Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: Kragenfibel

Sort By:

Limit search:

Wczesna Kragenifibel z Obór i problem jej pochodzenia

100%

Andrzejowski J.

Wiadomości Archeologiczne

2005

vol. LVII

issue 57

57-66

A group of stray finds from the locality Obory, distr. Piaseczno, acquired by the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw in 2002 comprises some more than twenty copper alloy pieces, dating mostly from phases B1–B2/C1. The artefacts had been collected from an area of about 1 hectare although most had been discovered in a cluster less than 0.5 ha in area. Some of these objects are partly melted or bear traces of fire. One of the more remarkable items in this set is the brooch, obviously an imported form (Fig. 1:1). The piece does not bear traces of fire, a part of its foot and catchplate and the pin are missing, its surviving length is 5.5 cm. The 6-coil spring with an upper chord is secured by a hook (at present damaged) and enclosed by a narrow and a thin support plate (Stützplatte). The lightly expanded relatively strongly curved triangular bow continues to a circular disc-like crest. The solid foot tapers lightly to the catchplate; the latter originally was openwork in form, probably with large rectangular apertures. The bow and foot are ornamented on the dorsal face and along the edges with finely engraved lines. The brooch from Obory is very similar to specimen discovered at a Przeworsk culture cemetery at Konopnica (Fig. 1:2) on the middle Warta river, unfortunately, another incomplete find. The next nearly identical and – happily – intact brooch is known from Nitriansky Hrádok (Fig. 1:3a.b), south western Slovakia. In this 6.6. cm specimen the foot ends abruptly; the catchplate is of openwork design reminiscent of a ladder, with two “meander rungs”. Two further similar brooches are known from the Przeworsk cemetery at Siemianice (Fig. 2:2a.b), on the upper Warta river, and from a gravefield at Tišice (Fig. 2:1) in the Bohemian Basin. Both are visibly larger (10.5 and 10.4 cm respectively), have an 8-coil spring, slightly narrower head, profiled hook and a long foot in elaborate openwork design crowned with a small round knob. The brooch from Siemianice occurred in a well-known grave assemblage together with a bronze jug type Eggers 122, datable to the younger stage of phase A3, ie end of the second half of 1st century BC or, at the latest, to the turn of the era. With a “classic” Almgren 18a brooch the deposit from Tišice is one of the diagnostic assemblages for phase A of the Roman Period in Bohemian Basin (so-called horizon of type Plaňany beakers), correlated to 35/25–10/5 BC. The specimens from Konopnica and Nitriansky Hrádok cannot be dated more closely. The brooches of interest (cf fig. 3) present a certain difficulty even at the stage of classification. Without doubt they are a foreign form in the Germanic environment. In their general morphological attributes they correspond to the group of the youngest late La Tène brooches (geschweifte Fibeln). The dominant plastic element – ie expanded triangular bow with a distinct constriction before passing into the knob – visibly recalls stylistic features of Gaulish Kragenfibeln, which correspond to Almgren type 239. Some researchers propose to place the brooch forms in question specifically or more broadly in the group of Kragenfibeln, or to the group of early “prototype” forms (Vorform Bern-Gergovia; cf fig. 4:3–6), from which derive Kragenfibeln “proper”, or, ultimately, to the group of late La Tène brooches type Weisenau-Hörgertshausen – prototype of the Bern-Gergovia variant. Weisenau-Hörgertshausen brooches are dated to phase LT D2, possibly, its older stage. Bern-Gergovia brooches come on record around the mid-1st century BC just before the emergence of the horizon of the oldest variant of “proper” Kragenfibeln, ie, the Goeblingen-Niederolm brooch variant (cf fig. 4:1.2). Other researchers, presumably following in Peter Glüsing’s footsteps, classify the forms in question to the group of East Alpine brooches, Almgren type 18. In his detailed typology Stefan Demetz classifies the specimens of interest as a separate variant 18b2a, said to have developed as a result of stylistic impact from the Kragenfibeln environment. Included in the same variant are three further – unpublished – brooches: two from Magdalensberg in Karinthia and one from Karlstein in south-eastern Bavaria. Yet another brooch, similar both to the variant 18b2a and to Kragenfibeln, is known from Bregenz in Voralberg (Fig. 4:7). However, this rather fragmented piece evidently represents the Bern-Gergovia variant of early Gaulish Kragenfibeln. According to Demetz, brooch forms from Gaul and Raetia similar to variant 18b2a are prototypes (Vorlaüfer) or oldest variants (Frühformen) of the fully evolved Kragenfibeln wholly unrelated to eastern specimens. The large brooch from Besançon in Burgundy may be an intermediate form (Fig. 4:3), considered by Michele Feugère as derivative of the Kragenfibeln “proper”. The direction charted by Demetz was recently taken up by Ronald Bockius and Piotr Łuczkiewicz, who without substantiating their claim in a satisfactory manner, and contrary to the views of Demetz and Feugère, have included in variant 18b2a also three brooches from western Gaul, forms evidently corresponding to prototypes of the Bern-Gergovia variant of Kragenfibeln, or possibly, to the local early variants of Kragenfibeln (cf fig. 4:3–6). Consequently it is a vital question which view is correct – that of Astrid Böhme-Schönberger (variant of type geschweifte brooches, from which proper Kragenfibeln developed), or that of Stefan Demetz (variant of Almgren type 18, developed under influence from Kragenfibeln). The resolution of this dilemma now depends on the publication of brooches from Magdalensberg and Karlstein. Until this happens we can only say that the published ”barbarian” specimens of brooches discussed above represent two distinct forms, visibly differing in size and style of the openwork design of the catchplate and the terminal of the foot namely, the Obory-Konopnica-Nitriansky Hrádok and the Siemianice-Tišice form. The former may without much hesitation be referred to prototypes of Kragenfibeln, variant Bern-Gergovia (Feugère variant 10a2 or Metzler type 10b). Less clear on the other hand is the position of forms having an elaborate openwork design of the catchplate and a knob at the end of the foot – elements clearly recalling the style of type Weisenau-Hörgertshausen brooches (Metzler type 4c). If we accept the dating of the Bern-Gergovia variant as the third quarter of the 1st century BC (ie, approximately, onset of phase A3 in Przeworsk culture and the Tišice horizon in the Bohemian Basin) and take note of the early typological attributes of Siemianice-Tišice variant brooches (profiled hooks and “garland” support plates) we shall narrow down the chronology of “barbarian” brooches of both variants to the oldest horizons of the phases in question. The discussed brooches (which I propose to distinguish as type Siemianice-Besançon, from the find-spots of the two earliest-published specimens) offer interesting insight on the exchange between central European “barbarians” and the inhabitants of the Western Celtic region at the close of the La Tène Period. The influx of these brooch forms to Poland may be linked with the Przeworsk settlement activity in the Wetterau region, ie, in the immediate neighbourhood of the domains of the Treverii. It is accepted quite generally that Przeworsk archaeological material from this region, dated mostly to phase A2, may be linked to the participation of this folk in the tribal league of Ariovistus. Type Siemianice-Besançon brooches would indirectly confirm a thesis put forward by Mathias Seidel that the later traces of Przeworsk settlement in Wetterau dating from the latter half of the 1st century BC are the effect of influx of further groups of settlers from the East rather than evidence of the survival of unacculturated peoples from older waves of settlement. The question of provenance of the two other Kragenfibeln discovered in Poland (Fig. 3) is altogether different. Both – one of them discovered in the Przeworsk culture area, at Juncewo, distr. Żnin, the other in the Bogaczewo culture area, near Węgorzewo is known from the collection of parson Pisanski – are “classic” Trier-Wincheringen forms, the variant which is restricted in its distribution definitely to the area of north-eastern Gaul, between the Rhine, Moselle and Meuse, region inhabited by the Celtic Treverii. The variant is visibly younger than Vorform Bern-Gergovia, in use mainly during the middle and late reign of Augustus and early Tiberius. Neither of these two brooches can be dated more closely and must be tied to the horizon of brooches of western provenance which began flowing to the Central European Barbaricum as early as 1st century AD and are recorded in assemblages of evidently early Roman character. Contrary to earlier views, in case of Kragenfibeln “proper” their influx from the south and their association with the Amber Route, if not altogether unfeasible, is highly unlikely.

Refine search results

1 Wiadomości Archeologiczne

1 Andrzejowski J.

1 2005

Search results

Wczesna Kragenifibel z Obór i problem jej pochodzenia