Re: [tied] Re: Fibulas Almgren group VI

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > from
> > > Ion Ionit,�, Ias,i:
> > > Die Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuss Almgren
> Gruppe
> > > VI,1
> > > in
> > > 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren,
> W�nsdorf
> > > 1998
> > >
> > > abstract:
> > > "
> > > The single-piece fibula with inverted foot and
> chord
> > > in high position
> > > (A VI, 1a; pl VII) developed from the La T�ne II
> > > fibula. They were
> > > produced in North Pontic workshops in the first
> > > century AD, and soon
> > > spread to the lower Volga, the Caucasus, and the
> > > Central Dniepr
> > > (Zarubineck Culture).
> >
> > GK: There is a page in the standard work on
> the
> > Zarubinian culture (by Maksimov) which reproduces
> 17
> > types of fibulae found in Zarubinian complexes
> from
> > the 3rd c. BC through the end of the 2nd c. AD
> [these
> > complexes are dated independently of the fibulae
> by
> > reference to pottery types]. Could you scan
> Almgren
> > VI,1 for us, or , alternatively, mention which
> > specific Zarubinian site(s)Ionita points to? That
> > would help me to identify the fibulae in question
> > (Maksimov uses a different nomenclature).
> >
> Ionit,a mentions finds in the Zarubinian culture
> only in the sentence
> above, and another one, which I've also quoted (look
> for C^aplin). It
> must be the same finds (C^aplin) Boosen mentioned
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/31959
> Another loaner requisitioned Boosen, so to get it
> back to obtain
> further details would take some time. Almgren
> himself (Studien �ber
> nordeurop�ischen Fibeln, 1923) which I have now does
> provide a list
> of finds (rather dated, of course), but he does not
> seem to use the
> term Zarubinian (how old is that?). I don't find
> C^aplin on his list,
> I'm afraid.

*****GK: That's because Chaplin wasn't thoroughly
studied before Tretyakov's 1959 work. In any case,
there is no doubt that the Chaplin fibulae referred to
by Ionita are those of the 2nd c. AD. Generally such
fibulae are consistently dated as of the second half
of the 1rst c. to the end of the 2nd c. AD. Those of
Chaplin are viewed as "2nd c." because of their
correlation to the pottery types of the burials in
which they were found. I suppose it isn't necessary to
triple check this. The dates are firm. And if Ionita
considers these fibulae to be Almgren type VI then
that would be the date of Almgren type VI in the
Zarubinian culture (Late). Almgren would not have
known this nomenclature, which did not become
prevalent among archaeologists until the 2nd half of
the 20th c. Perhaps the earlier name was something
like the "culture of the burial fields" (you could
check it out in Reinecke).******






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861