On the upper chronological boundary of the Zarubinetsy culture ...,

K.V. Kasparova

On the upper chronological boundary of the Zarubinetsy culture of Pripyat Polesia

Despite significant progress of recent years in the field of the study of the Zarubinetsy culture still many important issues remain debateable. Nor does the debate stop about the historical fate of the carriers of the Zarubinetsy culture and their role in the Slavic ethnogenesis. In this context is extremely important to determine as accurately as possible the end date for the existence of sites they abandoned. Yu.V. Kukharenko assigns it to the end of the I - the middle of the II cent. CE. A.K. Ambroz believes that Zarubinetsy cemeteries were abandoned not later than the end of the I cent. CE 1. The same opinion was held by a number of other researchers 2. A termination of life on the Zarubinetsy sites of the Middle Dnieper in the middle - the end of the I cent. CE was convincingly argued by E.V. Maksimov 3.

P.N. Tretyakov believes that Zarubinetsy tribes lived there until the end of the II - the beginning of the III cent. CE. 4 L.D. Pobol' and V.N. Danilenko talk about the existence of the Zarubinetsy culture even to the III - IV centuries CE. 5.

The problem of chronology is often complicated by the fact that some researchers combine Zarubinetsy culture in its traditional form with the culture of the population who left sites of post-Zarubinetsy time, calling them "Late Zarubinetsy". By this is implied a genetic and chronological continuity between the stages of cultural development which in this case is not yet proven. The question of their relationship is extremely complex and can not yet be definitively resolved. For a proper understanding of the historical situation at the turn of our era in Polesia, Volhynia and on Dnieper in the first place it is necessary to strictly separate the antiquity of the classical Zarubinetsy culture with all the characteristics of it alone.

In this article are not examined the post-Zarubinetsy sites and the complex problem of their interrelationship with the Zarubinetsy ones, this is a theme of special study, here we dwell only on the question of the highest date of the latter. However, differences in defining the Zarubinetsy culture lead to discrepancies in its datings, and also to contradictions occuring with these or the other specialists. Therefore we stress once again that, when using the concept of "Zarubinetsy culture," we have in mind a set of sites, joined by the presence of a sufficiently typical and clearly expressed elements of the material and spiritual culture, the detailed description of which is given in the summary work by Yu.V. Kukharenko essentially within the boundaries of the territory outlined to them 6. Currently, its borders may partly be clarified which for the Middle Dnieper area has been done by E.V. Maksimov 7. In the attribution of Polesia significant changes have not occurred - of sites, which have been shown convincingly to belong to the Zarubinetsy culture, few appeared outside the map of V. Kukharenko.

L.D. Pobol' expands the boundaries of the Zarubinetsy territory totally unreasonably. To the number of Zarubinetsy was included for them a whole series of points, where were found fragments of pottery of "Zarubinetsy type", or just reminiscent of Zarubinetsy 8.

Among the sites of classical Zarubinetsy culture, as suggested by most researchers, there is not one which could be dated later than the end of the I cent. CE. Even earlier, than we presupposed, towards the middle of the I cent. CE ceased to function the cemeteries of Polesia 9. A thorough analysis of available data allows to refine this date, and more persuasively argue it. For that one must rely only on material of cemeteries that provide closed complexes suitable for reliable chronological conclusions.

The chronology of the Zarubintsy culture, and especially of the Polesia group, where in contrast to the Middle Dnieper area antique imports are absent, is based on fibulae. Among them, the latest, determining the upper limit of the sites, are fibulae of Late LaTène scheme. For datings is commonly used the classification of fibulae, proposed by A.K. Ambroz 10. Dating Late LaTène fibulae, A.K. Ambroz relied on the generally accepted chronology of the Late LaTène period, covering, according to R. Hachmann, all of the I cent. BCE, and also based himself on datings of similar types of fibulae of Central Europe and of sites of the Northern Black Sea Coast. Fibulae of Late LaTène scheme, separated into the group of "military," A.K. Ambroz dated to the I cent. CE, suggesting even the possibility to limit their time by the first half of the century 11; "Boii" fibulae by the end of the I cent. BCE - the beginning of the I cent. CE.; "ramchatye" of the Chaplin cemetery he attributed to the second half of the I cent. BCE and partly to the I cent. CE.

In the dating of variants of "military" fibulae A.K. Ambroz carefully showed all of I cent. CE. 12

Materials of the Northern Black Sea Coast sites, from where come a few finds of fibulae of Late LaTène scheme, unfortunately, can not refine the dating. Researchers usually hold on to the same dates. M.I. Vyazmitina in determining the time of a series of burials of the Zolotobalkovsk cemetery relies on the chronology of the "military" fibulae according to Ambroz.

Among the nine published "military" fibulae from the Zolotobalkovsk cemetery are seven specimens with flat or wire backs, similar to Zarubinetsy ones. Four burials, from which come fibulae, have a wide date - I cent. CE: burial 2 from cemetery 60 by a disc-shaped mirror and fibula, of which we will speak; burial 1 from cemetery 6, burial 3 from cemetery 65, and cemetery 66 also by fibulae. Burial 4 of cemetery 51 is dated to the turn of CE also on the basis of a fibula. Burial 2 from cemetery 29 has been attributed to the turn of the I cent. CE, probably also by fibula 13. The last the fibulae which interest us of this cemetery (small, of wire with a triangular solid receiver) was in burial 2 of cemetery 8, which by M. Vyazmitina has not been dated separately, the date of the whole grave - end of the I - beginning of the II cent. CE. - is based on the composition of inventory of burial 1 and can not be attributed equally to both burials. The occurence together of fibulae with disc-shaped mirrors, triangular stalk-like arrowheads and a buckle did not clarify their dating - these objects existed in a long enough period 14.

Often, as basis for the statement of existence of "military" fibulae in the flow of all of I cent. CE serve a small number of finds of such in sites in the Northern Black Sea Coast. In the necropolis of Olbia found several specimens of fibulae, among which are similar ones to those known in the Zarubinetsy culture 15. They come from burials "with I cent. CE objects", according to A.I. Furmansky with reference to B. Farmakovsky. One complex allows you to specify the date of the fibulae - burial 87 (1901), where there were three fibulae, similar to "military" Zarubinetsy ones, a red-lacquered kantharos, with barbotine ornaments and a glass vessel 16. T.N. Knipovich attributes the kantharos to Augustean time 17, and teardrop-shaped balsamari of this type are dated to no later than the middle of the I cent. CE 18. Thus, this complex does not go beyond the first half of I cent. CE. At other sites (Scythian Naples, Gorodok Nikolaevka) fibulae of Late LaTène schemes are dated no later than the beginning of the I cent. CE 19. Sometimes Northern Black Sea Coast specimens are invoked as analogies, and serve as the basis for datings of Late LaTène fibulae of the Zarubinetsy culture. Thus, L.D. Pobol', speaking of the fibulae from the Chaplin cemetery, attributes their existence to the end of I cent. CE. by analogy with Olbian ones, including the above mentioned from burial 87 20. The Polish researcher T. Dąbrowska in one of her works writes that the upper limit of the chronological Zarubinetsy culture relies on the dating by the end of the I cent. CE of the "military" fibulae of the Northern Black Sea Coast, referring to the A.K. Ambroz and A. Furmanskaya 21.

However, from these data it follows that the chronology of fibulae of Late LaTène scheme, found on sites of the Zarubinetsy culture, can in no way be based on the finds of similar types of sites in the south.

We turn to the fibula Late LaTène scheme coming from the actual Zarubinetsy culture. In closed complexes of the cemeteries of Polesia were found 53 fibulae of this type. Among them, two specimens have ramchatye receivers, four had delicate ones ("Boii" fibula), one fragment with perforated receiver and 34 - with a solid one 22. As a rule, fibulae have a low string. The backs are usually round wire, rarely lamellar. The co-occurence in the complexes of fibulae of various types, including Late LaTène is shown in table 1 A. Such combinations, as known, do not permit refining the dating of fibulae we are interested in. We note only burial 81, where there was a Late LaTène fibula with a flat back and "Boii" fibulae, rare for Polesia, but well-dated in the Czech lands to the beginning of the I cent. CE 23.

The co-occurence of different types of fibulae of the Chaplin cemetery is shown in table 1, Ð` (according to materials of L.D. Pobol'). In contrast to Polesia here there are many ramchaty fibulae (20), two with perforated receivers and 26 with solid ones. Almost all have a low string, the majority have a round wire back. In this cemetery there is no combination of Late LaTène fibulae with "Zarubinetsy" ones, and also no variants of the last ones.

In the cemeteries of the Middle Dnieper (in published and reviewed data until 1973) have been found in all 12 specimens, moreover not all from closed complexes. Only in one case, as for as we know, shards of a ramchatiy receiver was found with a Zarubinetsy variant IV fibula 24.

We will not dwell here on the chronological dismemberment of cemeteries, clearly seen in the above figures, to us now are important only the latest chronological indicators, for the Zarubinetsy culture they are fibulae of Late LaTène scheme. As can be seen, the examined materials do not provide reliable data for narrowing down the time of their existence. Not accidentally did we leave unattended the remaining finds making up the complex, because, as a rule, ceramics and other objects are almost always dated by those same fibulae. It may be noted only one find - a belt set from Otverzhichi, whch was found with fibulae of Zarubinetsy type variant III and a wire Middle LaTène one. The belt hook has close analogues in the cemeteries of Celtic Skordisci of Yugoslavia and in the sites of the Jastorf culture of Germany. that can serve as a basis for dating it not later than the beginning of the I cent. CE, but rather by the end of the previous century 25. But this is only indirect evidence, somewhat making obsolete(?) the dating of fibulae of Zarubinetsy type. Significantly more important for us is trying to clarify the chronology of the very 26 fibulae of this type, the upper limit of which is based on their co-occurence with Late LaTène ones which for our purposes creates a vicious circle. Such a possibility would exist, if we assume a quite probable hypothesis about an origin of Zarubinetsy fibulae from the similar to them "spear-shaped" ones of the Balkan Peninsula 27, which date from the I and even II centuries BCE. Nevertheless, the most reasonable remains to determine the upper chronological boundary of the Late LaTène fibulae, and with it also the demise of the Zarubinetsy sites, on comparison of fibulae of this type with analoguous ones in sites in other cultures with a sufficiently reliable chronology.

Over the past decade, studies of European scientists in the field of the chronology of Late LaTène and Early Roman time have been aimed at improving the reliability of the chronological framework as well of the archaeological cultures as a whole as of the individual stages of their development up to a quarter-century or less. Based on fundamental research by R. Hachmann and G. Eggers new chronological elaborations, by K. Motyková-Šnejdrová for the Czech lands, by R. Wołągiewicz for Western Pomerania, by T. Liana for the Przeworsk culture permit reviewing some the dates accepted by us, including also fibulae of Late LaTène scheme. Before turning to this question, we emphasize once again that a well known fact that the majority of fibulae of this type from Zarubinetsy complexes in all their details are very similar to Western standards or differ in insignificant features. We note this only because in the classification by A.K. Ambroz, accepted by a majority of our researchers, unfortunately, is often insufficiently clearly expressed the comparison with the typology of fibulae by I. Kostrzewski for the LaTène period 28, on which are based the chronological schemes of European scientists. True, this concerns not the typology as such, but the terminology proposed by I. Kostrzewski, which continues to be used by all of Western researchers. Of course, the scheme by Kostrzewski, his terminology does no longer fully satisfy - too large and diverse is the new material, but it has become traditional. Because of the differences between the fibulae from the Zarubinetsy culture and from sites of Oksywie and Przeworsk not so significant, we will, while not yet has been developed a new terminology, use the symbols of fibulae according to Kostrzewski, in order to speak the same language. Thus, the majority of fibulae of the "ramchaty" and "military" type (with straight and bent body and a solid receiver) by Ambroz are analoguous variants to «M» and «N» by Kostrzewski of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures. Often the difference consists only in the position of the bowstring, which in the variant of «M» - is upper, while in the overwhelming majority of fibulae from the Zarubinetsy culture, analoguous to this variant in all other details, it is lower.

Sometimes the difference consists in the proportions - some Przeworsk and Oksywie variants of «M/N» have a longer receiver, others a more curved back. But also among Zarubinetsy ones occur many fibulae with a relatively long receiver, which takes up one third or somewhat more of the length of the whole fibula. Those are specimens from the Chaplin cemeteries, burials 21, 115 29; Velemichi I, burial 61, 75; Velemichi II, burials 52, 85, 101 (fig. 1, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32), slightly less than one third is taken up by the receiver in fibulae from Velemichi II, burial 81; Otverzhichi, burial 1 (fig. 1, 26, 27) 30.

This ratio is the same as that of fibulae from the cemetery Warszkowo, burials 108 and 178 (fig. 1, 9.17), Nimitz, burial 9 (fig. 1, 18). Slightly less than one third is taken up by receivers of fibulae of burials 5, 19, 71, Nimitz; burials. 144, Warszkowo; burials 19 and 32, Wilanów; burial 169, Karczewiec (fig. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10,
12, 14, 15, 19, 20) 31.

Among the Polish fibulae there are reasonably many also with a rather short receiver (1 / 4, or slightly more of the whole length). Those are specimens from Dobrzankowo, burials 27, 29; Karczewiec, burial 127; and a find outside of burials; Nimicy, burials. 1, 19, 91; Warszkowo, burials. 74, 108 (fig. 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 21) 32. There are Zarubinetsy fibulae very similar to them from the Chaplin cemetery, burial 129, 229, 47, etc., from Velemichi I and II, burials 69 and 50, from Otverzhichi, burial 24 (fig. 1, 29, 34) 33.

In some the receiver is even 1 / 5 of the whole length, but they have a strongly arched back, which especially makes them more similar to the Polish one (Figure 1, 24, 33).

These examples, in our opinion, convincingly show the validity of a comparison of "military" and ramchaty fibulae of the Zarubinetsy culture with the Przeworsk and even more with the Oksywie «M» and «N» variants. Completely identical and they can not be, as we encounter almost no perfectly identical fibulae even on the same site. But their similarity permits judging also about the chronological proximity.

All European researchers accept as characteristic of Late LaTène phase III fibulae of the variants «M», «N», «O», which are considered as chronological indicators of this phase together with other forms of inventory (on which we shall not dwell here). In the Przeworsk culture these variants very rarely occur with fibulae of Middle LaTène scheme and even more so with Early Roman ones 34.

For the Oksywie culture of Western Pomerania the chronological elaboration, carried out by A.R. Wołągiewicz, give the same kind of picture - the fibulae of variant «M» and «N» we are interested in appear in the late phase of the Late LaTène period - Ð" according to Hachmann (or A3, according to the scheme recently proposed by R. Wołągiewicz ). He was able to identify the phase transition (E, or A3/B1 between the Late LaTène and the Early Roman period 35. Analyzing the fibula variant «N», widely represented in the cemeteries of Warszkowo and Nimic, he distinguishes among these four varieties, among which fibulae with a round wire back with a solid receiver and fibulae with a plate back and a filigreed receiver. Variant «N» with wire back, combined in closed complexes with variants «J» and «M», form an earlier group, as fibulae of variant «N» with plate back do not co-occur with them, but combine with variant «O» and fibulae of type A19, A12 A44/45, on the basis of which they should be attributed to the later ones 36. All of the remaining inventory of the burials of both groups presented single types of Late LaTène forms - innovations are primarily about the most volatile of all jewelry - fibulae. Thus, fibulae of the late variant «K», along with others serves as chronological indicators of the transition period, being at the same time prototypes of forms characteristic of the next chronological interval - the stage B1 where the fibulae we are interested in are already unknown.

In Zarubinetsy complexes occur fibulae of type of variant «IV» with tape back and solid receiver 37, but there are no varieties with a filigree receiver which R. Wołągiewicz identified in the late group and which are a chronological sign of transition phase E. In Zarubinetsy burials fibulae sometimes combine with a wire back and with a plate back (Otverzhichi, burial 1), as well as wire with ramchaty (Chaplin, burials 37, 47, 122) and with fibulae with perforated receiver (Chaplin, burials 192, 229). However, only one complex gives an opportunity to suggest that Zarubinetsy fibulae of variant «X» with a plate back are somewhat later than those with wire - that is burial 81, Velemnchi II, where this was combined with "Boii" fibulae rare for Polesia, as well as for the Late LaTène sites in Poland. K. Motyková dates "Boii" fibulae to the first decades of CE 38.

In fig. 2 is shown a diagram of the synchronization between relative and absolute chronology of some of the cultural regions of Central Europe and the region of Polesia for the late phase Late LaTène and Early Roman periods based on data from a number of researchers.

G. Eggers' chronological scheme, according to which stage B1 falls on the time from 0 to 50 CE, was in its time adjusted by R. Hachmann. Based on finds in some Roman camps of isolated fibulae of Late LaTène character, he proposed to extend the time of the Late LaTène period to Late Augustean time 39 (fig. 2). A similar dating was supported also by other researchers 40. According to K. Motyková, the Roman period in the Czech lands should start from the beginning of our era, and for Western Pomerania R. Wołągiewicz notes its somewhat lagging behind, for instance in the allocation to it of a chronological interval of transitional character - phase E, which corresponds to phase I stage B1 according to the scheme of Motyková. K. Motyková notes, however, that in phase I - B1 still persist Late LaTène features and chronological boundaries here are quite blurred. The previous phase, D or A3, the final Late LaTène period for the Pomerania corresponds to phase A of late LaTène for the Czech lands 41. Allocation of an expressed boundaries between two periods required revision of the absolute end date of the Late LaTène and the beginning of B1 also for Western Pomerania. R. Wołągiewicz considers it possible to have phase D (or A3) start from the appearance of fibulae of variant «J» and the similar to them Nauheim fibulae the time of which is the last decades BCE 42, and the transition phase E he attributes to the turn - the beginning of CE 43. The beginning of phase D is clarified by K. Godłovsky and Z. Wożniak to about 15 BCE 44.

In his most recent works R. Wołągiewicz, based on the appearance of reliably dated imports in Pomerania, and the chronology of historical events in the Czech lands (in the state of Maroboduus), actively connected during this period, proposes for Pomerania to attribute the beginning of B1 to 10 CE., separating this stage into B1a (10-40 CE) and B1b (40-70 CE) 45. However, it should be borne in mind that these dates are given for imports which appear earlier than the whole new character of the culture is formed.

On the territory of the Przeworsk culture Late LaTène forms survive a little longer. T. Liana believes that the spread of the style characteristic for the Early Roman era, is marked by the appearance of the massive fibulae type A68, ie, only about 40 CE. Up to this time in Przeworsk dominated fibula of variants «M», «N», «O», as well as the type A67, attributed by the researcher to the Late LaTène period 46. Probably in Przeworsk a transitional phase stands out with fibulae of type A67 and some variants «N» and «O» to which A. Niewęgłowski draws attention 47.

It must be said, however, that in the application of absolute chronology by boundaries between the periods they look implausibly sharp and do not reflect reality. It is well known that the transition from late LaTène to Early Roman period occurred gradually, and the boundary between them is detected with difficulty. Only a breaking up of the material and allocation of the transitional phases softens this abruptness. Nevertheless, attempts to clarify the chronological framework are necessary, only that way can we the existing gaps, which in a series of cases just help restore the historical situation.

A comparison of the chronology of the cultural areas we are interested in reveals some asynchrony in the rhythms of development, depending on the degree of dominance of Celtic or Roman influences. There appears a tendency of delay of the start of the Roman period in relation to the Czech lands - the main cultural-political center of that time. If in the Czech lands it arrives with the beginning of our era, then in Western Pomerania it comes about 10 CE,. and extensive areas of the Przeworsk culture is covered by a new, Early Roman style only towards the 20-40's CE. Accordingly, also the dating of the chronological basic indicators we are interested in of the late phase of the Late LaTène period - the fibulae variants «M» and «N», which for the Czech lands are characteristic before the turn of our era (though they occur also in the beginning of the I cent. CE), for Western Pomerania - up to 10 CE, for the Przevorsk area - up to the 20-40s CE. Taking into account this phenomenon is necessary also when researching the chronology of the Zarubinetsy culture, the development of which is inextricably linked to cultures similar to it of the LaTène world.

T. Liana points to the delay of Roman influences on the eastern outskirts of the Przeworsk Culture. However, T. Dąbrowska draws attention to the weak Zarubinetsy-Przeworsk contacts at the same time 48. In this regard, we can not ignore a certain conservatism of the Przeworsk culture, noted by K. Godłowski, and its isolation from the neighboring cultural areas in the Roman period 49. Apparently, these circumstances may explain the slow penetration of Roman sites in the Przevorsk area compared with the Czech lands. Should one assume that in the Zarubinetsy culture this delay was more significant? Zarubinetsy materials, in our opinion, do not give indisputable facts on the basis of which one could recognize a strong delay of its development compared with neighboring regions. In the Zarubinetsy culture exist for a long time Middle LaTène fibulae with a triangular end of the leg, but this particular piece of jewelry, firmly established in the Zarubinetsy population, must not be compared with smooth Middle LaTène fibulae of Polish sites, to replace which came Late LaTène ones. By the way, T. Dąbrowska may also be right, when suggesting that the appearance of the latter in Zarubinetsy culture could have happened sooner than was presupposed, namely at the end of the I cent. BCE. Maybe some lag did occur, but when as chronological parameters serve such rapidly changing shape as fibulae, we may be talking about a very insignificant difference.

The development of the Zarubinetsy culture proceeded, of course, on its own, and the rhythms of its development could be different than in the Przeworsk and Oksywie area, but apparently there were very strong and constant pulses from the outside, and perhaps not only from the areas of the Przeworsk culture, territorially the nearest. One should note the similarity between the numerous fibulae of variant «N» with wire back and a solid receiver from cemeteries of Western Pomerania and those from Zarubinetsy sites. We should not exclude the probability of some, rather oposredstvennyh, contacts with Pomerania. We also should not forget the links with the Czech lands, as evidenced by the "Boii" fibula in the Polesia cemeteries, where they were imports, and the links to more southerly (or northerly?) lands which are recorded the discovery of a belt hook, the analogies to which lead, on the one hand, to the Balkans, on the other - to the Jastorf culture of Germany. These questions still require further investigation. Our basic conclusion is summarized as follows: in dating Late LaTène fibulae of the Zarubinetsy culture there is every reason to rely on the chronology of those analoguous to them in the Oksywie and Przeworsk cultures. The chronological gap between the definitions of the upper boundary of the Late LaTène period of these cultural areas for our problems is not so important.

The latest chronological indicators for the Zarubinetsy culture, fibulae of Late LaTène schema, in the synchronization with the chronology of the Middle Dnieper sites correspond to phase D (or phase III) of the Late LaTène period and exhibit the greatest similarity with the fibulae, which are one of the indicators to phase D (A3) of Western Pomerania. The latest Zarubinetsy complexes do not give any materials specific to the Roman period. No other sites, changed their Zarubinetsy spontaneously, at least in Polesia. And it is not possible to determine how long Zarubintsy used the "military" and "ramchatye" fibulae. Most likely the Zarubinetsy culture no longer existed in Early Roman time. It is a culture Late LaTène traditions, as noted by K. Godłowski, even allowing for its later dates by Soviet investigators 50.

Turning to the absolute chronology can be a considerable degree of confidence to propose that in the Zarubinetsy culture Late LaTène fibulas and correspondingly the synchronous to them numerous fibulae of Zarubinetsy type existed no later than the middle of the I cent. CE. Thus, also the upper chronological boundary of the Zarubinetsy culture can not go beyond that time.

The closing date we propose of the Zarubinetsy culture may cause objections. As a sufficient reason for this serves the single fibula of type A68, found in the cemetery Otverzhichi. We remind at once that, firstly, it is an accidental discovery, and its origin from destroyed burials is only proposed, and secondly, the fragmentary state of the fibula (absence of the end of the stalk) can instill some doubt in the correctness of its determination. In our conclusions, we relied only on the material from closed burial complexes, which certainly limits our researches, but increases their credibility. It is impossible to be confident that new materials or new elaborations will not require further clarification of the stated proposals. However, at the present state of our sources the proposed dating gives the most realistic picture, despite the fact that more the chronological gap increases between the end of the Zarubinetsy culture and the emergence in the western Polesia of the first Eastern Pomeranian-Mazowiecki sites. The chronological indicators for the period B1 are absent here, but later, in particular fibulae of the end of the I - II cent. CE, appear only on the outskirts of the area Zarubinetsy culture or beyond its borders, and if inside it, then as accidental finds. These are the eye fibulae of the burials of Hryniewicze Wielkie, Rakhny, from the settlements Lyutezh, Tatsenki, Sin'kovo, such accidental finds as the fibulae in the Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev regions, as well as the strongy profiled type A67-68 from the Middle Dnieper area 51. Then appear the sites of "Kiev-type" and those similar to them, often incorrectly attributed to Zarubinetsy, as discussed above. Thus, it appears that in areas inhabited by Zarubinetsy tribes until the second half of II century. CE, before the arrival of the carriers of the Western Pomerianian-Mazowiecki culture 52, in the meantime there sites are absent, which could be of any archaeological culture. Perhaps, in our knowledge there are gaps, or the absence of sites reflect the actual abandonment of the territory.

For the time being it is not clear what caused the termination of life of the Zarubinetsy tribes in Polesia. On the Middle Dnieper this phenomenon is explained by the appearance of the Sarmatians somewhere at the end or the middle of the I cent. CE 53, with whom, however, judging by Pirogov cemetery, the Zarubintsy had contacts 54. About what happened in the Polesia in the first half and the middle of the I cent. CE, written information is not available, but it is possible that the appearance at this time of new populations in the Lower Vistula region - a historic event, the value of which is difficult to overestimate, responded also to changes in the life of the population of Polesia.


1 Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Зарубинецкая культура. САИ, Ð"1-19, М., 1964, p. 52-54 А. К. Амброз. Фибулы юга Европейской части СССР. САИ, Ð"1-30, М., 1966, p. 16

2 М. И. Артамонов. Ð'опросы расселения восточных славян и советская архроло­гия. Сб. «Проблемы всеобщей истории». Л., 1967, p. 46; Ð'. Ð'. Седов. Славяне Ð'ерх­него Поднепровья и Подвинья. МИА, 163, 1970, p. 38.

3 Е. Ð'. Максимов. Среднее Поднепровье на рубеже нашей эры. Киев, 1972, p. 114, 115, 135.

4 П. Н. Третьяков. У истоков древнерусской народности. МИА, 179, 1970, pp. 38-40.

5 Л. Ð". Поболъ. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (могильники раннего этапа зарубинецкой культуры). Минск, 1973, p. 27, 33-40, fig. 8-10; Ð'. Н. Ð"аниленко, Ð'. П. Ð"удкич, Ð'. А. Круц. Археолого-магнитная разведка в Киевской области. А 1967, p. 214.

6 Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Ук. соч., p. 5 сл., fig. 1, 3.

7 Е. Ð'. Максимов. Ук. соч., p. 18, 117, fig. 1.

8 Л. Ð". Поболъ. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (ранний этап зарубинецкой
культуры, Минск, 1971, p. 4, fig. 80 (вкладка); его же. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (свод археологических памятников ранного этапа зарубинецкой культуры - середины III в. до н. э. по начало II в. н. э.). Минск, 1974, p. 25, fig. 1 (вкладка); наример, пункты № 192, 193, 195, 421, 437, 458, 676, 701, 895, см. p. 167, 236, 273, 240, 292, 295, 296, 336.

9 К. Ð'. Каспapoea. Новые материалы могильника Отвержичи и некоторые вопросы относительной хронологии зарубинецкой культуры. АСбÐ"Э, 17, Л., 1976.

10 А. К. Амброз. Ук соч., p. 22-25.

11 Idem, p. 16.

12 А. К. Амброз. Ук. соч., p. 23-25.

13 M. И. Ð'язъмитина. Золотобалковский могидьнпк. Киев. 1972. fig. 6, 3; 7.12; 13,5; 24,6: 29,2; 31.8; 32,8, а также p. 16, 19, 27, 35, 54. 65, 68, 69, 76, 131.

14 А. М. Казанов. Ð"енезис сарматских бронзовых зеркал. СА, 1963, 4, p. 63. Idem. Очерки военного дела сарматов. М., 1971, p. 37-39.

15 А. I. Фурманська. «Фібули з розкопок Ольвіі. Археолопя, VIII, 1953, стор. 79. table II 8, 10: А. К. Амброз. Ук. соч., p. 25.

16 ИАК. 8, 1903. p. 89. 90. fig. 51, 60; фибулы - Ð"ос. Эрмитаж, коллекция 0-1901-37 и 38.

17 T. Knipowitsch. Die Keramik römischer Zeit aus Olbia in der Sammlung der Ermitage. «Materialen zur römisch - germanischen Keramik herausgegeben der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts». Frankfurt a. M., 1929, pp. 26-29, fig. 5,2, table I, 15.

18 H. 3. Кунина и H. П. Сорокина. Стеклянные бальзамарии Ð`оспора. Тр. XII, 1972, p. 150, fig. 1, тип. 1, 2, А.

19 Н. Ð'. Логребоеа. Погребения в мавзолее Неаполя Скифского. МИА, 96, 1961, p. 177; M. Ebert. Ausgrabungen bei dem «Gorodok-Nikolaewka» am Dniepr, Gouv. Cherson, PZ, Bd V, Ht 4, 1913, pp. 92-96.

20 Л. Ð". Поболъ. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (ранний этап зарубинецкой культуры), p. 119, 120.

21 T. Dąbrowska. Wschodnia granica kultury przeworskiej w poznym okresie lateń­skim i wczesnym okresie rzymskim. MSTW. t. II, 1973. p.193, 200.

22 The remaining specimens fragmented.

23 К. Motyková-Šneidrowá. Zur Chronologie der ältesten römischen Kaizerzeit in Böhmen. BJV, t. 5, 1965, p.109, HO.

24 А. И. Кубышев. Отчет о раскопках могильника зарубинецкой культуры у с. Чпаевка-Иирогов Киево-Святошинского района, «Церковщина», в 1967 г. Архив ИА АН УССР, ФЭ 5016, p. 4, 47.

25 К. Ð'. Каспарова. Могильник и поселение у дер. Отвержичи. МИА, 160, 1969, p. 156; J. Todorović. Praistorijska Karaburma. I. Belgrad, 1972, p.69.

26 К. Амброз. Ук. соч., p. 17, 18.

27 К. Ð'. Каспарова О датировке фибул зарубинецкой культуры. «Новейшие от­крытая советских археологов» (тезисы докладов конференции). Киев, 1975, p. 33.

28 J. Kostrzewski. Die ostgermanische Kultur der Spätlatenzeit. Mannus Bibliothek, 18. Leipzig, 1919.

29Л. Ð". Поболь. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (могильники раннего этапа...), 17, 14; 38,7.

30 Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко Памятники железного века на территории Полесья. САИ, Ð" 1 -29, М., 1961, table 18,18; 19,20; К. Ð'. Каспарова. Зарубинецкий могильник Ð'е­лимичи. II. Асб. Ð"Э, 14, 1972, fig. 19, 19 (Ð"ос. Эрмитаж 2355/56); fig. 19, 13, 15, 20; Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Памятники..., table 10,6.

31 R. Wołągiewicz. Cmentarzysko z okresu późnolateńskiego i rzymskiego w Nie­micy, pow. Sławno. MZP, X, 1964, tabl. I, 4-6, 9; II, 2; VIII, 4; idem. Cmentarzysko z okresu późnolateńskiego i rzymskiego w Warszkowie, pow. Sławno. MZP, XI, 1965, tabl. XVI, 9; XXIII, 10; XXV, 3; T. Dąbrowska. Cmentarzysko kultury przeworskiej w Karczewcu, pow. Węgrów. MStW, t. II, 1973, tabl. XLV, 3; J. Marchiniak. Cmentar­zysko ciałopalne z okresu późnolateńskiego w Wilanowie koło Warszawy. MSt, t. 2, 1957, talii. XIX, 6; XXIX, 15.

32 J. Okulicz. Cmentarzysko z okriesów późnolateńskiego i rzymskiego w miejsco­wości Dobrzankowo, pow. przasnysz. MStW, I, 1971, rys. 36b; 39d; T. Dąbrowska. Cmen­tarzysko kultury... tabl. XXXIII, 3; XLIX, 19; R. Wołągiewicz. Cmentarzysko..., MZP, X. 1964, tabl. I, 2, II,2, X, 7; idem. Cmentarzysko..., MZP, XI, 1965, tabl. X, 3.VXl.8.

33 Л. Ð". Поболъ. Славянские древности Ð`елоруссии (могильники раннего этапа...) fig. 25, 8, 9; 41, 12; 63, 2; Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Памятники..., табл. 19, 5; К. Ð'. Каспа­рова.Зарубинецкий могильник..., fig. 19,12; ее же. Могильник и поселение. fig. 15, 10.

34 J. Marcinaik. Op. cit., p. 142, 143, 151 - 155; T. Liana. Chronologia względna kultury przeworskiej we wczesnym okresie rzymskim. WA, XXXV, z. 4, 1970; p. 440; T. Dąbrowska. Wschodnia granica..., p. 170; idem. Cmentarzysko kultury..., p. 516.

35 R. Wołągiewicz. Cmentarzysko..., MZP, XI, 1965. p. 239-241; idem. Stan badań na wybranymi problemami okresu późnolateńskiego na Plmorzy. Zagadnienia okresu lateńskiego w Polsce. Prace komisji archeologicznej, No. 10, Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków, 1968, p. 82, 83.

36 R. Wołągiewicz... MZP, XI, 1965, p. 216, 217; idem. Stan badań..., p. 83, 84.

37 Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Памятники... table 17, 19; 18, 19; К. Ð'. Каспарова. Заруби­нецкий могильник... fig. 19. 19-22.

38 К. Motyková-Šneidrowá. Op. cit.. p. 109, 110.

39 H. J. Eggers. Zur Absoluten Chronologie der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germa­nien. JRGZM. 2, 1955: R. Hachmann. Die Chronologie der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit. BRGK, 41. 1960. Berlin. 1961. p.231, 255-258.

40 G. Domański. Stan i potrzeby badań nad osadnictwen dorzecza Nysy Łużyckiej i Borby w okresie późnolateńskim i wpływów rzymskich. AP. t. XV. z. 1, 1970, p. 121 (and note 38).

41 R. Wołągiewicz. Stan badań... p. 84, 85: idem. Napływ importów rzymskich do Europy na północ od środkowego Dunaji. АР, XV, z. 1, p. 236; if. Motyková-Šneidrowá. Op. cit., p. 105, 168-172.

42 J. Werner. Die Nauheimer Fibel. JRGZM, 2, 1955, p. 170: J. Filip. Keltové ve Středni Evropě. Praha, 1956. p. 115.

43 R. Wołągiewicz. Cmentarzysko..., MZP, XI, 1965, p. 215. 241: idem. Chronologia względna okresu wczesnorzymskiego na Pomorzu Zachodnim w świetle niektórych jej wyznaczników. MZP, XII, 1966, pp. 179-181.

44 K. Godłowski, Z. Wozniak. Chronologia okresów późnolateńskiego i wpływów rzymskich na ziemiach polskich. Materiały do prahistorii śiem Polskich, cz. V, z. 4, Warszawa, 1970, p. 7.

45 R. Wołągiewicz. Stan badań..., p. 85; idem. Napływ importów..., pp. 235-237.

46 T. Liana. Op. cit.. p. 440, 458, 459.

47 A. Niewęgłowski. Masowsze na przełomie, er. Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk. 1972, p. 25.

43 T. Dąbrowska. Wschodnia granica..., p. 200-204. 222.

49 K. Godłowski. Die archäologischen Kulturzonen im Kaiserzeitlichen Mitteleuropa «Recherches archéologiques de 1972. Krakow, 1973. p.60, 81.

50 К. Godłowski. Ukraina w okresie późnolateńskim i wpływów rzymskich. Zeszuty naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagielońskiego. Prace historyczne, z. 32, Kraków, 1971, p. 190.

51 Ð'. И. Ð`идзиля, С. П. Пачкова. Зарубинецкое поселение у с. Лютеж. МИА, 160, 1969, fig. 11, 4; П. I. Хавлюк. Пам'ятки зарубинецькоі культуриі на Побужжі Археологія, 4. 1971, p. 84, 85, fig. 7. 7. 8; Е. Ð'. Максимов, Ук. соч., p. 115, таил. XIII, 5; A. R. Амброз. Ук. соч., p. 35, 36.

52 Ю. Ð'. Кухаренко. Ð'олынская группа полей погребений и проблема так называ­емой гото-гепидской культуры. КСИА. АН СССР, 121, 1970. p. 57-59; К. Godłowski The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration periods in Central Europe. Kraków, 1970, p. 31, 32 (по Р. Ð'олангевичу - вельборско-цедельская культур

53 Е. Ð'. Максимов. Ук. соч., p. 135. M. Ð`. Щукин. Сарматские памятники Сред­него Поднепровья и их соотношение с зарубинецкой культурой. АСб. Ð"Э, вып. 14, 1972, p. 52.

54 А. И. Кубышев. Ук. отчет, p. 21; его же. Отчет о раскопках могильника зару­бинецкой культуры у с. Чапаевка-Пирогов. Киево-Святошинского района Кневской области в 1968 г. Архив ИА АН УССР, ФЭ 5114, p. 23, 26, 27.


Torsten