaia Skala (fig. 12: 1-45), whether assigned (after Ambroz) to two horizons or not, is dated not earlier than the period synchronous to the Central European D2 (GAVRITUKHIN-MALASHEV 1998. 42-43, 45-51, 66-67). The large size of these fibulas makes it impossible for us to date them to a period earlier than the end of the 4

th c. The aforementioned Caucasian finds of double-plate fibulas of subgroup I were produced, obviously, by local manufacturers, but they are individual and, most likely, connected to a rather diverse circle of prototypes (fig. 14: 1,2, 17, map 5:13 + 1). These objects were 130