| Abstract [eng] |
It is not a great number, having in mind that it was created the whole typology which has been used by almost all Europe for a long time. Some of the groups / types distinguished by the author, to my mind, are not numerous to be distinguished into a type or even a group. In 1986 M. Michelbertas in his study "The Old Iron Age in Lithuania" on the basis of Ch. Beckmann typology, grouped the Old Iron Age rings existing in Lithuanian archeological material. Archeologist, In my opinion the most appropriate typology of the rings from "the Old Iron Age" would be as follows: I group - spiral rings (1. with a widened middle curl; 2. plain spiral rings) II group - sash rings (1. closed; 2. open) III group - rings with overlapping terminals. There is a deep typological gap here - some archeologists distinguish 1.3 curl rings, others consider the same rings as overlapping terminals. The rings in this work are represented the way archeologists entitled them earlier, though in the future I think there should be determined "overlapping" boundaries. There are also might be some troubles speaking about typological differences between open sash rings and overlapping terminal rings. It happens that terminals of the open sash ring overlap too but here there is a small difference, in case of the rings with overlapping terminals their terminals don't make horizontal line overlapping - most often they are above each other. IV group - rings with unconverged terminals. This term is created by archeologists to name the rings from Palanga or Rudaiciai. They could be classified as open sash rings but I haven't done it this time as there should be a common agreement among all the archeologists. V grpoup - signet rings. Not many of them are found in The Old Iron Age burial grounds and they are not so typical as distinguished by Ch. Beckmann. VI group - cruciform rings. The term suggested by M. Michelbertas is used to describe rings decorated by five circles in the front part... |
