O fibulă cu sfere de la Poienești și orizontul La Tène C1 extracarpatic / A fibula with globules (Gebhard 14 type) from Poieneşti and the extra-Carpathian La Tène C1 horizon

Without forming a well‑defined regional group, the relatively synchronous “Celtic” extracarpathian discoveries (LT C1) form a distinct horizon. For the name of this horizon, one could appeal to the funerary discoveries from Glăvănești (in Moldova) and Telești (in Oltenia). The Glăvănești‑Telești horizon is subsequent to the “Getic” horizon of the Thracian fibulae (Zimnicea‑Peretu group) which, in turn, can be synchronized for the time being only to the early La Tène (LT B1– B2). In addition to the chronological justification, the succession of these “horizons” also has a cultural one. The magnificent inventories such as those from Agighiol, Peretu et al. reflects stable “northern Thracian” power structures that could not coexist at the Lower Danube with power structures of intra‑Carpathian (“Celtic”) origin, e. g. the tomb from Telești. In other words, funerary contexts, such as those at Telești or Mezek, could not be established in the Lower Danube region until, more likely, after the decline of North Thracian power structures. In turn, the Central European cultural patterns mediated by the “Celtic” power structures lost their vigour, expressiveness and consistency at the Lower Danube with the formation of the Poienești‑Lucașeuca group. The Gebhard 14 type fibula with spheres from Poienești‑Măgură and the two Werner XIV type horse‑bits discovered in the same site can be perceived as exponents of the extra‑Carpathian “Celtic” horizon. By analogy with the fibulae from Wederath (tomb 96) and Kălnovo (tomb 3), the one from Poienești could be dated in the first half of the middle La Tène (maybe even during the LT– C1b sub‑phase !). The earliest necropolis of the Poienești‑Lucașeuca group (respectively, the one from Poienești) could not be organized until after the dissolution of the extra‑Carpathian “Celtic” horizon. The present contribution is not intended to resolve issues related to the precise periodization and absolute dating of the transition between the two successive extra‑Carpathian horizons, “Celtic” (Glăvănești‑Telești) and “Bastarnian” (Poienești‑Lucașeuca). However, the beginnings of the latter horizon cannot be adequately determined without the plenary debate on the end of the former.