MUZEUL JUDEŢEAN DE ISTORIE ȘI ARTĂ ZALĂU ACTA MVSEI POROLISSENSIS XXXVII Arheologie – restaurare – Conservare ZALĂU 2015 EDITOR ȘEF: Dr. Corina BEJINARIU COLEGIUL DE REDACȚIE Dr. Horea POP – redactor şef Dr. Ioan BEJINARIU – redactor responsabil Dr. Dan BĂCUEŢ CRIŞAN – secretar de redacţie Dr. Marin POP – responsabil de număr Dr. Sanda BĂCUEŢ CRIŞAN – membru Dr. Camelia BURGHELE – membru Dr. Emanoil PRIPON – membru COLEGIUL EDITORIAL Dr. Gheorghe LAZAROVICI, Universitatea Etimie Murgu, Caransebeș, România Dr. Tiberius BADER, Hemmingen, Baden-Wurtemberg, Germania Conf. univ. dr. Gelu FLOREA – Departament Istorie Antică și Arheologie, Facultatea de Istorie și Filosoie, Universitatea „Babeș Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca (România) Cercet. șt. I dr. Coriolan H. OPREANU – Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei (Academia Română), Cluj-Napoca, România Cercet. șt. II dr. Ioan STANCIU – Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei (Academia Română), Cluj-Napoca, România Prof. univ. dr. Sorin MITU – Facultatea de Istorie și Filosoie, Universitatea „Babeș Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca, România Prof. univ. dr. Adrian IVAN – Facultatea de Istorie și Filosoie, Universitatea „Babeș Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca, România Drd. Dan Octavian PAUL, Muzeul Banatului, Timișoara, România Responsabilitatea pentru conţinutul ştiinţiic al articolelor, pentru formulări şi calitatea rezumatelor în limbă străină revine în întregime autorilor. ACTA MVSEI POROLISSENSIS Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă Zalău Orice corespondenţă referitoare la publicaţie va i trimisă pe adresa: MUZEUL JUDEŢEAN DE ISTORIE ȘI ARTĂ ZALĂU, RO–450042 Zalău. Str. Unirii, nr. 9 Tel.: 004-0260–612223, fax: 004-0260–661706 e-mail: muzeul.zalau@gmail.com Toute correspondance sera envoyée à l’adresse: MUZEUL JUDETEAN DE ISTORIE SI ARTA ZALAU, RO–450042 Zalău. Str. Unirii, nr. 9 Tel.: 004-0260–612223, fax: 004-0260–661706 e-mail: muzeul.zalau@gmail.com © EDITUA POROLISSUM A MUZEULUI JUDEŢEAN ISSN 1016–2801 Tipar: S.C. MEGA PRINT S.R.L. CLUJ-NAPOCA CUPRINS – SUMMARY – RÉSUMÉ NEOLITIC An incised fragment of the Early Neolithic from Miercurea Sibiului – Valea Gârbovei ......................................................................................................................... 9 COSMIN IOAN SUCIU Rit si ritual funerar la Port „Corău”. Cercetările anilor 2002–2012 ..................17 SANDA BĂCUEŢ CRIȘAN Etape ale prelucrării uneltelor din piatră șlefuită în situl de la Porț„Corău” ...................................................................................................................................... 39 MIH AI DUNCA Fa ses of polished stone tools manufacturing at Porț-“Corău” site Faunal remains identified in site of Fruntișeni (Vaslui District) belonging to Stoicani-Aldeni cultural aspect. Field mission 2013 ........................................... 53 MARI ANA PROCIUC, VL AD CODRE A EPOCA METALELOR Despre un vas ceramic preistoric descoperit pe “Măgura Șimleului” (Șimleu Silvaniei, jud. Săla j) ............................................................................................................. 63 IOAN BEJINAR IU About a prehistoric ceramic v essel discov ered from “Măgura Șimleului” (Șimleu Silvaniei, Săla j count y) O NOUĂ AŞEZARE APARŢINÂND BRONZULUI TÂR ZIU DIN SUD-VESTUL TRANSILVANIEI .. 73 PETRE COLȚE ANU, ALE X ANDRU BĂRBAT A NEW SETTLEMENT BELONGING TO THE LATE BRONZE AGE FROM SOUTH-WEST OF TRANSYLVANIA DATE ON ANIMAL BONES FROM THE HALLSTATTIAN FORTIFICATION AT ŞIMLEU SILVANIEI – OBSERVATOR (SĂLA J COUNTY) .......................................................................... 101 GEORGETA EL SUSI Reconstrucția unui scut din epoca dacică. Considerații de ordin istoric, tactic și structural ........................................................................................................... 115 BOR ANGIC CĂTĂLIN, MARCU MARIUS, BARBU MARIUS CONTRIBUȚII LA REPERTORIEREA DESCOPERIRILOR ARHEOLOGICE DIN JUDEȚUL SĂLA J: CEȘTILE DACICE ........................................................................................................... 171 DOINA LUPU O PIESĂ DE ARMAMENT PROVENIND DE LA ARDEU ............................................................. 181 IOSIF VA SILE FERENCZ , IONU Ţ MIHAI DE ALMAR SOCOL A weapon discov ered in Ardeu EPOCA ROMA NĂ STUDIA POROLISSENSIA (VI) ....................................................................................................193 IOAN PISO EPIGRAPHICA POROLISSENSIA (I) ...........................................................................................215 IOAN PISO, DAN DE AC, R ADU Z ĂGRE ANU A ROMAN SCULPTURAL MONUMENT DISCOVERED IN BARBARICUM AT COȘEIU (SĂLA J COUNTY) .................................................................................................................................... 231 DAN CULIC, R ADU Z ĂGRE ANU HYPNOS AND THE INCUBATIO RITUAL AT ULPIA TRAIANA SARMIZEGETUSA ...................241 TIME A VARG A BACK ON TRACK : THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM ” FROM ORTELEC ...................... 253 MONICA GUI MONEDA ANTICĂ DE AUR DIN COLECȚIA NUMISMATICĂ A MUZEULUI JUDEȚEAN DE ISTORIE ȘI ARTĂ ZALĂU .......................................................................................................... 267 E MANOIL PRIPON Un pinten din bronz, din epoca romană, descoperit la Bădăcin, judeţul Săla j .........................................................................................................................................273 HORE A POP, ROBERT GINDELE MIGRAȚII, EV MEDIU RĂZBOINICI AVARI ÎN NORD-VESTUL ROMÂNIEI ÎN SECOLELE VII–VIII. CONSIDERAȚII REFERITOARE LA STATUTUL POLITIC AL NORD-VESTULUI ROMÂNIEI ÎN SECOLELE VII– VIII .............................................................................................................................................281 CĂLIN COSMA AVAR WARRIOR S IN NORTH-WEST ROMANIA DURING THE VII th – VIII th CENTURIES. NOTES ON THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE NORTH-WESTERN TERRITORY OF ROMA NIA DURING THE VII th – VIII th CENTURIES SĂGEŢI MEDIEVALE TIMPURII DESCOPERITE ÎN DEPRESIUNEA SILVANIEI ........................ 307 DAN BĂCUEŢ- CRIȘAN EARLY MEDIAEVAL ARROWS DISCOV ERED IN SYLVANIAN BA SIN WHEN DID THE FIR ST MAGYAR WARRIOR S AT THE PORTA MESESINA/MESEȘ GATE ARRIVE? FROM HYPOTHESES TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REALITIES......................................... 325 DAN BĂCUEȚ- CRIȘAN CÂND AU A JUNS PRIMII RĂZBOINICI MAGHIARI LA PORTA MESESINA / POARTA MESEȘEANĂ? DE LA IPOTEZE LA REALITĂȚI ARHEOLOGICE RESTAURARE–CONSERVARE Restaurarea unui vas decorat cu şerpi aplicaţi în relief .................................... 339 E MANOIL PRIPON The restoration of the pot decorated with snakes in relief CONSIDERAŢII ASUPRA RESTAURĂRII ŞI CONSERVĂRII UNOR ARTEFACTE DIN BRONZ DESCOPERITE LA POROLISSUM ............................................................................................... 345 ELISABETA MARIANCIUC, TEODOR A JUGR Ă STAN A SPECTS ABOUT THE RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE BRONZE ARTIFACTS FOUND AT POROLISSUM Conceperea şi execuţia proiectului depozitului de material arheologic provenit din situl arheologic de la Suplacu de Barcău/Porţ „Corău” ............ 351 MONICA DRU ŢA Project design and implementation repository of archaeological material coming from the archaeological site Suplacu de Barcău/Porţ „Corău” IN MEMORIA M PROF. UNIV. DR. IACOB MÂRZA (1946–2015) ......................................................................... 363 ALEXANDRU V. MATEI (1950–2010) ........................................................................................ 365 BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM ” FROM ORTELEC MONICA GUI * Rezumat: O igurină de bronz cu tub de înmănușare, descoperită pe raza localității Ortelec (la periferia orașului Zalău, de asemenea în apropierea sitului de la Porolissum), a fost publicată în 1977 ca iind un signum militar. Cel mai puternic argument invocat pentru a susține această funcție era acela că igurina reprezenta un capricorn, făcându-se aluzie la legiunea a XIII-a Gemina. Ulterior, s-a observat că piesa reda în realitate un hipocamp, dar interpretarea inițială a fost păstrată. Deși au apărut unele sugestii privind un rol alternativ, acela de garnitură de car, varianta respectivă nu a fost niciodată analizată în mod real. Scopul notei de față este acela de a aduce în discuție această posibilitate și de a propune o interpretare clară. În același timp, vor i oferite atât o ilustrație adecvată, cât și o descriere completă, întrucât unele detalii semniicative au fost omise în publicările anterioare. summary: In 1977, a copper-alloy igurine perched on a socket, discovered some years earlier in the locality of Ortelec (at the outskirts of Zalău city, also near the ancient site at Porolissum) was published as a military signum. he strongest argument in favour of this function was the fact that it illustrated a capricorn, mythical creature which was thought to be connected with legio XIII gemina. Later it turned out to represent a hippocamp, but the initial interpretation was maintained. Although there were some suggestions that it might, in fact, be a carriage iting, it was never seriously analysed. he purpose of the present note is to discuss this possibility and at the same time provide adequate and complete description and illustrations, as some signiicant details were omited in the previous publications. Keywords: Roman Dacia, Roman bronzes, signum militare, Roman transport, vehicle mount, capricorn, hippocamp Cuvinte-cheie: Dacia romană, bronzuri romane, signum militare, transport, garnitură de car, capricorn, hipocamp In 1962, a zoomorphic igurine (pl. I), found at Ortelec (a suburb of Zalău city), entered the collections of the County Museum of History and Art from Zalău.1 Description: copper-alloy statuete depicting a hippocampus perched on a short cylinder, placed in turns on top of a hexagonal socket; on one side, the cylinder is incised with an X and four circles arranged around it; two inger-shaped hooks (one of which is almost completely missing) stem from the socket; on one side the socket is ripped open; the hippocamp is represented advancing forwards with the front legs outstretched; the ishtail is coiled in two volutes; details of the mane and tail are rendered with incised lines; total height: 14.6 cm; maximum width: 11.5 cm; cylinder height: 1.3 cm; cylinder diameter: 2 cm; socket height: 7.3 cm; socket diameter: 4 cm; inger height: 3 cm; maximum inger diameter: 0.8 cm. Literature: Lucăcel, Pop 1977, 79–80, ig. 1–3; Pop 1977; Gudea 1989, 593 no. 20, pl. CLXXXII/20; Pop 1998, 115–116, 378–379, no. 7, pl. LXXII/6; Töpfer 2011, 82, 430, NZ 4.8, Taf. 148/NZ 4.8 * 1 Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca, Romanian Academy, Cluj Branch, 12–14 M. Kogălniceanu Street, 400084, Cluj-Napoca, RO; e-mail: monica_gui@ymail.com. his work was supported by a grant from the National Authority for Scientiic Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, Project no. PN-II-PT-PCEE–2013–3-0924. I am grateful to the staf of the County Museum of History and Art from Zalău who kindly allowed me to study this artefact. MONICA GUI N Previous interpretations he artefact was published in 1977, without further details on its context of discovery. Primarily basing their interpretation on its alleged rendering of a capricorn, V. Lucăcel and C. Pop presented it as a Roman military signum, indicating as analogies a pair of capricorn statuetes from Wiesbaden and Fürstenroth2 (in reality, one and the same object, found in the ’Fürstenroth’ district and on display in the Wiesbaden museum).3 Furthermore, they suggested a possible connection with a detachment of legio XIII gemina,4 although the capricorn is not atested as its symbol.5 Any other function, such as that of a carriage or furniture iting, was summarily dismissed.6 he description and interpretation are repeated in the article writen in the same year by Pop about signa militaria from Dacia, adding yet another parallel (a capricorn appliqué from Emlichheim),7 and also in the next year, in a paper dealing with igural bronzes from the collection of the museum in Zalău.8 he piece is also included in the 1989 monograph of N. Gudea dedicated to the site at Porolissum, where, following the initial publishers, the piece is considered a capricorn signum related to the 13th legion.9 Despite its formal similarities with a well-known series of vehicle mounts (see below), Ch. Röring does not include it in his catalogue of such inds, even though he refers to Pop’s 1977 article, but with respect to another object.10 In 1996, a monograph on the Roman customs oice from Porolissum appeared, authored by N. Gudea. With this occasion, the scholar collected all of the itings related to means of transportation known from Dacia, but the ’capricorn’ is let out.11 A shadow of doubt is inally expressed in the 1997 booklet writen by the same author about the Roman fort at Porolissum – Pomet with the occasion of the Limeskongress in Zalău. he piece is not described, nor mentioned in the text, but it is illustrated. In the explanation of the igure an alternative use is cautiously voiced: ’Bronzeteil eines Militärbanners (oder eines Wagens)’.12 In his unpublished Ph.D. thesis from 1998, C. Pop reassesses the statuete and corrects his previous error: it does not represent a sea-goat, but another imaginary creature, a sea-horse. Nevertheless, its function as a signum is maintained.13 Finally, the signum hypothesis is dismissed in two recent works touching upon, respectively directly concerning Roman military standards. First, C.-G. Alexandrescu mentions it in a list of furniture or wagon itings mistakenly identiied as standards.14 hen K. Töpfer, in his monograph study on signa militaria, although citing it as a ’Capricornigur’, considers it simply too small to be a signum. he author also remarks the striking similarity with a series of functional vehicle itings, although he is inclined to believe that it is too frail for that purpose.15 he other capricorns which had been pointed out as analogies by the Romanian authors are also shown not to be signa.16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Lucăcel, Pop 1977, 79–80, ig. 1–3. Regarding the discovery context and the current housing of the igurine, see Pinsker 1999, 1–3, Abb. 1. Lucăcel, Pop 1977, 80–81. he authors cited the entry in DA, s.v. signa militaria (1311), where the capricorn is assigned to legio XIII gemina on dubious grounds, as the reference given does not appear to make sense. he representative animal for this legion is the bull (see Moga 1985, 15). Lucăcel, Pop 1977, 78. Pop 1977, 119–120, ig. 5. Pop, Matei 1978, 82, no. 20. Gudea 1989, 593 no. 20, pl. CLXXXII/20. For the catalogue, see Röring 1983, 102–168; Pop 1977 is cited by Röring 1983, 119, no. XII. 5. See Gudea 1996, 111–117, 172–183, ig. 38–44. Gudea 1997, 88, S. 38. Pop 1998, 115–116, 378–379, no. 7, pl. LXXII/6. Alexandrescu 2010, 232, n. 1850. Töpfer 2011, 82, 430, NZ 4.8, Taf. 148/NZ 4.8. Töpfer 2011, 80–82; cf. Alexandrescu 2010, 232, 379, ST 17 concerning the Wiesbaden capricorn. — 254 — BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC N It should be mentioned that such animal symbols could also constitute decorative elements for other types of ensigns, usually in the form of protomes situated in the lower part part of the shat, but occasionally also topping it.17 However, the hippocampus does not appear amongst the known legionary animal symbols.18 It could, hypothetically, be representative for some auxiliary troop,19 but, since the object in question is not a military emblem (fact which will become obvious in what follows), there is no point in further speculating in this direction. Furthermore, no representations or actual surviving components of military standards display inger-shaped hooks.20 hus, despite some views that the piece from Ortelec could be regarded as a wagon or chariot mount, an actual explanation is still missing. Some confusions remain and the idea of it being a signum continues to lurk in the literature. herefore, although the use of the above mentioned class of carriage itings is well-known and documented, a brief summary of the subject was deemed useful. his will enable the subsequent discussion of the hippocamp mount in the context of the rich corpus of analogous inds, as well as gleaning as much information as possible regarding the vehicle it belonged to. One- or two-armed strap holders for vehicles Among vehicle itings of the Roman period, there is a series of copper-alloy artefacts that display the same basic features, despite their great variation in other respects. hey all comprise of a hollow socket, circular or polygonal in section, crowned by an either igural (e.g. human or animal protome) or abstract (e.g. sphere, pawn-head) decoration; also, one or two hooks stem from the lateral side(s) of the socket. hese were early on recognized as part of chariots or wagons, being discovered in closed contexts (i.e. burials).21 However, their function was far from clear. For a long time they were thought of as purely decorative, and only in the 1960s I. Venedikov inally elucidated their rôle in the suspension of the vehicle body.22 his observation, made on the basis of archaeological evidence, is conirmed by a small number of reliefs which illustrate similar objects in a position just above the vehicle wheels (as seen from the proile).23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Töpfer 2011, 63–64. However, note that on a legionary coin from Gallienus a hippocamp seems to be associated with legio I Italica (RIC V/1, 93, no. 321), although perhaps a capricorn was in fact intended. Notwithstanding some questionable ideas regarding their origin, useful listings of legionary animal symbols can be found in v. Domaszewski 1909 and Renel 1903, 197–233. For atestations on military equipment, see Garbsch 1978, 31–32. E.g. since on a series of breastplates the animal emblem of one or another legion whose name is inscribed on the respective pieces of equipment is illustrated (see previous note), it has been suggested that a sea-panther appearing in the same position on a couple of breastplates from the Axel Gutmann collection could signify either simply a decorative element, or an unknown emblem of some legion or auxiliary troop (Born, Junkelmann 1997, 132–135, AG 713–714, Abb. 84–85, Taf. XII– XIII). Evidently, not all the real or imaginary creatures depicted on the so-called parade equipment necessarily represent animal insignia. Hippocamps and other sea creatures observed on said equipment can be regarded as alluding to the funerary domain (Garbsch 1978, 31). he crossbars used for hanging pendants, ornamental strips or cloth were either shaped like simple hooks or provided with terminal rings (for the diferent components and decorations comprising Roman military standards, see Töpfer 2011, 13–70). Apart from the publication of individual chariots and wagons from funerary contexts or reconstruction proposals, too many to mention, there are numerous works dedicated to either these speciic artefacts, or to bronze chariot itings in general, which include this type of mounts: e.g. Héron de Villefosse 1908; v. Mercklin 1933; Alföldi 1936; Alföldi, Radnóti 1940; Fernández de Avilés 1958; Radnóti 1963; Boube-Piccot 1980; Ruprechtsberger 1988; Molin 1989; Schleiermacher 1996; Bolla 2010 etc. Most of the pieces discovered prior to the 1980s are included in Ch. Röring’s catalogue (see Röring 1983, 102–168), but quite a few new inds have since surfaced. Many of them were discussed several times, so, unless the original publication includes details that have not been subsequently recalled, only the latest references will be indicated in this paper. Venedikov 1960, 83, 241–249, Taf. 93, 97. For a summary of their various interpretations, see Röring 1983, 12, n. 40; Menzel 1985, 166; Molin 1989, 70–73. Röring 1983, 13–15, Taf. 8/ Abb. 1 (Arlon, Belgica), 2 (Maria Saal, Noricum), 3 (Tök, Pannonia Inferior); Taf. 9/ Abb. 1 (Intercisa, Pannonia Inferior). he Pannonian reliefs can also be seen in Visy 1997, nos. 66 (Tök), 67 (Intercisa), and probably no. 65 (Felsõdörgicse) should also be added to the list. — 255 — MONICA GUI N Essentially, this type of suspension system involved pairs of vertical brackets or stake-braces (Ger. Kipfen, Überachsen) ixed perpendicularly on the axles, towards their ends. Atop were mounted the copperalloy itings in question, strap holders (Ger. Gurthalter), their hooks aiding in the suspension of the wagon body which was efected by means of ropes or leather straps (pl. II/1). Evidently, two wheeled vehicles required just one pair of such iron brackets; in the case of four wheeled carriages, both the front, and the rear axles were usually provided each with a pair brackets, oten made of wood, sometimes plated with bronze sheet.24 As the four-wheeler from Radlovci (south-western Bulgaria) shows, the Kipfen-Gurthalter binomial could be just one element of a more complicated suspension system, entailing additional shock absorbing and stabilising components.25 Surely, not all the wagons and chariots beneited from suspension. Contraptions that would reduce the efect of road bumps were especially desirable for travel carriages, although not everyone could aford them.26 Usually, the number of suspension mounts is equated to that of the wheels,27 but a few discoveries prove that this was not always so. he body of the above-mentioned wagon from Radlovci was truly suspended only in front, whereas the back of the box was secured to the rear axle. Despite this, it appears to have been provided with two pairs of strap holders.28 However, the four wheeled wagon from Kozármisleny was suspended only from the rear, lacking the front pair of brackets and their associated mounts.29 Leaving aside the basic, shared characteristics of these objects, there is great variety in terms of size, decorative repertoire, socket and hook form and diameter. Based on the number and shape of the hooks or ’arms’, Ch. Röring classiied the Gurthalter in ive types: A. with a single, opened arm (e.g. pl. III/1–4); B. with a single, closed arm; C. with two opened arms (e.g. pl. III/5); D. with two closed arms (e.g. pl. III/6); E. with two arms stemming directly from the top of the socket; the third and fourth types were deemed most suitable candidates for vehicle body suspension.30 A brief comment on the shape of the hooks is particularly relevant for the artefact from Ortelec. hese came in various forms, from simple, undecorated hooks or rings to goose or swan necks, dolphins, snakes, feline protomes, vegetable elements etc.; a common shape is that of human ingers,31 perhaps a playful allusion to their function. In fact, the strap holder illustrated on a detailed relief from Arlon possesses exactly this type of inger-shaped hooks.32 J. Meschekov described in detail the two ways in which the suspension mounts could be used in the case of four wheeled vehicles. he irst involved the provision of the wagon body with four sets of side rails (pl. II/2). Two independent leather bands passed through the hooks of each Gurthalter and were also atached to the rails via a pair of rings which could freely glide on these as the front axle turned. Especially the richly decorated suspension mounts with igurines adorning directly the socket demanded such a use.33 he other system is simpler: a continuous piece of rope passes through the hooks of the bronze iting and also through two rings ixed on the wagon body so as to form a triangle (pl. II/3). hus, as the front axle 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Boube-Piccot 1980, 16–21, ig. 8–9; Röring 1983, 12–17, Plan 1–4. Meschekov 2007, 12–15, Abb. 5–6, Abb. 10/a. Molin 1989, 75–77. According to Visy (1997, 63–65), the carriages with suspension illustrated on the Pannonian funerary monuments are of the types carpentum, raeda and cisium. Schleiermacher (1996, 213) considers the vehicle featured on the Maria Saal monument a carruca dormitoria. For details on these and other types of travel carraiges used by the Romans, see the corresponding entries in DA and also the notes by Boube-Piccot (1980, 1–13) and Schleiermacher (1996, 212–214). Röring 1983, 12. Meschekov 2007, 13–14, Abb. 5. Kiss 1989, 29–30, Abb. 42–48, 50. A reconstruction based on the inds from Kozármisleny and Neupotz was made for the Römerhaus in Augst (see Haser, Maise 2003). A four-wheeler from Szomor-Somodorpuszta also appears to use just a pair of Gurthalter (see Gaul 1889, 202; cf. Bónis 1987, 107, Abb. 3). Röring 1983, 27, 31. Boube-Piccot 1980, 19. See, for instance, the entries in the catalogues comprised by Boube-Piccot (1980, App. I) or Röring (1983, 102–168). Röring 1983, 13–15, Taf. 8/ Abb. 1; Haser, Maise 2003, 204, Abb. 13; Molin 1989, 71, ig. 7. Meschekov 2007, 14, Abb. 7/a, 8. Such a suspension system can be seen, e.g., on the reconstruction of the four-wheeled Vardar wagon which is on display at the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Köln (see Schleiermacher 1996, 205–221). — 256 — BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC N turns, the rope slides through these three points.34 According to Meschekov, the irst system could only work for itings with two closed arms (Röring’s type D), while the second, simpler system was also suitable for mounts with two opened arms (so, both for types C, and D).35 But Gurthalter were not always used as they were supposed to. his is at least suggested by the remains of a wagon discovered at Intercisa: it appears that only one arm of the two-armed pieces corresponding to the front axle was used for suspension; furthermore, the igurines adorning the sockets were facing backwards.36 he use of massive, one-armed pieces for four-wheelers is also documented.37 In the case of two wheeled vehicles, which did not pose the problem of a pivoting front axle, a system very similar to, or the same as the second described above could be used.38 Some mounts, especially from the one-armed class, appear too small to be able to withstand the weight of the wagon body and, in addition, show no marked traces of wear. herefore, alternative functions have been convincingly put forward (e.g. their use as rein guides or suspension mounts for lighter means of transportation, like palanquins).39 Nevertheless, some of the smaller specimens could still have been used for carriage suspension. Metallographic analyses suggested that even strap holders with arms of 0.7 cm in diameter could theoretically support a 200 kg charge, the estimate weight of a two-wheeler carriage box.40 Also, it is important to stress the fact that, although the hanging of the body could rely solely on massive hooks (as instanced by the irst suspension system mentioned above), this was not always the case. For instance, one-armed pieces were mounted with the hooks outwards from the carriage, so the weight of the vehicle body was substantially transferred over to the iron or wooden brackets on which they were ited, the hooks mainly preventing the ropes or leather bands from sliding; the same principle is basically valid for two-armed specimens as used in second system.41 he wide variation observed in the size and weight of these objects seems to justify the idea that they were not all used for the exact same purpose (i.e. carriage suspension). Anyway, since even some really small pieces are atested in wagon burials,42 this links them (whatever their exact function) with transportation.43 Comment on the piece from Ortelec Considering the discussion above, it becomes obvious that the copper-alloy hippocamp from Ortelec was clearly related to transportation. Even the place of discovery favours this interpretation. he imperial road that connected Potaissa – Napoca – Porolissum passed through Ortelec (where traces of it were observed on the ield) ater making its exit from Porolissum and heading into barbaricum (pl. IV).44 It is certainly not the irst time that a vehicle mount was mistaken for some kind of military insignia.45 Consequently, the signum hypothesis should be completely renounced. Once this is done, we can turn our 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Meschekov 2007, 16, Abb. 7/b. Meschekov 2007, 16. Actually, the cited author states the other way around, but this appears to be a typographical error, also seen in the numbering of systems in Abb. 7, which does not correspond to the numbering used in the text. Visy 1985, 176, 179, Abb. 6. E. g. the carriage from Kozármisleny (Kiss 1989, Taf. 9–10). E.g. the two-wheeler reconstruction on display in the Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum in Budapest. Röring 1983, 22–25; see also Painter 1971, 324–325. Ruprechtsberger 1988, 13–14. he weight of a two-wheeler is computed from Röring’s calculations for four-wheeled carriages (see Röring 1983, 57–58). For the metallographic analyses mentioned by Ruprechtsberger, see Preßlinger 1988. Haser, Maise 2003, 203–204. E.g. three one-armed pieces of 6.2 cm in height and 3 cm in diameter, with a maximum inger diameter of 0.7 cm, discovered in an incomplete funerary inventory from Moesia Inferior. Apparently, two of them display rivet holes and thus were ixed on wooden poles, whereas the third specimen appears to have been placed on an iron rod (Harțuche 1967, 244–247, ig. 8/1–2, ig. 14/1 = Röring 1983, 120, nos. XIII. 1–3). N. Harțuche does not believe that they had anything to do with the vehicle suspension, but they might have (see above). Röring 1983, 22–31. Fodorean 2006, 145–147 See Menzel 1985, 165. — 257 — MONICA GUI N atention to the (admitedly limited) information this piece can disclose about the carriage it was presumably mounted on. First of all, despite its rather modest size, chances are the iting was indeed used in the suspension of a carriage. Recalling the two main systems described by Meschekov and summarised above, and bearing in mind that this Gurthalter is of the type with two opened ’arms’, it can be surmised that it was involved in the simpler suspension system, which required a continuous rope (pl. II/3). hus, the weight was partially supported by the stake-brace on which the mount was ited (see above), which means that the later need not be so massive. A reconstructed wagon from Augst nicely exempliies this and it should be noted that the one-armed suspension pieces used are comparable in size to the hippocamp.46 In practice, however, things could go wrong. he inger-hook on the Ortelec piece might have snapped, rendering it useless. Whether this actually happened, or the damage was subsequent to its discard, we cannot know. However, some mounts do show traces of repair, as, e.g. a ind from Derderwindeke (Belgica) which had one of its massive arms soldered in antiquity.47 he next observation follows logically: we are dealing with a (long distance) travel carriage, as the suspension had the purpose of ensuring a comfortable journey. Because both vehicles with one, and two axles could be provided with suspension with the help of either one-armed or two-armed strap holders, and even the later carriages could employ medium-sized mounts, it is not possible to propose a number for the wheels. However, if the tear in the socket started from a weak point such as a rivet hole, it would mean that it was ixed to a wooden pole, which would suggest its use on a four-wheeler.48 he side with the tear also appears to be worked less carefully. If this is truly so, then it is likely that this part faced the carriage; provided that the hippocampus was pointing in the travelling direction, then the placement of this strap holder would have been on the let of the vehicle. he Gurthalter from Ortelec can also be briely analysed from an artistic point of view. Considering the numerous copper-alloy itings derived from hracian chariots, I. M. Cholakov drew atention to three types of decoration: imported luxury, locally produced luxury and mass produced.49 he considerable variety encountered in the repertoire of itings is explained by the fact that these represented a way of advertising social standing, as pointed out by the situation in hrace, where just one quarter of the unearthed carriages displayed copper-alloy decorations.50 he wagon was, in itself, a status symbol. Consequently, the array of itings was in accordance with the taste and inancial means of the owner and, furthermore, they could be re-used on other vehicles.51 his ’secondary decoration’ was shown to be quite common for hracian chariots of the Roman age, resulting in a heterogeneous style quite contrasting to some Pannonian examples which followed a more uniied stylistic concept.52 he low number of pieces from Dacia is not entirely surprising considering that the practice of chariot burials did not extend into this province. Furthermore, it seem that the track was lost for some of the artefacts. Consequently, while for other areas some trends could be cautiously singled out (like the preference 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Furger et al. 2003, 31, Abb. 23; Haser, Maise 2003, 203–204, Abb. 14. Only the rear part of the four-wheeled wagon was suspended. he replica strap holder used for this (although slightly larger and with a square socket) was based on an original ind of 9.8 cm in height, with a socket diameter of 3.7 cm. he diameter of the supporting inger-hook, although not stated, appears to measure circa 1 cm. Furthermore, in the case of the replica, this single hook was hollow cast. Cumont 1907, 293–295, pl. I ( = Röring 1983, 131–132, no. II. 1). According to Röring (1983, 17), iron Kipfen were used only on two-wheeld vehicles, while wooden Kipfen reinforced with iron and bronze elements were used in four-wheelers. However, the four wheeled carriage from Kozármisleny, with its box suspended only in the rear part, used a pair of iron stake-braces (Kiss 1989, 29–30, Abb. 42–48, 50). he lack of a rivet hole in the socket of the strap holders does not necessarily mean they were ited on iron Kipfen, as even those mounted on wooden brackets could simply be jam-packed, as is the case of the Vardar valley carriage (see Schleiermacher 1996, 236). Cholakov 2004, 108. Cholakov 2004, 105. Molin 1989, 74–75. Cholakov 2004, 105, 114–115. — 258 — BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC N for horse igures in Hispania)53 or production centres determined (such as for hracia, with its provincial repertoire),54 similar observations are impossible to make on the basis of the extremely limited Dacian lot. he clumsy rendering of the hippocamp from Ortelec does by no means point to a luxury product, and this holds true for the majority of the Dacian inds, almost all employing simple, abstract decorations. he exception is the suspension mount from Gherla (pl. III/5).55 his bears a resemblance to the pair discovered in the wagon burial from Frenz (Germania Inferior), which displays a human head (not bust) emerging from a lower chalice, but the hooks are inger-shaped and the socket is quadratic.56 Also somewhat similar are the two specimens from the Nagylók (Pannonia Inferior) cart burial.57 he strap holder from Gherla can be possibly viewed as a luxury piece, and most certainly an import. here is, as yet, no evidence of a production of chariot itings in Dacia, so the other inds, although more modest, could have been imported as well. he best represented class is that of the small-sized, one-armed holders (Röring’s type A), with seven examples, but there are some problems regarding their exact shape. At least one piece, from Dolj county (the south of the province) takes the form of an eagle head (pl. III/4).58 Such eagle-headed Gurthalter were thought to concentrate in the Rhine and Danube regions,59 but an important number is now also known from North Africa.60 A pair from Romula displays simple, spherical crowning (pl. III/1–2),61 while a strap holder from Porolissum is topped by a pawn-head (pl. III/3).62 hese small sized objects are similar to some inds from North Africa, Moesia Inferior and from elsewhere within the Empire.63 For the remaining three (if indeed three!), two from Drobeta and one from Apulum, the reports are contradicting, but they most likely feature geometrical (spherical) crowning.64 he only strap holder with two closed arms from Dacia (pl. III/6) was found at Potaissa,65 but is now lost. he dimensions are not known but, judging from a few photographs of the collection in which it was included, it appears to have been rather large.66 A good analogy is provided by two pieces from Italy, nearly identical, save for the fact that the sphere on top appears to represent an apple or a pomegranate and the socket is decorated with a garland.67 As representations of full animals (not just protomes), a few strap holders adorned with horses and with a panther can be mentioned.68 Although the piece from Ortelec is of much lesser quality, it is still rather similar to the capricorn igurine from Wiesbaden,69 so the confusion encountered in the initial publication is understandable. he theme chosen in this particular case is rather uncommon, as it does not it in the usual wagon itings repertoire (Bacchic procession, major and minor deities, human and animal – panther, llion, griin, eagle – protomes etc.).70 To my knowledge, the hippocamp does not feature among any other 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Molin 1989, 78–79. See Cholakov 2004. Protase, Gudea, Ardevan 2008, 77, pl. XXIII ( = Röring 1983, 135, no. VIII. 1). Lehner 1923, 39–41, Taf. II/b1–2, Taf. IV/20 ( = Röring 1983, 131, nos. I. 1–2). Gaul 1890, Táb. C. I/4a-b, Táb. C. II/1a-b ( = Röring 1983, 134, nos. VII. 3–4) Gudea 1996, 111, no. 4, ig. 38a/3. Alföldi 1936, 266–267. Boube-Piccot 1980, 68- 70, nos. 32–38, Pl. 17–18/32–38 (Volubilis), 217, no. 346, pl. 74/346 (Banasa). Gudea 1996, 112, nos. 1–2, ig. 38a/1–2. Gudea 1996, 112, no. 3, ig. 38b/2. E.g. Boube-Piccot 70–73, nos. 39–40, Pl. 19 (Volubilis), although some analogies indicated by the cited author are rather massive; Harțuche 1967, 244–247, ig. 8/1–2, ig. 14/1; Furger et al. 2003, 31, Abb. 23 (Augst) etc. Röring (1983, 119, nos. XII. 1–3) lists them as balusterförmigen (Apulum) and knopförmigen (Drobeta), citing a note from Alföldi, Radnóti (1940, 309, n. 4, nos. 9–11) where they are indeed described as such. Gudea (1996, 111, nos. 1–3) on the other hand (citing Röring!), sees them as eagle-headed. Given these inconsistencies, one wonders if the pair of Gurthalter from Romula and that from Drobeta are not, in fact, referring to the same artefacts. Gudea 1996, 111–112, no. 1. See Ardevan, Rusu 1979, ig. 8–9. Héron de Villefosse 1908, 280, no. 12, ig. 4 ( = Röring 1983, 151, nos. VIII. 3–4) Molin 1989, 59–64, nos. 4–11. See Pinsker 1999, Abb. 2. On the repertoire, see Alföldi 1939 (although the idea of ‘funerary chariots’ is outdated); Boube-Piccot 1980, 28–29; Cholakov 2004 etc. — 259 — MONICA GUI N Gurthalter decorations. However, it suits the transportation theme: the hippocampus, more of an artistic creation than a proper mythical creature, is illustrated drawing the vehicle of miscellaneous sea gods.71 Interestingly, an identical specimen has recently come to light during the excavations at the principia of the legionary fortress at Potaissa (Turda), garrisoned by legio V Macedonica.72 Incidentally, this is not an unusual context of discovery, as strap holders were also found inside the legionary bases at Lauriacum and Lambaesis.73 Undoubtedly, the two hippocamp Gurthalter from Dacia were manufactured in the same place, but, of course, whether they were at some point ited on the same vehicle is impossible to know. Given the places of discovery, virtually along the same imperial road that linked Potaissa to Porolissum, it would be tempting to see in this situation an echo of military oicials travelling between the two sites, though this would involve more imagination than actual evidence. Re f e re nc e s Alexandrescu 2010 Alföldi 1936 Alföldi 1939 Alföldi, Radnóti 1940 Ardevan, Rusu 1979 Born, Junkelmann 1997 Bolla 2010 Bónis 1987 Boube-Piccot 1980 Cholakov 2004 Cumont 1907 Domaszewski 1909 Fernández de Avilés 1958 Fodorean 2006 Furger et al. 2003 Garbsch 1978 Gaul 1889 Gaul 1890 Gudea 1989 Gudea 1996 71 72 73 C.-G. Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger im römischen Heer, Cluj-Napoca, 2010. A. Alföldi, Állatdíszes kerékvető fejek kelta római kocsikról (Zoomorphe Bronzeaufsätze als Radabweiser auf keltisch-römischen Wagen), Archaeologiai Értesítő 48, 1935 (1936), 190–213 (263–270). A. Alföldi, Chars funéraires bacchiques dans les provinces occidentales de l’empire romain, L’antiquité classique 8/2, 1939, 347–359. A. Alföldi, A. Radnóti, Zügelringe und Zierebeschläge von römischen Jochen und Kummeten aus Pannonien, in: Hoillerov zbornik: Naučni radovi posvećeni Viktoru Hoilleru o 60 godišnjici njegova života 19. veljače 1937 bodine (Serta Hoilleriana), Zagreb, 1940, 309–319. R. Ardevan, A. A. Rusu, Botár Imre și colecția sa de antichități, Acta Musei Porolissensis 3, 1979, 387–409. H. Born, M. Junkelmann, Römische Kampf- und Turnierrüstungen, Band VI, Sammlung Axel Gutmann, Mainz, 1997. M. Bolla, La decorazione bronzea per carri in Italia setentrionale, LANX. Rivista della Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia – Università degli Studi di Milano 5, 2010, 107–167. É. B. Bónis, Rekonstruktionsversuche aus dem Fundinventar des römerzeitlichen Bestatungswagens von Szomor Somodorpuszta, Folia Archaeologica 29, 1978, 103–121. Ch. Boube-Piccot, Les bronzes antiques du Maroc III. Les chars et l’atelage, Rabat, 1980. I. M. Cholakov, Chariot bronze rom hrace, in: he Antique Bronzes: Typology, Chronology, Authenticity. he Acta of the 16th International Congress of Antique Bronzes organised by the Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest, May 26th–31st 2003, București, 2004, 105–118. F. Cumont, Pièce de bronze ornée d’un buste de Minerve, Annales de la société royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles 21, 1907, 293–303. A. von Domaszewski, Die Tierbilder der Signa, in A. von Domaszewski, Abhandlungen zur römischen Religion, Leipzig/ Berlin 1909, 1–15. A. Fernández de Avilés, Pararriendas y otros bronces de carro, romanos, hallados en España, Archivo Español de Arqueología 31, 1958, 3–62. F. Fodorean, Drumurile din Dacia romană, Cluj-Napoca, 2006. A. R. Furger et al., Augusta Raurica. Jahresbericht 2002, Jahresberichte aus Augst und Kaiseraugst 24, 2003, 5–60. J. Garbsch, Römische Paraderüstungen, München, 1978. K. Gaul, Ókori kocsi helyreállítása a somodori sírlelet alapján, Archaeologiai Értesítő 9/3, 1889, 193–205. K. Gaul, Ókori kocsik helyreállítása, Archaeologiai Értesítő 10/2, 1890, 97–126. N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. I. Cercetări și descoperiri arheologice pînă în anul 1977, Acta Musei Porolissensis 13, 1989. N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman II. Vama romană. Monograie arheologică. Contribuții la cunoașterea sistemului vamal din provinciile dacice, Cluj-Napoca, 1996. See Lexikon Roscher Bd. 1/2, s.v. Hippokamp (2674–2677). For instance, the hippocampus is among the beasts appearing in a coin series from Gallienus, on which it signiies Neptune (RIC V 1, 152, no. 246). I wish to thank Dr. Sorin Nemeti for this information. Ruprechtsberger 1989, 17–18. — 260 — BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC N N. Gudea, Das Römergrenzkastell von Moigrad-Pomet. Porolissum 1/ Castrul roman de pe vârful dealului Pomet – Moigrad. Porolissum 1, Zalău, 1997. Harțuche 1967 N. Harțuche, Un car de luptă descoperit în regiunea Dobrogea, Apulum 6, 1967, 231–257. Haser, Maise 2003 J. Haser, Ch. Maise, Zum Nachbau eines römischen Reisewagens – Grundlagen und Aufwandsberechnung, Jahresberichte aus Augst und Kaiseraugst 24, 2003, 193–223. Héron de Villefosse 1908 A. Héron de Villefosse, Douilles en bronze de l’époque romaine lanquées de deux supports annulaires, Mémoires de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France 67, 1908, 268-.296 Kiss 1989 A. Kiss, Das römerzeitliche Wagengrab von Kozármisleny (Ungarn, Kom. Baranya), Régészeti füzetek II, 25, Budapest, 1989. Lehner 1923 H. Lehner, Ein gallorömischer Wagen aus Frenz an der Inde im Kreis Düren, Bonner Jahrbücher 128, 1923, 28–62. V. Lucăcel, C. Pop, Un signum roman descoperit la Zalău, Acta Musei Porolissensis 1, 1977, 79–81. Lucăcel, Pop 1977 Meschekov 2007 J. Meschekov, Wagentypen des II–III Jh. n. Chr. Aus dem Territorium Bulgariens (nach archäologischen Angaben), Archaeologia Bulgarica 11/2, 2007, 9–30. Mercklin 1933 E. von Mercklin, Wagenschmuck aus der römischen Kaiserzeit, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 48, 1933, 84–176. Moga 1985 V. Moga, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Legiunea XIII Gemina, Cluj-Napoca, 1985. Molin 1989 M. M. Molin, La suspension des voitures: une invention difusée en Hispanie romaine, Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 25, 1989, 55–79. Painter 1971 K. S. Painter, A Roman bronze vehicle-mount rom Litle Cressingham, Norfolk, he Antiquaries Journal 51/2, 1971, 324–325. Pinsker 1999 B. Pinsker, Der „Capricorn” in Museum Wiesbaden. Feldzeichen der Legio XXII Primigenia Pia Fidelis, Nassauische Annalen. Jahrbuch des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde und Geschichtsforschung 110, 1999, 1–8 Pop 1977 C. Pop, Signa militaria de bronz în Dacia romană, Acta Musei Napocensis 14, 1977, 111–131. Pop 1998 C. A. Pop, Bronzuri igurate în Dacia romană, Diss., Univ. ’Babeș-Bolyai’ Cluj-Napoca, Facultatea de Istorie și Filosoie, Cluj-Napoca, 1998. Pop, Matei 1978 C. Pop, Al. V. Matei, Bronzuri igurate romane în Muzeul de Istorie și Artă Zalău, Acta Musei Porolissensis 2, 1978, 77–83. Preßlinger 1988 H. Preßlinger, Untersuchung römerzeitlicher Gurthalter mit Hilfe der Rasterelektronenmikroskops, Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 133, 1988, 29–32. Protase, Gudea, Ardevan 2008 D. Protase, N. Gudea, R. Ardevan, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Castrul roman de interior de la Gherla, Timișoara, 2008. Radnóti 1963 A. Radnóti, Ein römische Pantherstatuete aus Straubing, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsbläter 28, 1963, 67–96. Renel 1903 C. Renel, Cultes militaires de Rome. Les enseignes, Lyon/ Paris, 1903. Röring 1983 Ch. W. Röring, Untersuchungen zu römischen Reisewagen, Koblenz, 1983. Ruprechtsberger 1988 E. M. Ruprechtsberger, Antike Wagenbestandteile (Gurthalter) aus Norikum und Numidien, Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 133, 1988, 11–22. Schleiermacher 1996 M. Schleiermacher, Wagenbronzen und Pferdegeschirr im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln, Kölner Jahrbuch 29, 1996, 205–295. Töpfer 2011 K. Töpfer, Signa Militaria: die römischen Feldzeichen in der Republik und im Prinzipat, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Band 91, Mainz, 2011. Venedikov 1960 I. Venedikov, Тракийската колесница (Le char thrace), Soia, 1960. Visy 1985 Zs. Visy, A dunaújvárosi római utazókocsi rekonstrukciója (Die Rekonstruktion des römischen Reisewagens von Dunaújváros), Archaeologiai Értesítő 112/2, 1985, 169–179. Visy 1997 Zs. Visy, Die Wagendarstellungen der pannonischen Grabsteine, Pécs, 1997. Gudea 1997 A bbre v i ations DA Lexikon Roscher RIC C. V. Daremberg, E. Saglio (eds.), Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, Paris, 1873–1919. W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliche Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, Leipzig, 1886–1937. Roman Imperial Coinage, London, 1923–1994. — 261 — MONICA GUI N — 262 — Pl. I. he hippocamp igurine from Ortelec (photo: the author, courtesy of the County Museum of History and Art in Zalău). 3 N — 263 — 1 Pl. II. 1. Carriage suspension with strap holders (ater Röring 1983, Plan 1, 3); 2.–3. Modes of suspension (ater Meschekov 2007, Abb. 7/a-b). BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC 2 MONICA GUI 1 2 3 4 N — 264 — 5 6 Pl. III. Strap holders from Dacia: 1.–2. Romula; 3. Porolissum; 4. Dolj – not to scale (ater Gudea 1996, ig. 38a/1–2, ig. 38b/2, ig. 38a/3); 5. Gherla (ater Protase, Gudea, Ardevan 2008, Pl. XXIII); 6. Potaissa – not to scale (ater Ardevan, Rusu 1979, ig. 5). N BACK ON TRACK: THE so-called “CAPRICORN SIGNUM” FROM ORTELEC — 265 — Pl. IV. he Roman imperial road in the environs of Porolissum (ater Gudea 1996, ig. 2).