Sarmatian sites of the Middle Dnieper and their correlation ... English
- M.B. SHCHUKIN
Sarmatian sites of the Middle Dnieper and their correlation with the Zarubintsy Culture
vol. 14, 1972
In the archaeological study of the Middle Dnieper area of the first centuries CE the researchers' attention was directed mainly at the sites of Zarubintsy and Chernyakhovsk cultures around which so far the debate hasn't stopped. Not once was discussed also the problem of the correlation of these cultures. Meanwhile, undeservedly little attention was paid to yet another culture of the Middle Dnieper area - the Sarmatian one.
And without understanding the place of Sarmatian sites, obviously, it is impossible to establish neither the chronological framework of the Zarubintsy and Chernyakhovsk cultures, nor to understand the course of historical processes in the Middle Dnieper area in the first centuries CE. To the fact that the Sarmatians played an not unimportant role in the political history of Eastern Europe, testifies at least the term "European Sarmatia" in the "Geographical Guide" by Claudius Ptolemy. Great political activity by the Sarmatians is testified to clearly enough also by other written sources.
Archaeological sites of Sarmatians in the Middle Dnieper are known mainly by accidental finds and the old excavations by A.A. Bobrinsky, N.E. Brandenburg and D.E. Samokvasov and information about them is far from always sufficiently complete and accurate, which, of course, lowers somewhat the value of these materials and makes it difficult to work on them. However now it is already suffiently clear that the Sarmatian sites are fairly compact group in the basin of Ros', Rosava, Tiasmyn and Vys' and are concentrated only on the right bank of Dnieper 1. On the left bank they do not go up further north than Vorskla, in many respects differ from the right bank ones and make up another group 2. We will now consider only the right-bank group and for this reason, by the term "Middle Dnieper" we shall understand only the right part of the Middle Dnieper, from the mouth of Irpen' to Tiasmyn.
As criterion for attributing a site to the Sarmatian culture will serve, either a combination of a few characteristic features of the burial rite of this group (intrusive burial in a mound of earlier time, northern orientation, crossed legs, the presence of beads in the area of arms and legs), or the presence of certain types of Sarmatian equipment (bronze mirrors, beads, swords with ring pommel, bronze cauldrons, etc.).
K.F. Smirnov noted on the Middle Dnieper 22 Sarmatian sites, in the later work of M.P. Abramova there figures 16 of them, attrubuting a number of sites to the Sarmatians she thought, apparently, insufficiently substantiated. To all this, you can, probably, add 3 more points. A poor Sarmatian burial at s. Lebedovki of the former Chigirinsky county of the Kiev Province, excavated by A.A. Bobrinsky in 1907 3, a burial destroyed by earth works at Orlovets of the former Cherkassy district of Kiev Province 4 and a complex of the former Staraya Osota of the Chigirinsky district of Kiev Province, from where come: a bronze bracelet with knobs, a bronze figurine of an idol with a monkey head, a pair of gold earrings in the form of small amforae decorated with volutes of soldered strands and beading, two gold rings with inlays of stones and various beads 5.
The earrings from Staraya Osota have a fairly similar analogue in the earrings from tomb 599 in Chersonesus, where they were found with coins of the first half of the I cent. CE, moreover one of them of minting of 53-54 CE 6. This to some extent determines also the time of the burial in Staraya Osota, as the remaining objects, dating back to a wider range (bracelets with knobs 7, 8 figures of idols), do not contradict this date.
The most fully investigated Sarmatian sites of the Middle Dnieper is a cemetery at s. Kalantaevo in the Novo-Georgiev district of the Cherkasy region, excavated in 1956 by E.F. Pokrovskaya and G.T. Kovpanenko 9. The cemetery is without mounds, but is located on a gorodishche of the Scythian period,
which seemed, probably, to the Sarmatians as a large mound. Thus all the burials of the cemetery can also be thought of as intrusive. And this is not an exceptional case. In the Dnieper area for the cemetery at s. Ostrovets Sarmatians used an ashpan of a settlement of the Late Bronze Age 10. Use for burials of ancient gorodishches, "large mounds" and the custom of intrusive burials clearly reflect the transition process from burial mounds to ground cemeteries. A process already noted in Sarmatian tribes. In the rest, both with respect to rite and to inventory, the Kalantaevsky cemetery is a typically Sarmatian site with predominating, as also on other sites of the Middle Dnieper River area, northern orientation, and not southern and south-eastern, as MP Abramova believed for some reason 11.
In Kalantaevo are excavated 42 burials, but most of them turned out to be destroyed and only 14 have survived in whole or in part. Of these, in all 5 contained inventories permitting to speak about a dating of the cemetery. E.F. Pokrovskaya and G.T. Kovpanenko, in general, correctly dated the cemetery to the I cent. CE, although committed a number of inaccuracies, arbitrarily restricting to the I cent. CE the datings of a number of objects the period of existence of which, in reality, was somewhat wider. This, for example, is the case with a red-lacqured cup from burial 1 (fig. 1a), dated by E.F. Pokrovskaya and G.T. Kovpanenko to the I cent. CE. 12 Although T.N. Knipovich, to whom the authors refer, dates, these cups in a wide range: in Tyritaka from the end of the I cent. to the first half of the III cent. CE, in Myrmekion from the last third of the I - to the III cent. CE. 13 Their existence in the II cent. CE is confirmed by the co-locational find with coins of Cotys III (123-131 CE) in Kerch 14 and with a coin of Faustina the Younger (175 CE) in Mezek (Bulgaria) 15. Their lengthy existence is also confirmed by all of the material of Ilurat 16, and the find in the basement "Ð³" in Tanais, perished in the middle of the III cent. CE 17.
Unfortunately, in the description of a cup from Kalantaeva is not specified the form of the rim, which is an important chronological sign. The cups are of the end of the I - II cent. CE - thin-walled, with delicate rim, and to the III cent. the rim thickens and bends inward somewhat more 18.
Bronze bracelets with flat beast and snake heads at the ends do occur in complexes I cent. CE 19 (fig. 1, Ð¶, Ð·, Ðº), but in a number of closed complexes are combined also with later material. Thus, in grave 15 of Chernorechensk cemetery a bracelet with animal heads was found together with objects of the II-III centuries CE and a coin of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) 20, in grave 22 in Scythian Neapolis 21 - along with a mirror-pendant with a tamga-shaped mark of II-III centuries CE 22 and with a bow-shaped "Inkerman" fibula of the second half of the II-III century CE, 23 and in burial 16 of the same cemetery together with a bow-shaped fibula, dated by A.K. Ambroz to the end of the II-III century CE. 24
In the cemetery Kalantaevo were found as well objects that existed in the I cent. BCE as objects that survived to the III cent. CE. However, the combination of them in the burials dating permits you to narrow and define the time of interment more accurately.
Thus, in burial 5 (fig. 1, e), the richest burial of the cemetery 25, was combined paste beads in the form of scarabs, rather numerous in our territory in the first century CE (fig. 1, Ðµ), but not indicating precisely the date 26, a mirror of thin bronze plate with traces of leather for the case (fig. 1d) - VI type of Sarmatian bronze mirrors, according to A.M. Khazanov, dating back to the I cent. BCE - 1 cent. CE. 27, a bow-shaped fibula, dated by A.K. Ambroz to the I cent. CE. (fig. 1Ð´) 28 and a red-lacquered cup with strongly profiled walls, in all likelihood, of Western European origin (fig. 1Ð²) 29.
On our territory the second such cup comes from burial 57 in Tanais, dating back to the I cent. CE. 30 Burial 5 is the earliest of the dated burials from the Kalantaev cemetery entirely fitting into the I cent. CE.
Somewhat more precisely is defined the date of burial 1 31, where is combined a red-lacquered cup, the appearance of which T.N. Knipovich attributes to the end of I cent. CE 32, and a bronze mirror of type VI, having ceased to exist at the turn of the I and II cent. CE, and presented in the II cent. already isolated specimens (fig. 1 Ð°, Ð±) 33. The combination is possible, obviously, only at the end of the I - the beginning of the II cent. CE.
Bronze bracelets with flat snake and animal heads, the dating of which we discussed above, were found in three burials (12, 15 and 27) 34, moreover in burial 18 a bracelet is combined with an iron sword with ring pommel (fig. 1, Ð·, Ð¸). These swords appear already in the I cent. CE. and in the Bosporus they exist mostly in the I-II cent. CE., disappearing by the end of the II century. 35 Judging by the latest works by A.M. Khazanov, dedicated to armament weapons of the Sarmatians, swords with ring pommel were in use most widely in I cent. BCE - I cent. CE 36.
Thus, the complex of burial 18 with the greatest probability could have formed in the second half of the I. CE.
As we see, among the inventory of the Kalantaev cemetery there are objects that existed in the I cent. CE, and objects which survive to the III cent. CE. However the co-occurence of these objects in the complexes permits to narrow the dating, so much more as this small cemetery (it is excavated in full) could hardly be expected to function in more than 100 years. The cemetery, probably, arose somewhere in the second quarter of the I cent. CE and lasted until the second quarter of the II cent. CE. (fig. 1). It can not be ruled out that the period of existence of the cemetery was even shorter.
All the remaining Sarmatian sites of the Middle Dnieper are separate burials, some of them are rather rich and contain inventory, permitting to establish their date fairly accurately. Thus, in two mounds were discovered similar Roman bronze ladles, in proportions similar to the type 140 of G. Eggers' classification , but with a semi-circular hole in the handle as on ladles of type 137, 138, 37.
One of them comes from accidental excavations in the former district of Kiev, in the town Kagarlyk near Vyatichev 38. By further investigation by N.E. Brandenburg here were found the remains of wood and fragments of a mirror 39, which allows us to assume that the burial was Sarmatian.
A analoguous ladle was discovered by excavations by N.E. Brandenburg at s. Krasnopolk, Kanevsky county in mound CCXXXIV. Of its Sarmatianness there can be no doubt. The skeleton was lying on its back, with its head to the north, its legs were crossed, at its feet was a small glass bead, on its neck was a necklace of quartz, cornelian and paste beads. There were also beads on its hands: 25 on the right and 7 on the left 40. Ladles with a semicircular hole in the handle of type 137, 138 were attributed by G. Eggers to stage B1 (0-50 CE), but are also known for stage B2 (50-150 CE) 41 and in this time, they are by the proportions getting closer to type 140, ie. becoming deeper. Type 140 was originally attributed by G. Eggers to stage B1 42, but in later work he puts it already in B2 43, the same dating confirms also G. Ekholm 44. The ladles most similar to ours from Siscia and Sirmium A. Radnosti attributes to the middle of the I cent. CE; on the ladle of Sirmium is the stamp of the Capuan Cippia Polybius, who was working already in the Flavian epoque (69-96 CE) 45.
As for the stamp NGRANIPLOCA of the ladle from Kagarlyk, this stamp is unique and in the meantime found nowhere else 46.
Yet another ladle comes from a wealthy burial excavated by farmers in 1885 at s. Svetna of the former Chigirinsky county now Elizavetogradski district of the Kirovograd region. Together with it were found a bronze Roman oenochoe [wine jug] and a Sarmatian bronze cauldron with two handles 47. V.V. Kropotkin believed that the ladle was of type 140 according to G. Eggers 48, but a semi-circular hole in the handle and the presence of a decorative pattern around it permit bringing it together rather with type 137 49. With this agrees also the fact that the oenochoe from this burial (type G. Eggers 124) also belongs to stage B1 (0-50 CE) 50. Thus, this burial, is possibly a little earlier in time and belongs already to the first half of the I cent. CE.
A fairly accurate dating yields the burial at s. Ruzhichevki of former Alexandria county, Kherson province. Here were found a necklace of paste beads and 12 pendants in the form of figurines of reclining lions of blue Egyptian paste, a bronze bracelet with knobs and another bracelet, smooth, a bronze mirror and a flat cruciform fibula-brooch with gilding 51.
Egyptian pendants, bracelets with knobs, bronze bells are objects that are quite characteristic of Sarmatian sites, but they do not provide sufficient data for dating, as they date in a rather wide range, the I cent. BCE - III cent. CE 52. The cross-shaped fibula-brooch appearing in combination with them permits one to speak of the time more definitely. In Pannonia similar fibulae are characteristic for the middle of the II cent. CE. 53, and the technique of niello and gilding on flat fibulae appears in the second half of the I cent. CE. 54
Analogous brooches were found also by excavations of the Roman camp Hofheim, which was built ca. 39-40 CE 55 and lasted up to 83 CE 56.
A fibula from Ruzhichevki was not included in the summary by A.K. Ambroz. However, he cites a number of brooches of other proportions, but similar in design - flat rhombic fibulae-brooches, with a circle in relief in the center with gilt and without enamel and dates them to the second half of the I cent.- first half of the II cent. CE. 57 To a somewhat earlier time - I cent. CE. without appearance in the II cent. probably should be dated the burials, excavated by O. Makarenko, in 1893, at s. Lipovets, in Kiev Province (today Vinnitsa.). In the hands of the buried woman were bracelets of beads with a paste pendant in the form of a little amforia 58. Similar pendants are quite commonly found on Sarmatian sites, moreover in burial 1 of mound 20 in Ust-Kamenka together with a mirror of type VI by A.M. Khazanov 59, and in the earthen crypt 36 in Scythian Neapolis with fibulae of the I cent. CE. In the crypt there were 11 buried, but all the material fits into the framework of the I cent. CE 60. Here one finds analogies derived from Lipovets pendants in the form of small paired buckets. In Ust-Kamenka they have been found in mound 5 61, where they combine with a bow-shaped fibula (variant 1 according to A.K. Ambroz) of the first half of the I cent. CE. 62, with a bronze mirror from thin plate (type VI according to A.M. Khazanov) - I cent. BCE.- I cent. CE 63 and with a small cut bronze bell. Such small bells are found in complexes of the I cent. CE. (Tanais 64, Ust-Labinskaya 65) and of the second half of the II cent. - the first half of the III cent. CE. (Scythian Neapolis 66). Paired pendants in the shape of small buckets were found also in crypt 77 of Scythian Neapolis with an inventory of the second half of the I - II cent. CE 67. And in tomb 599 in Chersonesus they date to the middle of the I cent. CE., as also in this crypt were 3 Chersonesus coins of the first half of the I cent. CE and a coin of the minying of 53-54 CE 68. Thus, the paired pendants in the shape of small buckets existed mainly in the I cent. - the first half of the II cent. CE., paste pendants in the shape of little amforae mainly in the I cent. CE. Primarily to the I cent. CE belong also bracelets with knobs, although they also live on to the III cent. BCE. Consequently, the most likely date of the burials in Lipovets will be I cent. CE.
The remaining Sarmatian sites of the Middle Dnieper (Smela 69, Nikolaevka 70, Burty 71, Gorohovatka 72, Yaroshevka 73, Kolodistoe 74, Karpyshev 75) either yield too poor material, or about them there is too scanty knowledge to draw conclusions about their chronology.
With respect to such sites as the burial in Tsvetne 76, the burial in Petrinki 77 and mound 406 in Zhuravko 78, while they yield to dating worse, they in all likelyhood belong to a somewhat later period, the II-III centuries CE, and will be discussed in another context.
In the meantime, we are interested in the appearance of Sarmatian sites on the right bank of the middle reaches of the Dnieper, where they should, one might say, have clashed with the carriers of the Zarubintsy culture.
* # *
As already mentioned, the Sarmatians crossed over to the right bank of the Dnieper no earlier than the I cent. CE 79, and, as seen from the above, probably not at the beginning of the I cent. CE, but somewhere in the first half or rather in the middle of the I cent. CE. This is fully consistent with the data of Agrippa, according to which at any rate already in 14 CE the western boundary of Sarmatia went up to the Dnieper River; Â«hae finiuntur ... ab occidente flumine BorystheneÂ» 80.
The right bank of the middle course of Dnieper at that time was inhabited by the carriers of the Zarubintsy culture. In the archaeological literature exist quite contradictory opinions as well regarding the southern boundary of the spread of the Zarubintsy tribes 81, as regarding the upper chronological boundary of this culture.
In the final analysis, it is not now important to us whether the people buried on the cemetery in Subbotov spoke the same language as the inhabitants of the settlement in Zarubintsy or not, and whether they have common relatives. However, it should be noted that if in the materials of the Subbotov cemetery 82 testifying to some contacts with Sarmatians: fragments of a bronze bell, beads of rock crystal, a bronze earring 83, a scarab 84, in the classical Zarubintsy sites we observe nothing similar 85 .
There are no traces of interaction with Zarubintsy culture either on Sarmatian sites. Until now, not a single Zarubintsy vessel has been found in a Sarmatian burial.
In a careful look at the map (fig. 2) it turns out that, despite the greater proximity, the territories of the distribution of Zarubintsy and Sarmatian sites do not coincede.
Zarubintsy settlements and cemeteries gravitate toward the Dnieper and take up a comparatively narrow strip along both banks of the Dnieper. Sarmatian sites in immediate proximity to the bank of the Dnieper there aren't any. Those we find a little further to the west and south. The Sarmatians preferred to make burials on the watersheds or around small streams. Only the southern Zarubintsy sites turn out immediately in the dispersal zone of the Sarmatians.
Yet with such close proximity the absence of traces of any interaction of is surprise and allows you to put the question also of the chronological difference of these cultures.
Regarding the end date of the Zarubintsy culture there exists no consensus. Some researchers believe that it exists from the II and even until to the III cent. CE 86, others limit themselves to the I cent. CE and only propose a possibility of an exit in the II cent. CE 87.
One of the arguments in favor of a later date of the Zarubintsy culture is finds of coins and coin hoards of the II cent. CE 88. Until now, not a single coin has been found in a Zarubintsy burial or even in the layer of the Zarubintsy settlement , but E.V. Maksimov considers it possible to connect with the Zarubintsy culture a series of coin finds only on the basis that they come from the neighborhoods of those points, where Zarubintsy sites are known 89.
It seems there is no need to prove that such a method of dating is at least insufficiently strict.
The only point of the 30 listed by E.V. Maksimov which seems to be able to give the opportunity to link the discovery of coins with a Zarubintsy site is Novye Bezradichi, Obukhov district, Kyiv region. Here, in 1950, by the detachment "Big Kiev" were found the remains of a Zarubintsy settlement in the southern part of which "a destroyed cremation instance, where was collected small instances of jewelry. Nearby was found an iron spur and a Roman coin" 90 of Marcus Aurelius (161 - 180. CE) 91. Of the multi-layeredness of the stratification on this site testifies the find of a "fibula with notched enamel" 92. The attribution of the cemetery in Novye Bezradichi to the Zarubintsy culture can also be questioned. This is evidenced as well by the very fact of the ending of the Zarubintsy cultural layer (to this day in Zarubintsy culture is not known an instance of a grave in the settlements), as by the find of spurs, absolutely not typical for the Zarubintsy culture. Thus, also this point testifies rather against E.V. Maksimov's attempt to date the Zarubintsy culture by accidental finds of coins.
However, now we are studying not the dating of the Zarubintsy culture as a whole, we are interested only in later sites of the Zarubintsy culture and only in the Middle Dnieper area.
As the basis for the dating of the Subbotov cemetery serves burial complex 93. The spring fibula with smooth body and a button on end of the plate receiver found in this burial is dated to the I cent. CE in general 94. Neither fragments of a bronze bell nor beads of rock crystal 95 can further specify this date. The latter date in a fairly wide range, from the II cent. BCE to the II cent. CE. 96
The dating of this burial is clarified by a fragment of a weakly profiled, probably, "openwork" LaTÃ¨ne belt hook 97, characteristic, according to R. Hachmann, mainly for the second half of the I cent. BCE with a possible survival to stage B1 according to Eggers (0-50 CE) 98.
Thus, in all likelihood, this burial should be attributed to the turn CE - the first half of the 1 cent. CE. (fig. 3). With this dating, probably, will agree also E.V. Maksimov, having attributed the cemetery to the turn of CE - I cent. CE. 99
As for the classical Zarubintsy sites, here the latest objects come from the cemeteries in Korchevat and in Zarubintsy. In Korchevat this is a ramchaty bronze buckle with iron tongue of the end of the II cent. CE. But it was found with fragments of two vessels, among which no traces of burial were noted. Therefore it is not known, whether it had anything to do with the cemetery 100. And in Zarubintsy was found an eye fibula of the first half of the II cent. CE. (fig. 3, Ñ ), but its connection with the cemetery, has also not been established. It does not appear in the publication of Vladimir Hvoyko of the materials of the Zarubintsy cemetery 101, and in KGIM it ended up much later, in 1914, from the collection of V.V. Hvoyko 102.
The circumstances of its find are unknown.
Thus, the II cent. CE. as lifetime of the Zarubintsy culture in the Middle Dnieper area, turns out to be doubtful.
The chronology of the Zarubintsy culture relies basically on the dating of fibulae. For establishing its upper date we on the sites of the Middle Dnieper area also have no other material. Of late fibulae, besides the already mentioned eyed ones, there have been found fibulae of four types.
From the settlement at s. Sahnovka comes a Late LaTÃ¨ne fibula with ramchaty foot and arched body (fig. 3, Ð½) 103. These fibulae date either to the I cent. BCE 104, or the second half of the I cent. BCE 105. According to A.K. Ambroz, they partly survive up to the I cent. CE 106.
As for the "military" fibulae with arched body from Zarubintsy (fig. 3, Ð¿), fibula of this type have a relatively long period of existence - I-III centuries CE 107. A.K. Ambroz thinks it possible for our area to limit the date to the I cent. CE 108.
Finally, from Grischintsy come three further fibulae. One of them, a so-called Boii fibula (fig. 3, Ñ) of the end of the I cent. BCE. e .- the beginning of the I cent. CE 109, and two strongly profiled single-body fibula with a bead on the arc 110 (fig. 3, Ñ). V. Kukharenko I attributed them to the I cent. CE 111, however in European literature for them is accepted a more narrow date, they are usually dated to the era of Tiberius (14 - 37 CE) 112. This dating is also accepted by A.K. Ambroz 113.
Thus, if the questionable dating material of the Zarubintsy and the Korchevat cemeteries is discarded, we see that the fibulae of the Zarubintsy sites clearly tend to the turn of the CE, to the first half of the I cent. CE. and the majority of the Sarmatian sites, as noted above rather to the second half of the I cent. CE and the beginning of the II cent. CE (fig. 3). This absolutely does not preclude a longer existence of the Zarubintsy culture in other areas. Thus, on the settlement at s. Lyutezh at the mouth of Irpin 114 was found an eyed fibula, perhaps actually connected with the Zarubintsy layer. But this is the very northernmost outskirts of the territory now under consideration by us and Sarmatian sites do not reach to there, but more to the south, they probably did replace Zarubintsy somewhere in the first half or the middle of the I cent. CE.
This in the present circumstances, it must be admitted, with very insignificant quantities of material, with the greatest, perhaps, probability can explain the fact of the absence of traces of interaction of the Zarubintsy and Sarmatian culture. It is not ruled out that with the appearance by the Sarmatians on the right bank of the Dnieper the Zarubintsy culture ends its existence here.
1 Ð. Ð¤. Ð¡Ð¼Ð¸ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð². Ð'Ð¾Ð¿ÑÐ¾ÑÑ Ð¸Ð·ÑÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÂÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð¿Ð»ÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½ Ð¸ Ð¸Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÑÑ Ð² ÑÐ¾Ð²ÐµÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð°ÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸. Ð' ÑÐ±.: Â«Ð'Ð¾Ð¿ÑÐ¾ÑÑ ÑÐºÐ¸ÑÐ¾-ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð°ÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸Â». Ð., 1952, pp. 195-220.
2 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ±ÑÐ°Ð¼Ð¾Ð²Ð°. Ð¡Ð°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾Ð³ÑÐµÐ±ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð"Ð¾Ð½Ð° Ð¸ Ð£ÐºÑÐ°Ð¸Ð½Ñ. Ð¡Ð, 1961, 1, p. 100, 101, fig. 1.
3 ÐÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 40, Ð¡ÐÐ±, 1910, p. 50, 51.
4 ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1908, p. 176. ÐÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ. Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¿Ð¸ÑÑÐ½. ÐÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐºÐ¸, Ð¿. 317, Ð». 87, Ð³Ð°Ð·ÐµÑÐ½Ð°Ñ Ð²ÑÑÐµÐ·ÐºÐ° Â«ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¾Ðµ Ð'ÑÐµÐ¼ÑÂ», 1908, 11.
5 Ð. Ð. Ð¤ÑÐ½Ð´ÑÐºÐ»ÐµÐ¹. ÐÐ±Ð¾Ð·ÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð», Ð²Ð°Ð»Ð¾Ð² Ð¸ Ð³Ð¾ÑÐ¾Ð´Ð¸Ñ ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ²ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð³ÑÐ±. ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1848, table XIII, Ð²,
Ñ p. 73, 74. Ð¤Ð¾ÑÐ¾Ð°ÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ, Q 521 /15 17
6 ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1895, p. 112, 113; Ð. Ð. 3Ð¾Ð³ÑÐ°Ñ. ÐÐ½ÑÐ¸ÑÐ½ÑÐµ Ð¼Ð¾Ð½ÐµÑÑ. ÐÐÐ, 16, 1951, table XXXVII, 7; XXXVIII, 3.
7 Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð Ð°ÑÐ¿ÑÐ¾ÑÑÑÐ°Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð»Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÂÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð²ÐµÑÐµÐ¹ Ð² Ð'Ð¾ÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ ÐÐ²ÑÐ¾Ð¿Ðµ. Ð¡Ð, 1959, 1, p. 36.
8 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾. Ð Ð¾Ð·ÐºÐ¾Ð¿ÐºÐ¸ Ð¿Ð°Ð¼'ÑÑÐ¾Ðº ÐµÐ¿Ð¾Ñ Ð¸ 6ÑÐ¾Ð½Ð·Ñ ÑÐ° ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ ÑÐ°ÑÑ Ð² Ñ. Ð£ÑÑÑ-ÐÐ°Ð¼'ÑÐ½ÑÑ. ÐÐ Ð£Ð Ð¡Ð , Ñ. IX, ÐÐ¸ÑÐ², 1960, fig. 15, 3.
9 Ð. Ð¤. ÐÐ¾ÐºÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°, Ð". Ð¢. ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¿Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ¾Ð¿Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº Ð±ÑÐ»Ñ Ñ. ÐÐ°Ð»Ð°Ð½ÑÐ°ÐµÐ²Ð¾. Â«ÐÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³ÑÑÂ», Ñ. XII, ÐÐ¸ÑÐ², 1961.
10 Ð. Ð®. Ð¡Ð¼ÑÑÐºÐ¾. Ð¡Ð°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÑÐºÑ Ð¿Ð¾Ñ Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð½Ñ, Ð±ÑÐ»Ñ Ñ ÐÑÑÑÑÐ²ÐµÑÑ, Ð¡ÑÐ°Ð½Ð¸ÑÐ»Ð°Ð²ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð¾Ð±Ð». ÐÐ"ÐÐÐ', Ð²ÑÐ¿. 4, ÐÐ¸ÑÐ², 1962, p. 58.
11 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ±ÑÐ°Ð¼Ð¾Ð²Ð°. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 107.
12 Ð. Ð¤. ÐÐ¾ÐºÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°, Ð". Ð¢. ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¿Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 146.
13 Ð¢. Ð. ÐÐ½Ð¸Ð¿Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ. ÐÑÐ°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð»Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ ÐºÐµÑÐ°Ð¼Ð¸ÐºÐ° Ð¿ÐµÑÐ²ÑÑ Ð²ÐµÐºÐ¾Ð² Ð½. Ñ. Ð¸Ð· ÑÐ°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ðº Ð`Ð¾ÑÐ¿Ð¾ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÑÐºÑÐ¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸ÂÑÐ¸Ð¸ 1935-1940 Ð³Ð³. ÐÐÐ, 25, 1952, fig. 3, 6; 11, 3, p. 304, 315.
14 Id., p. 303.
15 ÐÐ². Ð'ÐµÐ»ÐºÐ¾Ð². Ð Ð°Ð·ÐºÐ¾Ð¿ÐºÐ¸ÑÐµ Ð¾ÐºÐ¾Ð»Ð¾ ÐÐµÐ·ÐµÐº Ð¸ Ð³Ð¾ÑÐ° Ð¡Ð²Ð¸Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð³ÑÐ°Ð´. Â«ÐÐ·Ð²ÐµÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð½Ð° Ð`Ð¾Ð»Ð³Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ñ ÐÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾ÂÐ³Ð¸ÑÐµÑÐºÐ¸ Ð¸Ð½ÑÑÐ¸ÑÑÑÑÂ», Ñ. XI, ÑÐ². I, 1937, p. 151, fig. 141, 2.
16 Ð. Ð'. Ð¡Ð¸Ð»Ð°Ð½ÑÑÐµÐ²Ð°. ÐÑÐ°ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð»Ð°ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ ÐºÐµÑÐ°ÂÐ¼Ð¸ÐºÐ° Ð¸Ð· ÑÐ°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ðº ÐÐ»ÑÑÐ°ÑÐ°. ÐÐÐ, 85, 1958, fig. 4, 1; 8, 1; 14, 5.
17 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¾ÑÐ¾Ð²Ð¸Ð½Ð°, Ð". Ð`. Ð¨ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð². Ð Ð°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿ÐºÐ¸ ÑÐ³Ð¾-Ð·Ð°Ð¿Ð°Ð´Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ ÑÑÐ°ÑÑÐºÐ° Ð¢Ð°Ð½Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ° 1956-1957 Ð³Ð³. ÐÐÐ, 127, 1965, fig. 34, p. 91.
18 Ð. Ð'. Ð¡Ð¸Ð»Ð°Ð½ÑÑÐµÐ²Ð°. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., pp. 287-300.
19 Ð. ÐbÐµÐ³t, Ausgrabungen bei dem Gorodok Nikolajewka am Dnjepr, Â«PrÃ¤historische ZeitschriftÂ», 1913, Bd. V, Heft 1-3, pp. 92-96, fig. 108 i, 108 g, 107 m, 106.
20 Ð'. Ð. Ð`Ð°Ð±ÐµÐ½ÑÐ¸ÐºÐ¾Ð². Ð§ÐµÑÐ½Ð¾ÑÑÑÐµÐ½ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾ÂÐ³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº. ÐÐ Ð£Ð Ð¡Ð , Ñ. XII ÐÐ¸ÑÐ², 1965, p. 102, 103.
21 Ð'. Ð. Ð`Ð°Ð±ÐµÐ½ÑÐ¸ÐºÐ¾Ð². ÐÐµÐºÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ñ ÐÐµÐ°Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ñ Ð¡ÐºÐ¸ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾. Â«ÐÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¸ Ð°ÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ñ Ð´ÑÐµÐ²Ð½ÐµÐ³Ð¾ ÐÑÑÐ¼Ð°Â», ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1957, table III, 7, 6; II, 7; IV, 32; IV, 9; VI, 4.
22 Ð. Ð. XÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð². Ð"ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ·Ð¸Ñ ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð½ÂÐ·Ð¾Ð²ÑÑ Ð·ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ð». Ð¡Ð, 1963, 4, p. 67.
23 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð¤Ð¸Ð±ÑÐ»Ñ ÑÐ³Ð° ÐµÐ²ÑÐ¾Ð¿ÐµÐ¹ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÑÐ°ÂÑÑÐ¸ Ð¡Ð¡Ð¡Ð . Ð¡ÐÐ, Ð" 1-30, 1966, p. 52.
24 Id., p. 51.
25 Ð. Ð¤. ÐÐ¾ÐºÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°, Ð". Ð¢. ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¿Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 2, 2; 7, 4, 8, 12; 8, 4.
26 Ð`. Ð`. ÐÐ¸Ð¾ÑÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð"ÑÐµÐ²Ð½ÐµÐµÐ³Ð¸Ð¿ÐµÑÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¿ÑÐµÐ´Ð¼ÐµÑÑ, Ð½Ð°Ð¹Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð½ÑÐµ Ð½Ð° ÑÐµÑÑÐ¸ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ð¸ Ð¡Ð¡Ð¡Ð . Ð¡Ð, 1958, 1, pp. 20-27.
27 Ð. Ð. XÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð² Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 64.
28 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 48.
29 Ð. ÐÑ Ðµ, Terra sigillata aus dem Keramikos, Â«Athenische Mitteilungen des Jahrbuchs des Deutschen ArchÃ¤ologischen InstitutsÂ», 1927, LII, p. 215, fig. 2, 17; F. OswÐ°ld, T. D. PrÑÑe, An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata, London, 1920, tab. XLIX.
30 Ð". Ð`. Ð¨ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð². ÐÐµÐºÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ñ Ð¢Ð°Ð½Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°. ÐÐÐ, 98, 1961, p. 27, 28, table XXVIII, 3; XXII, 4; XVIII, 3; Idem. ÐÑÐ°Ð»Ð¸Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¸ Ð·Ð°Ð¿Ð°Ð´Ð½Ð¾ÑÐ¸Ð¼ÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¸Ð·Ð´ÐµÐ»Ð¸Ñ Ð² ÑÐ¾ÑÐ³Ð¾Ð²Ð»Ðµ Ð¢Ð°Ð½Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ° Ð¿ÐµÑÐ²ÑÑ Ð²ÐµÐºÐ¾Ð² Ð½Ð°ÑÐµÐ¹ ÑÑÑ. Â«Acta Archaeologica HungaricaeÂ», 1965, t. XVII, fasc. 1-4, Ñ. 120.
31 E. Ð¤. ÐÐ¾ÐºÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°, Ð". Ð¢. ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¿Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 6, 5; 7, 9.
32 Ð¢. Ð. ÐÐ½Ð¸Ð¿Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 304, fig. 3, 6.
33 Ð. Ð. XÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð². Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 64.
34 Ð. Ð¤. ÐÐ¾ÐºÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°, Ð". Ð¢. ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð¿Ð°Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 7, 1, 2, 3.
35 Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¾ÐºÐ¾Ð»ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð`Ð¾ÑÐ¿Ð¾ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¼ÐµÑÐ¸. ÐÐÐ, 33, 1954, p. 151.
36 Ð. Ð. XÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð². Ð'Ð¾Ð¾ÑÑÐ¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ, Ð²Ð¾Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¾ Ð¸ Ð²Ð¾ÂÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¸ÑÐºÑÑÑÑÐ²Ð¾ ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð². ÐÐ²ÑÐ¾ÑÐµÑÐµÑÐ°Ñ. Ð., 1966; p. 6; Idem. Ð¡Ð°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¼ÐµÑÐ¸ Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð»ÑÑÐµÐ²ÑÐ¼ Ð½Ð°ÂÐ²ÐµÑÑÐ¸ÐµÐ¼. Ð¡Ð, 1967, 2.
37 Ð. J. Eggers, Der rÃ¶mische Import im freiÂen Germanien, Bd. II, Hamburg, 1951, Taf. 12, 137, 138, 140.
38 OAK Ð·Ð° 1891, p. 91, fig. 70.
39 H. Ð. Ð`ÑÐ°Ð½Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð±ÑÑÐ³. ÐÑÑÐ½Ð°Ð» ÑÐ°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ðº 1888-1902 Ð³Ð³. Ð¡ÐÐ±., 1908, p. 5, 6.
40 Ð. Ð. Ð`ÑÐ°Ð½Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð±ÑÑÐ³. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 42.
41 Ð. J. Eggers, op. cit., Bd. I, p. 172; Bd. II, Taf. 12, 137, 138.
42 Ibid., Bd. 1, p. 47, 172.
43 H. J. Eggers, Zur absoluten Chronologie der rÃ¶mischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien Â«Jahrbuch des RÃ¶misch-Germanisches ZentralmuseumÂ», 2. Jg., Mainz, 1955, fig. 2, 31a.
44 G. EkhÐ¾lm, Die absolute Chronologie der rÃ¶mischen Kaiserzeit, Â«Jahrbuch des RÃ¶misch-GermaniÂsches ZentralmuseumÂ», 4 Jg., Mainz, 1957, p. 108 ff.
45 A. RadnÐ¾ti, Die rÃ¶mischen BronzegefÃ¤Ãe von Pannonien, Â«Dissertationes PannonicaeÂ», Budapest, 1938, Ser. 2, Nr. 6. Taf. XIX, 4; XX, 2. p. 43-47.
46 Ð'. Ð'. ÐÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¸Ð½. ÐÐ· Ð¸ÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ð¸ ÑÐ¸Ð¼ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÑÐ¾ÑÐ³Ð¾Ð²Ð»Ð¸ Ñ Ð'Ð¾ÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ ÐÐ²ÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾Ð¹. Â«ÐÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸ÐºÐ¾-Ð°ÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ÂÑÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ ÑÐ±Ð¾ÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÂ». Ð., 1962, p. 150.
47 ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1882-1888, p. XCII; ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ñ. XI, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, 1899, p. 263; ÐÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ, Ñ. I, 1885, 33, Ð». 8-23.
48 Ð'. Ð'. ÐÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¸Ð½. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 149.
49 Ð. J. Eggers, Der rÃ¶mische Import..., Bd. II, Taf. 12, 137.
50 Ibid., Taf. 11, 24; H. J. Eggers, Zur absoÂluten Chronologie.. ., fig. 1, 78, 8c.
51 OAK Ð·Ð° 1896, p. 141, 142, fig. 497, 498.
52 Ð`. Ð`. ÐÐ¸Ð¾ÑÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 2, p. 24, 25; Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., pp. 31-51; Ð. Ð. Ð¡ÑÐ¼Ð¾Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ. ÐÐ³Ð¸Ð¿ÐµÑÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð²ÐµÑÐ¸ Ð² Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐµ ÐÐµÐ°Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ñ-Ð¡ÐºÐ¸ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾. Ð¡Ð, 1961, 1, pp. 270-273; Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ½ÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐµÐ¾ÑÐ¾-ÑÐ°ÑÐ¼Ð°ÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº Ñ ÑÑÐ°Ð½Ð¸ÑÑ Ð£ÑÑÑ-ÐÐ°Ð±Ð¸Ð½ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹. ÐÐÐ, 23, 1951, table 18, pp. 191-203.
53 I. SÐµllÑÐµ, Les bronzes Ã©mailles de la PannoÂnie Romaine, Â«Dissertationes PannonicaeÂ», 1939, 2e seÂrie, fasc. 8, pl. XII, 7, 9, p. 73
54 Ibid., p. 35.
65 E. Ritterling, Das frÃ¼hrÃ¶mische Lager bei Hofheim in Taunus, Â«Annalen des Vereins des NassaÂuschen Altertumskunde und GeschichtsforschungÂ» WiesÂbaden, 1913, Taf. X, 261, p. 81.
56 Ibid., p. 95.
57 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 33, table 15,5.
58 ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ ÑÐµÑÐ¸Ñ, Ñ. XII, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, p. 292, 293, fig. 82-85.
59 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 31, fig. 19,2; 15,2; 22,.1; 22,2.
60 Ð. Ð. Ð¡ÑÐ¼Ð¾Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 272, fig. 1,5; ÐÐ½ Ð¶Ðµ. Ð¤Ð¸Ð±ÑÐ»Ñ ÐÐµÐ°Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ñ-Ð¡ÐºÐ¸ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾. Ð¡Ð, 1963, 4, fig. 3, 23. Ð"Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÐ¾Ð²ÐºÐ° ÑÐ¸Ð±ÑÐ» Ð¿Ð¾ Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·Ñ (ÑÐº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 26) - Ð°ÑÑÐ¸ÑÑÐ° - Ð¿ÐµÑÐ²Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð½Ñ I Ð².; p. 45 - Ñ Ð·Ð°Ð²Ð¸ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¼ Ð½Ð° ÐºÐ¾Ð½ÑÐµ ÑÐ¿Ð»Ð¾ÑÐ½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¿ÑÐ¸ÐµÐ¼Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ°, Ð³ÑÑÐ¿Ð¿Ð° 13-2 - Ð²ÑÐ¾ÑÐ°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð½Ð° I Ð².- ÑÐ°ÑÑÑ II Ð².; p. 47 - ÑÐ¼ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ ÑÐ¸Ð±ÑÐ»Ð° Ñ Ð²ÑÑÐ¾ÐºÐ¸Ð¼ Ð¿ÑÐ¸ÐµÐ¼Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ¾Ð¼. Ð"Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÐ¾Ð²ÐºÐ° Ð½Ðµ ÑÐ°Ð·ÑÐ°Ð±Ð¾ÑÐ°Ð½Ð°. ÐÐ¾Ð½ÐµÑ I-III Ð².; p. 48 - Ð»ÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¾ÑÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð°Ñ. Ð'Ð°ÑÐ¸Ð°Ð½Ñ 1 - Ð¿ÐµÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð½Ð° I Ð². Ð½. Ñ.
61 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 29, fig. 12, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12.
62 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 48.
63 Ð. Ð. XÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð². Ð"ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ·Ð¸Ñ..., p. 67.
64 Ð". Ð`. Ð¨ÐµÐ»Ð¾Ð². Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 30, 31, table XXXVIII, XVI, 2-5.
65 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ½ÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., table 18, 29, 10, 18, 20, table 17, 7, 15, 16.
66 Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 3, 18.
67 Id., fig. 3, 20; Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 40, 44, 52, 74.
68 ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1895, p. 112, 113, fig. 284; Ð. Ð. 3Ð¾Ð³ÑÐ°Ñ. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., table XXXVII, 3, 7.
69 ÐÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 40, 1911, p. 43, 44, fig. 1.
70 Ð. Ð. Ð`Ð¾Ð±ÑÐ¸Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. ÐÑÑÐ³Ð°Ð½Ñ Ð¸ ÑÐ»ÑÑÐ°Ð¹Ð½ÑÐµ Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð´ÐºÐ¸ Ð±Ð»Ð¸Ð· Ð¼. Ð¡Ð¼ÐµÐ»Ñ, Ñ. I, 1887, p. 40, 41, table III, 6; XI, 15; V, 68.
71 Ð. Ð. Ð`ÑÐ°Ð½Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð±ÑÑÐ³. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 73, 74, 76, 79.
72 Id., p. 83.
73 ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ñ. XI, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, 1899, p. 264.
74 ÐÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 12, 1904, p. 120.
75 Ð. Ð. Ð`ÑÐ°Ð½Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð±ÑÑÐ³. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 105, 106.
76 ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ñ. XI, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, 1899, p. 262, 263. ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1896, p. 88, 89. Ð ÑÐº. Ð°ÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ. Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¿Ð¸ÂÑ Ñ Ð½. ÐÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐºÐ¸, Ð¿. 317, Ð». 85.
77 ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ñ. XI, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, 1899, p. 261, 262. Ð ÑÐº. Ð°ÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ. Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¿Ð¸ÑÑÐ½. ÐÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐºÐ¸, Ð¿. 317, Ð». 81-82.
78 ÐÐÐ Ð·Ð° 1903, p. 110, fig. 201; ÐÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 14, p. 29. Ð ÑÐº. Ð°ÑÑ Ð¸Ð² ÐÐÐÐ. Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð¿Ð¸ÑÑÐ½. ÐÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐºÐ¸, Ð¿. 317, Ð». 90.
79 Ð. Smirnov, Repartition des tribes SarmaÂtes en Europe Orientale, Â«VI CongrÃ¨s international des sciences prÃ©historiques et protohistoriques. Les rapports et les informations des archÃ©ologues de l'URSSÂ», Moscou, 1962, p. 4.
80 Ð. Ð. Ð Ð¾ÑÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐµÐ². Ð¡ÐºÐ¸ÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¸ Ð`Ð¾ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ñ, Ð.-Ð., 1925, p. 44, 45.
81 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾ Ð¸ Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð°Ð¼Ð¾Ð¹Ð»Ð¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¿Ð°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ Ð² Ð»ÐµÑÐ¾ÑÑÐµÐ¿Ð½Ð¾Ð¼ ÐÑÐ¸Ð´Ð½ÐµÐ¿ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐµ ÐÐÐ, 70, 1959, p. 11, 22; Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ°ÂÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÑÐ°. Ð¡ÐÐ Ð"-1-19, Ð., 1964.
82 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº Ð·Ð°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ ÑÐ¸Ð¿Ð° Ð² Ñ. Ð¡ÑÐ±Ð±Ð¾ÑÐ¾Ð²Ðµ. ÐÐ¡ÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 9. ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1959, p. 35, fig. 6, 15.
83 Id., p. 35, fig. 6, 15; Ð. Ð Ã¡rduÑz DenkmÃ¤ler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns, II, Â«ArchaeoloÂgia HungaricaÂ», 1944, XXVIII, Taf XLVII, 4; XLV 14, 15; XXVI, 3; M. P Ã¡ r d u Ñ z, DenkmÃ¤ler der SarÂmatenzeit Ungarns, III, Â«Archaeologia HungaricaÂ», 1950, XXX, Taf. XXXIV, 10; LIII, 2; LIX, 1, 2
84 Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð°Ð¼Ð¾Ð¹Ð»Ð¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð¡ÑÐ±Ð±Ð¾ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾ÂÐ³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº. ÐÐ¡ÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 9, ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1959, p. 37.
85 ÐÑÐºÐ»ÑÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÑÐ¾ÑÑÐ°Ð²Ð»ÑÐµÑ Ð³Ð»Ð¸Ð½ÑÐ½Ð°Ñ ÐºÑÑÐ¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸ÑÐ° Ð¸Ð· Ð¿Ð¾Ð³ÑÐµÐ±ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ 73 ÐÐ¸ÑÐ¾Ð³Ð¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ°. (Ð'. Ð. ÐÑÑÑ, Ð. Ð. ÐÑÐ±ÑÑÐµÐ². Ð Ð°Ð±Ð¾ÑÑ Ð§Ð°Ð¿Ð°ÐµÐ²ÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¾ÑÂÑÑÐ´Ð° ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ²ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÑÐºÑÐ¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸ÑÐ¸Ð¸. Â«ÐÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ÑÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¸ÑÑÐ»ÐµÂÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð½Ð° Ð£ÐºÑÐ°Ð¸Ð½Ðµ Ð² 1967 Ð³.Â», Ð²ÑÐ¿. II, ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ² 1968, pp. 46-48, ÑÐ¸Ñ 5).
86 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾. Ð Ð°Ð½Ð½ÐµÑÐ»Ð°Ð²ÑÐ½ÑÐºÐ¹Ðµ (Ð·Ð°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÂÐºÐ¾-ÐºÐ¾ÑÑÐµÐ²Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¿Ð°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸) Ð² Ð¡ÑÐµÐ´Ð½ÐµÐ¼ ÐÑÐ¸Ð´Ð½ÐµÐ¿ÑÐ¾ÂÐ²ÑÐµ. Ð¡Ð, XXIII, 1955, p. 98; Ð. Ð. Ð¢ÐµÑÐµÐ½Ð¾Ð¶ÐºÐ¸Ð½. ÐÑÐ°ÑÐ¾Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ð° ÑÐ»Ð°Ð²ÑÐ½ Ð¸ Ð»ÑÐ¶Ð¸ÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÑÐ° ÐÐ¡ÐÐ Ð²ÑÐ¿. II, ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1961.
87 Ð". Ð. ÐÐ°ÑÐ¸Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð Ñ ÑÐ¾Ð½Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸ Ð½ÐµÐºÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÑÑ ÑÐ¸Ð¿Ð¾Ð² Ð²ÐµÑÐµÐ¹, Ð´Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÑÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¿Ð°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ Ð·Ð°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÑÑ, Ð¿Ð°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ ÑÐ¸Ð¿Ð° ÐÐ¾ÑÐ½ÐµÑÑÐ¸-ÐÑÐºÐ°ÑÐµÐ²ÐºÐ° Ð¸ ÑÑ Ð¾Ð´Ð½ÑÐµ Ñ Ð½Ð¸Ð¼Ð¸. ÐÐ¡ÐÐ, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 94, 1963, pp. 20-28; Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÑÐ°, p. 52.
88 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ½ÑÐ¸ÑÐ½ÑÐ¹ Ð¸Ð¼Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑ Ð½Ð° Ð¡ÐµÂÑÐµÐ´Ð½ÑÐ¾Ð¼Ñ ÐÑÐ¸Ð´Ð½ÑÐ¿ÑÐ¾Ð²Ñ Ð² Ð·Ð°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ ÑÐ°Ñ. Â«ÐÑÑ ÐµÐ¾ÂÐ»Ð¾Ð³ÑÑÂ», Ñ. XV, ÐÐ¸ÑÐ², 1963, pp. 115-120.
89 Ð¡ÑÐ´Ñ Ð¿Ð¾ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð½Ð¸Ð¼ ÑÐ°Ð±Ð¾ÑÐ°Ð¼ Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð²Ð°, Ð¾Ð½ Ð½Ðµ Ð¿ÑÐ¸Ð±ÐµÐ³Ð°ÐµÑ Ð±Ð¾Ð»ÑÑÐµ Ðº Ð¸ÑÐ¿Ð¾Ð»ÑÐ·Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑÑÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¼ÐµÂÑÐ¾Ð´Ð° Ð¸ Ð½Ðµ Ð´Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÑÐµÑ Ð·Ð°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ Ð¿Ð°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸ II Ð². Ð½. Ñ. Ð¡Ð¼.: Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¡ÑÐµÐ´Ð½ÐµÂÐ³Ð¾ ÐÑÐ¸Ð´Ð½ÐµÐ¿ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÑ Ð½Ð° ÑÑÐ±ÐµÐ¶Ðµ Ð½Ð°ÑÐµÐ¹ ÑÑÑ. ÐÐ²ÑÐ¾ÑÐµÑÐµÑÐ°Ñ Ð´Ð¸ÑÑÐµÑÑÐ°ÑÐ¸Ð¸ Ð½Ð° ÑÐ¾Ð¸ÑÐºÐ°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ ÑÑÐµÐ½Ð¾Ð¹ ÑÑÐµÐ¿ÐµÐ½Ð¸ ÐºÐ°Ð½Ð´Ð¸Ð´Ð°ÑÐ° Ð¸ÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸ÑÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑÐº. ÐÐ¸ÐµÐ², 1968, p. 15.
90 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾, Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð°Ð¼Ð¾Ð¹Ð»Ð¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 14, 15.
91 Ð'. Ð'. ÐÑÐ¾Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐºÐ¸Ð½. ÐÐ»Ð°Ð´Ñ ÑÐ¸Ð¼ÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð¼Ð¾Ð½ÐµÑ Ð½Ð° ÑÐµÑÑÐ¸ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ð¸ Ð¡Ð¡Ð¡Ð . Ð¡ÐÐ Ð"4-4, 1961, p. 61.
92 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾, Ð. Ð. Ð¡Ð°Ð¼Ð¾Ð¹Ð»Ð¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 15.
93 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº..., fig. 7, 1, 4, 6; 6, 6, 12, 13, 15.
94 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 44.
95 Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ½ÑÐ¸ÑÐ½ÑÐ¹ Ð¸Ð¼Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑ..., fig. 4, 1.
96 Ð. Ð Ã¡rduÑz, DenkmÃ¤ler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns, I, Â«Archaeologia HungaricaÂ», XXV, 1941, p. 71.
97 E. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº.., fig. 6, 12.
98 R. HÐ°Ñhmann, Die Chronologie der jÃ¼ngeÂren vorrÃ¶mschen Eisenzeit. Studien zum Stand der Forschung im nÃ¶rdlichen Mitteleuropa und in SkanÂdinavien, Â«41. Bericht der RÃ¶misch-Germanische KomÂmissionÂ», 1960, p. 84, 85, 101, 177, 239; Taf. 7, 4.
99 E. Ð'. ÐÐ°ÐºÑÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð². ÐÐ°Ð¼ÑÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº..., p. 38.
100 Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÂÑÐ°, p. 52; Ð". Ð. ÐÐ°ÑÐ¸Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð§ÑÐ¾ ÑÐ°ÐºÐ¾Ðµ ÐºÐ¾ÑÑÐµÐ²Ð°ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº? Ð¢ÐµÐ·Ð¸ÑÑ Ð´Ð¾ÐºÐ»Ð°Ð´Ð° Ð½Ð° Ð·Ð°ÑÐµÐ´Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ð¸ ÑÐµÐºÑÐ¾ÑÐ° ÑÐ»Ð°Ð²ÑÐ½Ð¾-ÑÑÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð°ÑÑ ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸ ÐÐÐÐ Ð¾Ñ 25 Ð¼Ð°ÑÂÑÐ° 1964 Ð³.
101 Ð'. Ð'. XÐ²Ð¾Ð¹ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ¾Ð»Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð³ÑÐµÐ±ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð¹ Ð² Ð¡ÑÐµÐ´Ð½ÐµÐ¼ ÐÐ¾Ð´Ð½ÐµÐ¿ÑÐ¾Ð²ÑÐµ. ÐÐ ÐÐ, Ñ. XII, Ð²ÑÐ¿. 1-2, 1901, pp. 182-190.
102 Ð'. Ð. ÐÐµÑÑÐ¾Ð². ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð»ÑÐ½Ð¸Ðº. ÐÐÐ, 70, 1959, p. 44, fig. 3, 11.
103 Ð'. Ð. Ð"Ð¾Ð²Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¾Ðº, Ð. Ð'. ÐÐ¸Ð½ÐºÐ°. ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸ÂÐ½ÐµÑÐºÐ¾Ðµ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð½Ð° ÐÐ¸Ð»Ð¸Ð¿ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð¾Ð¹ Ð³Ð¾ÑÐµ Ð±Ð»Ð¸Ð· Ð³ ÐÐ°ÂÐ½ÐµÐ²Ð°. ÐÐÐ, 70, 1959, fig. 2, 4.
104 R. HÐ°Ñhmann, op. cit., p. 244, 245, 258, Taf. 1.
105 J. Filip, KeltovÃ© ve StÅedni EuropÄ, Praha, 1956, str. 113, 114, 484.
106 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±poÐ·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 22, 23.
107 Ð". Ð. ÐÐ°ÑÐ¸Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹. Ð Ñ ÑÐ¾Ð½Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸..., p. 27.
108 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 24.
109 Id., p. 25.
110 Ð'. Ð. ÐÐµÑÑÐ¾Ð². Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., fig. 8, 4, 5.
111 Ð®. Ð'. ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾. ÐÐ°ÑÑÐ±Ð¸Ð½ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÑÐ»ÑÑÑÂÑÐ°, p. 53.
112 G. Ulbert, Die rÃ¶mischen Donau-Kastelle Aislingen und BÃ¼rghofe, Berlin, 1959, p. 66; G. Kossack, FrÃ¼he rÃ¶mische Fibeln aus dem Alpen Vorland und ihre chronologische Bedeutung fÃ¼r die gerÂmanischen KulturverhÃ¤ltnisse, Â«Aus Bayerns FrÃ¼hzeit. Festschrift Fr. WagnerÂ», MÃ¼nchen, 1962; C. 125-137.
113 Ð. Ð. ÐÐ¼Ð±ÑÐ¾Ð·. Ð£Ðº. ÑÐ¾Ñ., p. 36.
114 Ð. Ð. Ð¢ÑÐµÑÑÑÐºÐ¾Ð². Ð¤Ð¸Ð½Ð½Ð¾-ÑÐ³ÑÑ, Ð±Ð°Ð»ÑÑ Ð¸ ÑÐ»Ð°Ð²ÑÐ½Ðµ Ð½Ð° Ð"Ð½ÐµÐ¿ÑÐµ Ð¸ Ð'Ð¾Ð»Ð³Ðµ. Ð.-Ð., 1966, p. 224.