EARLY MIGR ATION PERIOD GLASSWARE IN CHERNYAKHIV CULTURE Networks of Distribution

The article aims to investigate the impact of the Migration Period processes on the intensity of interactions between the Romans and barbarians. Specifically, our focus is on the circulation of glassware during the Late Roman to Early Migration Period within the Chernyakhiv culture. The part of the glass goods under investigation is believed to be Ro - man imports, which makes them a valuable resource for studying Roman – barbarian contacts. To accomplish this, we tried to reconstruct the supply system of two Chernyakhiv sites for glass goods using a dataset of 79 glass items from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka burial grounds in Eastern and Central Ukraine. The conducted analysis demonstrates certain transformations in the structure of glass assemblages from both sites occurred at the beginning of the Migration Period. However, the nature of these changes suggests that the Hunnic invasion did not destroy pre-existing economic connections. Instead, the ‘turbulent epoch’ led to new Roman – barbarian contacts and a large influx of Roman imports, including glass goods, to the region of Chernyakhiv culture.


INT RODUCTION
The date traditionally recognized as the beginning of the Migration Period is 375 CE -the year of the arrival of the Huns in Eastern Europe.A specific time of the Hunnic invasion, as well as its destructive power, is known due to the descriptions left by various antique authors (Wołoszyn 2020).A series of these catastrophic events is traditionally considered to have led to the gradual collapse of the Chernyakhiv culture1 , associated with the tribal alliance under the leadership of Goths (Bierbrauer 1995, 39;Kazanskiy 2011;Magomedov 2001, 144;Pinar Gil/Jiřík/Vávra 2019, 415;Shchukin 2005, 251, 252, 254;Tejral 1986, 190;1992, 241).However, the concept in question lacks sufficient support from archaeological evidence, as demonstrated by recent studies (Lyubichev/Myzgin 2020; Petrauskas 2021, 25, 26).During the Early Migration Period2 , life persisted at numerous Chernyakhiv sites.Furthermore, the wide distribution of ceramic and glass imports within the Chernyakhiv area indicates that interactions between the Romans and barbarians did not cease even after the Hunnic invasion commenced.
Our research aims to examine the circulation pattern of glassware in the Chernyakhiv culture in order to understand how the Hunnic invasion and other migration processes of this period reflected upon the sustainability of its distribution networks.The analysis will focus on the supply system of two Chernyakhiv sites (Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka burial grounds) for glass goods.

THE SITES
The Viitenki burial ground (Bohodukhivskyi district, Kharkiv region) is part of the archaeological complex of the same name, which is situated in Eastern Ukraine, approximately 50 km west of Kharkiv (Fig. 1: 1), in a valley with a small watercourse, which today is a pond.Since 2004, it has been excavated by the Germanic-Slavonic Archaeological Expedition of the Vasil Karazin Kharkiv National University, under the heading of Mikhail Lyubichev, in cooperation with the Eurasia Department of the German Archaeological Institute.The archaeological complex consists of synchronous settlement and burial ground.Both sites related to the 'classic Chernyakhiv culture' horizon, associated with C3 -D1 stages.However, earlier materials dated to C1b -C2 stages are also known in Viitenky (Lyubichev 2019, 95 -99).The burial ground occupies the southeastern slope of the valley and is located a little above the settlement (Fig. 2: A).From 2005 to 2020, at this site, 261 burials have been excavated, including inhumations and cremations. 3he Velyka Buhaivka burial ground (Obukhivskyi district, Kyiv region) is situated in Central Ukraine, approximately 20 km southwest of Kyiv (Fig. 1: 2).It occupies the eastern slope of the valley with a small watercourse, which flows into the Stugna -one of the right tributaries of the Dnipro River.The burial ground covers part of the synchronous settlement located on both slopes of the valley (Fig. 2: B).It had been excavated by a joint expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences and Drahomanov National Pedagogical University, under the heading of O. Petrauskas andR. Shyshkin, during 1994 -2005.Within ten years of investigation, 156 Chernyakhiv burials were discovered at the site, including inhumations and cremations.Most of them are attributed to С3 -D1 stages, although earlier finds are also known here (Petrauskas 2018, 22 -24;Petrauskas/Shyshkin 2013, 5 -16).

METHODS AND APPROACHES
The reconstruction of vessels' manufacturing, finishing, and decoration process is based on generally accepted information about the glassworking technology (Antonaras 2017;Fünfschilling 2015;Lazar 2003;Price/Cottam 1998) and complemented by traceological studies and electron microscopy. 4To examine traces of abrasive tools, we visually inspected the surface of the artefacts and used macro photography to capture isolated areas.The geochemical studies were conducted by O. Rumyantseva, who has partially published her findings (Rumyantseva et al. 2020;2021;Rumyantseva/Lyubichev/Trifonov 2018).
We utilized two distinct methods to quantify fragmented glass, well known as Estimated Vessel Equivalency (EVE) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI).The first was developed by H. E. M. Cool A B and M. Baxter in the 1990s.Their method is an attempt to improve EVE, previously only used for quantifying ceramic assemblages, and make it suitable for glass studies.They divided vessels into profile zones (Fig. 3: A) and decided that each zone of a particular vessel form could be given a numerical value representing an equal portion of a vessel totalling 100% if all zones are present.When looking at a fragmentary glass vessel, the tally of zones preserved is then added to produce a percentage that represents each vessel (Cool/Baxter 1996;Prior 2014, 111, 112).We have developed an analogous division into profile zones for the most common forms of Chernyakhiv glassware (Fig. 3: B).
The second method involves comparison of technological (manufacture, finishing, and decoration techniques) and morphological (profile shape, glass thickness, colour, and quality) features of the vessels to identify similar fragments that may belong to the same object (Prior 2014, 113, 114).
Most of the glass finds from Viitenki and Velyka Buhaivka are represented by fragmented artefacts that complicate their typological attribution.In this situation, the technological and morphological features of vessels, such as their manufacturing process, finishing and decoration techniques, as well as the thickness, colour, and quality of the glass, are of particular interest.The combination of different variations of these parameters in one product is not random but represents a deliberate choice of the glassblower rooted in a particular craft tradition (Cholakova 2015, 75 -77).The studying of the consistency and frequency of these combinations within the isolated glass collections could indirectly help to outline the production of particular workshops or a wider vessel manufacturing tradition of the area (Cholakova 2015, 311).These ideas align with the theoretical concept of technological style, also known as chaîne opératoire, which provides a framework for comprehending the cultural and societal significance of technology.It was introduced in the 1950s by A. Leroy-Gourhan and has been further developed in various archaeological and anthropological studies (Martinon-Torres/ Killick 2015, 7, 8).In glass studies, the concept of technological style is cultivated by A. Cholakova (2015).
To analyse the patterns of glassware distribution networks, we created an integrated classification system for the studied material, similar to the one presented by A. Cholakova (2015).A groping process is based on the morphological, technological, and geochemical features of analysed vessels.

GLASSWARE FROM VIITENKY
During sixteen years of investigation, more than 130 glass artefacts were discovered at the Viitenky burial ground.There are only five almost intact vessels.Less than a fifth part of the finds is informative objects (25 specimens). 6Uninformative items are mainly represented by deformed and melted glass shards.Analysed data includes 25 artefacts originating from burials and surrounding layers.
The entire assemblage from Viitenky presents a wide range of shapes, techniques of decoration, and glass colour tints.However, most of the shards from the burial ground belong to free-blown vessels.There are only a few exceptions made in another way (probably by casting).Vessel finishing and decoration are made by both cold-working and hot-working techniques.The first includes light abrasion and wheel-engraving with vessel's rotation or without it, rim polishing, while the second consist of applied trails -marvered or left standing in relief (made of glass of the same colour as a vessel), applied blobs of dark blue glass and fire-rounded rims.The glass hues vary from intentionally decolourised to the various tints of the natural blue-green or yellow-green colour depending on the concentration of mineral impurities in the glassmaking sands.Four main glassware groups are defined in Viitenky.

Glass groups from Viitenky
Hemispherical cups with fire-rounded rims.The group represented by seven blown artefacts (EVE -700, MNI -7), finished and decorated by hot-working techniques (Appendix A: 1 -7, Fig. 4: A).Judging from the diversity of their glass colour and quality it may be concluded that they belong to different vessels.These are hemispherical cups with convex or rare straight walls and a plain slightly concave base or applied base ring.The majority of these artefacts known within the Chernyakhiv culture are decorated with applied relief threads or pinched ribs, although undecorated samples are known too.The rim hot-finishing technique also relates to the use of pontil.
The specimens from Viitenky are made of different groups of raw materials that explain a wide range of colour variations.One of them is blown of almost colourless glass with a blue hue, which belongs to the Levantine I group (Tab.1: 3).Two artefacts that are made of transparent red and almost colourless glass with a green tint match High Iron Manganese Titanium (HIMT) group raw material (Tab.1: 1, 2).As well as one specimen has a mixed composition that contains two decolourisers (both antimony and manganese) and is closer to Levantine I group or Roman blue-green glass regarding its chemical makeup (Tab.1: 4).
Cylindrical beakers with cracked-off rims and wheelcut decoration include free-blown vessels (eight artefacts; EVE -200, MNI -2) made of transparent green (or colourless with green hue) glass with a large number of air bubbles (Appendix  A: 8 -15, Fig. 6: A).These objects have curved rims with cracked-off and polished edges.After this reworking, the edge usually has a sloping inward horizontal surface. 7Vessels are decorated with uneven slightly abraded horizontal bands and a few horizontal rows of unpolished (or polished) wheel-cut oval facets.All the analysed artefacts were made of raw glass close to the HIMT group (Tab.1: 5 -8).The majority of these characteristics are typical for tall cylindrical vessels well known as Eggers 230 type beakers (Eggers 1951). 8It should be mentioned that some other glassware forms that occurred in European Barbaricum (Eggers 223, 226 -229 type bowls) exhibit similar decoration patterns and techniques.So far, only one such intact bowl is known in the Chernyakhiv culture area, which comes from grave 100 of Velyka Buhaivka burial ground (Appendix B: 52, Fig. 15: 1). 9 However, it differs from beakers of the Eggers 230 type as well as vessels' shatters with cold decoration from Viitenky in terms of the glass colour and quality, method of the rim finishing, some special decorative techniques, and geochemical characteristics (see below).
There are two detailed typological divisions of Eggers 230 type beakers.The first system, presented by E. Straume in 1987, is based on the morphological characteristics of the vessels such as wall thickness and decoration quality (Straume 1987, 28, 29).By this principle, she divided beakers of Straume I (Eggers 230) type into two series, labelled as 'A' and 'B'.The vessels in the first series have thin walls (rim/bottom part -0.2 -0.4 cm) and slightly abraded, unpolished decoration, while the second series consists of more thick-walled (rim/bottom part -0.3 -0.6 cm) beakers decorated with deep wheel-cut polished bands and facets.Although Straume's classification mainly focuses on artefacts from Northern Europe, she uses Chernyakhiv finds 7 The described technical details are shown by illustration (Fig. 3: C). 8 Kowalk (Rau 1972) or Straume I (Straume 1987). 9Compared to 26 well-preserved beakers of the Eggers 230 type (Petrauskas 2016, 92, appendix).as a comparative material.Another typological division was proposed by O. Petrauskas (2016), based on differences in metric characteristics of the beakers (Petrauskas 2016).He noticed that his division to some extent coincides with Straume's classification.The 'large' vessels in his first typological group10 mainly have morphological features of the A series, while the beakers in the 'smaller' second group11 have features characteristic of the B series according to Straume's classification (Petrauskas 2016, 96).Cylindrical beakers of the Eggers 230 type were the most common glassware in the Chernyakhiv culture (Fig. 8: A; Gavritukhin 2011, fig.2, appendix 1), probably, because of the considerable time of their circulation within the area (Fig. 6: B).The peak of their distribution in this region, as generally accepted, was at the C3 stage (Gavritukhin 2011, 43, 45;Gorokhovskiya 1988, 44;Petrauskas 2016, 91, 97, 98;Tejral 1992, 235, fig. 5).Although, a significant number of the Eggers 230 type beakers are also known in the dated context, associated with the D1 stage.According to the observations made by O. Petrauskas, vessels from the second group have a slightly later chronological position and did not occur in the area until the middle of the 4 th c.CE (C3/D1 stage; Petrauskas 2016, 97, 98).
Thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration. 12The group comprises only three artefacts (Appendix A: 16 - 18, Fig. 7: A) undoubtedly associated with different vessels (EVE -150, MNI -3).At least one of the objects may be attributed as a beaker of the Straume IB3 variant (Straume 1987, 30).All the specimens are made of transparent green glass and decorated with deep broad straight wheel-cut bands or deep oval wheel-cut polished facets.The rim is formed by grinding.The edge is carefully polished and has a sloping inward, rounded horizontal surface.The distinctive technological feature of these beakers is a broad shallow groove observed on the vessel's interior surface just below the edge of the rim.The chemical makeup of only one of the specimens has been analysed which is close to HIMT group raw material (Tab.1: 9).
Certain specimens from the Viitenki assemblage are worth mentioning separately: a hemispherical cup resembling Straume IB3 type vessels from grave 86/2 (Appendix A: 19, Fig. 9: 1) and a tall cylindrical beaker with honeycomb facet-cut decoration from grave 117 (Appendix A: 20, Fig. 9: 2).They were discovered in burials dated to C3/D1 and D1 stages, respectively (Lyubichev 2019, 96 -99).These blown vessels have relatively thick walls, curved rims with cracked-off and carefully polished edges, and scrupulously elaborated wheel-cut polished decoration.The beaker from grave 117 also has a wide shallow groove on its interior surface just below the edge of the rim, while the cup from grave 86/2 is adorned with uneven slightly abraded bands.Considered specimens exhibit morphological and technological features similar to those known from both cylindrical beakers of Eggers 230 type and thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration (Fig. 10: II/III).
Hemispherical bowls and conical beakers with crackedoff rims (EVE -425, MNI -5).Objects quite diverse in terms of their typology and morphology were integrated under this general heading due to the specific technological characteristics separating them from other glassware discovered in Viitenky.These are vessels with curved cracked-off rims and cold decoration, which may be attributed to Isings 96/AR 60 and Isings 106a, d/AR 68 types (Appendix A: 21 -25, Fig. 11). 15The curved rim has a crackedoff and polished edge.After this reworking, the edge usually has a rounded or sloping outward horizontal surface.Most vessels are decorated with  The majority of these artefacts were discovered in burials that allow clarifying their dating.The bowls of Isings 96 type (Appendix A: 21,22,Fig. 11: 4,5), including one decorated with applied blue blobs, were unearthed in context, dated to D1 stage (Lyubichev 2019, 97 -99;Shchepachenko 2022, 126).It is worth noting that, the so-called Nuppengläser became the most popular in Chernyakhiv culture with the beginning of the Migration Period (Gavritukhin 2017, 101 -103;Petrauskas 2021, 21).The conical beakers (Appendix A: 23, 25, Fig. 11: 1, 2) also come from contexts related to the D1 stage ( Lyubichev 2019, 97 -99; Shchepachenko 2022, 126).

GLASSWARE FROM VELYK A BUHAI VK A
More than 160 glass artefacts were excavated at Velyka Buhaivka burial ground.Less than a third of the items are identifiable and informative objects (54 specimens) that represent the analysed database.The studied material originates from burials as well as the surrounding layers.
It is worth noting that the local finds demonstrate worse preservation than glassware from Viitenky.Most of these artefacts are broken into small pieces or burnt and melted.This fact probably explains

Groups from Velyka Buhaivka
Hemispherical cups with fire-rounded rims, which in relatively large quantities have been detected in previously analysed assemblage, are also present in Velyka Buhaivka (Appendix B: 1, 2, Fig. 4: B).This group was discussed in much more detail above.Only two samples are known from this assemblage (EVE -200, MNI -2), one of which was uncovered in burial dated to the C3 stage (Petrauskas 2017, pl. VII).Similar to vessels from Viitenky, local artefacts are blown of glass diverse in colour and quality.Unfortunately, the chemical makeup of none of these objects has been analysed so far.
Cylindrical beakers with cracked-off rims and wheelcut decoration attested in Viitenky are well represented in Velyka Buhaivka glass assemblage (Appendix B: 3 -17, Fig. 12: A).At least 15 artefacts of this kind come from the site (EVE -350, MNI -3).Local objects are homogeneous in terms of morphological characteristics (glass colour and quality, finishing and decoration techniques, ornamental design) and virtually identical to the beakers of Eggers 230 type discussed above.The chemical composition of only three of these items was analysed which is close to HIMT group raw glass (Tab.1: 12 -14).
There is also a subgroup (EVE -400, MNI -4) of artefacts among glassware from Velyka Buhaivka, which are similar to considered beakers referring to their manufacture and decoration methods as well as chemical makeup (Appendix B: 18 -25, Fig. 12: B).These are blown vessels made of transparent green (or colourless with green tint) glass and decorated predominantly with narrow oval wheel-cut facets.Their typological attribution is complicated due to poor preservation and the absence of any recognisable constructive details.In addition, none of them was uncovered in a dated context.The chemical composition of the two analysed specimens is similar to HIMT group raw material (Tab. 1: 15,16).
Thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration are slightly more numerous in Velyka Buhaivka than in Viitenky (Appendix B: 26 -36, Fig. 7: B).The group consists of 11 artefacts belonging at least to four different vessels (EVE -400, MNI -4).The chemical composition of the two specimens was analysed.The first is made of colourless glass with a strong green tint decolourised with antimony while the second specimen, decolourised with manganese, is similar to Daniel Foy's series 3.2 and has a lighter green hue (Tab.1: 17, 18).One of the artefacts comes from burial related to the D1 stage (Petrauskas/Shyshkin 2013, 16).
Thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and deep relief cut decoration include five artefacts (Appendix B: 37 -41, Fig. 13A: 1 -4) made of almost colourless glass with a light green tint associated at least with two different vessels (EVE -200, MNI -2).They may be recognized as Eggers 238 (or Straume VIII) type beakers.The distinctive characteristic of these objects is a unique ornamental design, which combines deep straight wheel-cut bands, engraved inscriptions, 16 and large deep relief cut medallions.The rim is formed by grinding, the edge is carefully polished, and has a rounded or sloping inward horizontal surface.Some of their morphological features, such as massive thick walls and rim finishing technique, arrange them closer to vessels manufactured in a non-blown way.Three analysed specimens are made of glass decolourised with antimony similar to D. Foy's group 4 (Tab.1: 19 -21).
Thick-walled vessels covered with a layer of coloured glass.The group comprises eight bad-preserved wall fragments (Appendix B: 42 -49, Fig. 13A: 5 -12) belonging at the minimum three different vessels (EVE -150, MNI -3).As their designation indicates, these objects are covered with a thin layer of opaque dark blue (otherwise light blue) glass, while a thicker basic layer is made of transparent green or almost colourless material with a green tint.They are also decorated with deep straight wheel-cut bands and oval wheel-cut facets.Two of the analysed specimens are made of virtually colourless transparent glass decolourised with antimony, similar to D. Foy's group 4 (Tab.1: 25, 26), and covered with a layer of coloured material with the same chemical makeup.This point indicates that the glass used for overlay decoration was coloured at the same place where these finished vessels had been produced (Rumyantseva et al. 2020, 327, 328, 335 -337).Three more artefacts are made of raw glass decolourised with manganese, similar to D. Foy's group 3.2 (Tab.1: 22 -24).The geochemical characteristics of their basic glass layer differ from those of glass used for overlay decoration, suggesting different imported sources of both coloured and decolourised raw materials (Rumyantseva et al. 2020, 327, 328, 337, 338).
Vessels with glass overlay are represented in the Chernyakhiv culture by a limited number of finds (Fig. 14: B).Predominantly, these are thick-walled artefacts decorated with deep straight wheel-cut bands, cut polished facets17 , and engraved inscriptions 18 .Only one of such vessels is known from a dated context (Tocileni, grave 21/RO), related to the D1 stage (Gomolka-Fuchs 1999, 137, 139, fig. 7: 1).Vessels covered with a layer of coloured glass occur in Central and Northern Europe, where they are associated mainly with the end of the Late Roman and Migration Period (Gavritukhin 2007, 13, 14;Stawiarska 1999, 156 -158;Stjernquist 2004, 119,

OR IGIN OF GLASSWARE GROUPS
Our recent studies demonstrate that at the end of the late Roman time (stage C3) the Cherniakhiv glass cups with fire-rounded rims were an original typological group of vessels, which had no simultaneous analogues outside their distribution area (Shchepachenko 2023).Considering the typological specificity and chronology of the Chernyakhiv finds, along with the lack of similar products from synchronous glassmaking centres of neighbouring Roman provinces, it is possible to assume that the place of their probable origin was the Komariv workshop.The glass cups with fire-rounded rims are recognised as one of the items produced in this workshop (Rumyantseva/Belikov 2017, 260;Shchapova 1978, 238, 239).It is worth noting that the geochemical composition of some Chernyakhiv cups with fire-rounded rims shows similarity to the raw materials and glass processing wastes from Komarov, which is further evidence in favour of this hypothesis (Shchepachenko 2023, 110, tab.1).
It is equally essential to focus on some observations that may indicate the common origin of the vessels representing the second and third glassware groups from Viitenky as well as the second, third, fourth, and fifth groups from Velyka Bukhaiivka.
The second one is a technological similarity between thick-walled vessels with various cut motifs, including artefacts with a glass overlay, which has been repeatedly stressed by different scholars (Gavritukhin 2017, 95;Näsman 1984, 144, 145;Stjernquist 2004, 121 -126).Indeed, shared morphological features like massive thick walls, the same individual elements of ornamental design, and analogous finishing and decoration techniques of Straume IB3, VII -IX types beakers are reasonable arguments to support this assumption.A network graph of technological similarity between glassware groups from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka clearly demonstrates this interrelation (Fig. 10: III, V, VI).The graph as well suggests a connection between Eggers 230 type beakers and thick-walled vessels with cold decoration (types Straume IB3, VII -IX).This assumption is further reinforced by extraordinary glass artefacts from Viitenki, which exhibit morphological and technological features characteristic of both these vessel groups (Fig. 9).
In addition, a few artefacts, which combine decorative motifs of vessels related to different glassware types considered above, are known in Barbaricum.For example, a glass beaker from Ranzheve/UA (Fig. 13B: 1) close to Straume VIII type vessels with engraved inscription is adorned with a 'honeycomb' facet-cut design typical for Straume VIIA artefacts.Beakers from Himlingøje/DK (Fig. 13B: 2) and Tu/ NO (Fig. 13B: 3) are embellished with a glass overlay that is exceptional for vessels attributed by Eldrid Straume to the IB3 variant and type VIII.
All the facts provide plausible evidence for the hypothesis about the existence of a single technological tradition in the manufacture of vessels with different kinds of cold decoration, known as Eggers 230, 237, 238 or Straume I, IB3, VII -IX types.
In contrast to the abovementioned glassware groups, hemispherical bowls and conical beakers with cracked-off rims are not so numerous in Chernyakhiv culture (Fig. 14: A) as well as rare beyond this area in Barbaricum (Gavritukhin 2017, 101 -103).Their distribution pattern predominantly encompasses Roman provinces (Barkóczi 1988, 82 -84;Fünfschilling 2015, 347;Isings 1957, 126 -131) that suggest their Roman origin.Individual differences in the glass colour and quality of these vessels perhaps point out the various centres of their manufacturing within the Empire.

CONCLUSIONS
Investigation of glassware from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka burial grounds allows us to draw some conclusions concerning their chronology and the supply system of the sites for glass goods.The types of glass vessels discovered here occurred within the Chernyakhiv culture during the period restricted by C3 -D1 stages and can be divided into several chronological groups (Fig. 16). 21Glassware associated with the C3 stage is represented mainly by hemispherical cups with fire-rounded rims and Eggers 230 type beakers.At C3/D1 stage, both assemblages demonstrate the presence of Eggers 230 type beakers.In addition, glass cups with fire-rounded rims and a beaker of Straume IB3 variant are noted from this period in Viitenky, and a hemispherical bowl of Isings 96 type comes from Velyka Buhaivka.Glassware groups related to the D1 stage from both Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka mainly consist of Eggers 230 type artefacts, thickwalled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheelcut decoration, and hemispherical bowls of Isings 96 type decorated with applied blue blobs as well as conical beakers of Isings 106a, d type.Furthermore, the assemblage from Velyka Buhaivka also comprises vessels of Eggers 238 type and thick-walled glassware covered with a layer of coloured glass.
Corresponding to our calculations, the glassware collections from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka include no less than 19 and 22 different vessels, respectively.It is worth noting that more than half of these objects are associated with the D1 stage (Fig. 16). 22It is also important that the greatest variety of vessel shapes and decorations are attested for local collections at the beginning of the Migration Period.
The geography of the origin of glassware discovered in Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka is quite diverse.However, only a small group of these artefacts may be confidently associated with Roman imports (Appendix A: 21 -25; B: 50 -54, Fig. 11; 15).They are relatively heterogeneous, referring to their morphology and typology, which probably points to different production centres of these vessels within the Roman provinces.
Most of the local artefacts lack direct equivalents among the typical forms of Roman glassware, suggesting a non-Roman origin.Under this term, we consider the possibility of glassware production in Barbaricum, which can be associated with two technological traditions.The first one probably passed the way of evolution from Eggers 230 type beakers at the C3 stage to different kinds of thickwalled vessels with cut decoration (Straume IB3, VII, VIII and IX types) and glass overlay at the end of the D1 stage.The morphological and technologi- 21 The artefacts discovered outside the burials are dated according to the chronology of their analogues.Cylindrical beakers of the Eggers 230 type, known within the Chernyakhiv culture in equal numbers from dated context, related to C3, C3/D1, and D1 stages, are counted three times according to their chronology.Vessels that exhibit morphological and technological features similar to those known from both cylindrical beakers of Eggers 230 type and thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration from Viitenky are counted twice as belonging to both these groups.A subgroup of items close to Eggers 230 type beakers from Velyka Buhaivka is not considered due to their uncertain typological and chronological position. 22A subgroup of items close to Eggers 230 type beakers from Velyka Buhaivka is not considered due to their uncertain typological and chronological position.cal similarity of these glassware groups (Fig. 10: II, II/III, III, V, VI) and the same distribution patterns of these vessels in Barbaricum are the main arguments to support this assumption.A certain place of their manufacturing is still unknown however an enormous number of the finds should suppose the presence of more than one production centre of these objects and, possibly, may indicate the commercial nature of their circulation.The origin of the second technological group, hemispherical cups with fire-rounded rims, presumably may be associated with the Komariv glass workshop.
Certain transformations in the structure of glass assemblages from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka occurred at the beginning of the Migration Period.First, there is a significant increase in the number of vessels, including glassware of Roman origin, compared with previous chronological periods.At the same time, economic connections between local societies and production centres following the non-Roman technological tradition, which was represented during the Late Roman Period by the widespread distribution of Eggers 230 type beakers, continued into the Early Migration Period, as evidenced by the spread of thick-walled vessels with cut decoration.However, objects related to the production of the Komariv glass workshop and dated to the D1 stage are absent in both collections.
Although the study of assemblages from only two sites doesn't provide enough information to draw any undoubtable conclusions, we can assume that the beginning of the Migration Period didn't destroy the pre-existing economic connections.Moreover, it seems that the 'turbulent epoch' contributed to the new Roman -barbarian contacts and provided a massive inflow of Roman imports, including glass goods, to the area of the Chernyakhiv culture.smooth and shiny surface; transparent, almost colourless glass mass with a strong green tint contains isolated air bubbles; decorated with two deep oval wheel-cut unpolished facets; wall thickness -0.37 cm.Fig. 12A: 14. 5. Glass vessel (cultural layer) -a body part fragment, melted and deformed; creased and matt surface; transparent, green glass mass; decorated with two deep oval wheel-cut polished facets; wall thickness -0.27 -0.3 cm. 6. Glass vessel (cultural layer) -a rim shard, melted and deformed; smooth and shiny surface; transparent, yellow-green glass mass contains isolated air bubbles; curved rim, edge cracked-off and polished, has sloping inward horizontal surface; decorated with a narrow uneven abraded band; wall thickness -0.18 -0.2 cm.Fig. 12A: 3. 7. Glass vessel (cultural layer) -a body part fragment, melted and deformed; smooth and shiny surface, partly creased and matt; transparent, green glass mass contains numerous air bubbles; decorated with three deep oval wheel-cut unpolished facets arranged in two rows; wall thickness -0.3 cm.Fig. 12A: 11. 8. Glass vessel (cultural layer) -a rim shard; transparent, colourless glass mass with a green tint; curved rim, edge cracked-off and polished, has sloping inward horizontal surface; decorated with two wide deep straight wheel-cut bands; wall thickness -0.3 cm.Fig. 12A:

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3.The division of glass vessels into profile zones.A -division according to Cool/Baxter 1996; B -our adaptation proposed for the main forms of the Chernyakhiv glassware; C -the cold-finished edge of the cracked-off rim and its structural details 5 ; a -horizontal surface; b -vertical interior and exterior surfaces; c -lips; d -a sign that marks the polished surface.Drawings A -after Cool/Baxter 1996, B -after Petrauskas 2016; Vornic/Ciobanu 2010; by author, C -by author.

Fig. 9 .
Fig. 9. Vessels from Viitenky.It exhibits morphological and technological features similar to those known from both cylindrical beakers of Eggers 230 type and thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration.Drawings by author.

Fig. 10 .
Fig. 10.Network representing technological similarity between various glassware groups from Viitenky and Velyka Buhaivka.I -hemispherical cups with fire-rounded rims; II -cylindrical beakers with cracked-off rims and wheel-cut decoration (Eggers 230 or Straume I type); III -thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration (Straume IB3, VII and IX types); IV -hemispherical bowls and conical beakers with cracked-off rims (Isings 96/AR 60 and Isings 106a, d/AR 68 types); V -thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and deep relief cut decoration (Eggers 238 or Straume VIII type); VI -thick-walled vessels covered with a layer of coloured glass; II/III -vessels that exhibit morphological and technological features similar to those known from both cylindrical beakers of Eggers 230 type and thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration. 1 -manufacturing method; 2 -rim finishing technique; 3 -a reworking of the edge of the rim; 4 -a broad, shallow groove observed on the vessel's interior surface just below the edge of the rim; 5 -uneven slightly abraded horizontal bands; 6 -deep, broad straight wheel-cut bands, made with vessel's rotation; 7 -deep oval wheel-cut polished facets; 8 -unpolished wheel-cut oval facets.Drawings of vessels after Petrauskas 2016; Straume 1987 and by the author.Network diagram by the author.

Fig. 16 .
Fig. 16.The supplying model of the burial grounds for glassware during the C3 -D1 stages.A -Viitenky; B -Velyka Buhaivka.Legend: a -hemispherical cups with firerounded rims; b -cylindrical beakers with cracked-off rims and wheel-cut decoration; c -thick-walled beakers with cold-finished rims and wheel-cut decoration; d -thickwalled beakers with cold-finished rims and deep relief cut decoration; e -thick-walled vessels covered with layer of coloured glass; f -hemispherical bowls and conical beakers with cracked-off rims.