Silvia Mustata_The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis.pdf

Silvia Mustață

The article analyzes a series of eleven artefacts determined as parts or possible fragments belonging to Roman bronze vessels discovered on the perimeter of the archaeological site at Ardeu-Cetățuie. The objects were discovered during systematic archaeological excavations undertaken in the Dacian fortress or represent stray finds identified on the slopes of the hill or during stone quarry works carried out in the area. The chronology of the imported items stretches from the Late Republican/Augustan period to the 1 st century AD. Even if it was based on a small number of discoveries, the analysis of the bronze vessels from Ardeu is important for understanding the dynamic of this type of Roman import in pre-Roman Dacia. Their presence at Ardeu suggests the existence of a community which desired and could afford to acquire such goods. In general, the finds show traces of intense/prolonged use or reuse (not only in the context of the workshop which functioned inside the fortress) – a fact which indicates their value for the local community.

This text summarises the current state of research into Roman metal vessels and confronts it with finds from the Middle Danube region. The occurrence of such metal vessels, connected usually with the elites, will be placed against relevant historical context, especially within the Roman Period.

The present paper discusses 19 artefacts from Romania and Bulgaria with at least 1% tin in their composition. These artefacts were dated mainly to the first three quarters of the 3rd millennium BC. Fourteen of them cluster in a distinct compact group, well anchored in time (ca. 2700-2400 BC). The most numerous are shaft-hole axes (12 artefacts) and half of them contain tin between 4% and 15%. To the same period were attributed a flanged axe and a massive dagger with a wide midrib, containing 5% and 6.3% Sn, respectively. The use of bronze for the manufacture of these items is in complete accord with the situation in the Near East and the Aegean area where various types of bronze items existed from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, with an increase in their number starting with 2700 BC. Most likely, the copper-tin alloy was initially employed for objects with a high social value which differentiated by their yellowish, gold-like colour from similar artefacts manufactured from copper and arsenical copper.

Silvia Mustață The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis ROMANIAN ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA Series Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum Editors Sorin Cociş Adrian Ursuţiu Volume 12 Silvia Mustață The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis Mega Publishing House Cluj-Napoca 2017 Translated by Monica Gui and Silvia Mustață DTP and cover: Francisc Baja Cover image: Anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel from Moigrad/Porolissum (© Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) © Silvia Mustață, 2017 Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României MUSTAŢĂ, SILVIA he Roman metal vessels from Dacia Porolissensis / Silvia Mustaţă. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2017 Conţine bibliograie ISBN 978-606-543-843-9 902 Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro C ontents FOREWORD 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 I. INTRODUCTION 15 15 I.1. Preliminary remarks I.2. he study of the Roman bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis. History of 16 the research I.3. he Latin terminology 17 II. THE BRONZE VESSELS INDUSTRY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS II.1. A brief overview of the research II.2. Ancient sources II.2.1. Written sources II.2.1.1. Types of sources II.2.1.2. he informative potential of ancient sources II.2.1.3. Conclusions II.2.2. Iconographic sources II.2.2.1. he informative potential of iconographic representations II.2.2.2. Types of representations II.2.2.3. Representations of bronze vessels on votive and funerary monuments from Roman Dacia II.2.2.4. Conclusions II.3. he production technology II.3.1. Alloys II.3.1.1. he type of alloys used for producing Roman bronze vessels II.3.1.2. Analysis methods and the importance of archaeometry for the study of Roman bronze vessels II.3.2. Workshops II.3.2.1. Identifying the workshops II.3.2.2. Workshop organisation II.3.2.3. he status and title of the coppersmith II.3.3. he technological steps II.3.3.1. Casting II.3.3.2. Mechanical deformation II.3.3.3. Turning the bronze sheets on the lathe II.3.3.4. Finishing 23 23 29 29 30 30 38 39 39 39 48 55 56 56 56 60 62 62 73 75 76 76 77 79 80 II.3.3.5. Surface treatment II.3.3.6. Assembling the components II.3.3.7. Stamping II.3.3.8. he issue of repairs II.3.4. he importance of the technological aspects for the study of Roman bronze vessels III. THE BRONZE VESSELS FROM DACIA POROLISSENSIS. TYPOLOGICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS III. 1. Casseroles III.1.1. Casseroles with thin, concave walls and handles ending in stylised swan heads III.1.2. Casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal III.1.3. Casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal III.1.4. Casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal, Gödåker type III.1.5. Casserole fragments III.2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) III.2.1. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with volute-decorated handles III.2.2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with lat handles III.3. Spouted jugs III.3.1. Spouted jugs with narrow mouth III.3.2. Spouted jugs with trefoil mouth III.3.3. Spouted jugs with elongated spout III.3.4. Bronze sheet spouted jugs with separately cast handle III.3.5. Bronze sheet spouted jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth III.3.6. Lids from bronze sheet spouted jugs III.4. Amphorae III.4.1. Amphorae with globular body III.5. Jugs III.5.1. Jugs with lid III.5.2. Jugs with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot III.5.3. Jugs with relief-decorated handle III.5.4. Jug fragments III.6. Bowls with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome III.7. Bowls with lat handle III.8. Bowls with high handles III.9. Basins III.9.1. Hemispherical basins with stand and ixed handles III.9.2. Steep-walled basins with attachments ending in stylised bird heads III.9.3. E 81 steep-walled basins III.9.4. Steep-walled basins with attachments shaped like grapevine leaves III.9.5. Basin fragments III.10. Buckets III.10.1. Buckets with attachments shaped like a human mask III.10.2. Buckets with slightly concave sides III.10.3. Buckets with bell-shaped body III.10.4. Bucket fragments III.11. Balsamaria III.11.1. Globular balsamaria with relief-decorated body III.11.2. Globular balsamaria with undecorated body III.11.3. Globular balsamarium fragments III.11.4. Iron balsamaria III.12. Anthropomorphic vessels III.12.1. Anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessels 81 82 82 83 84 85 85 86 88 89 93 94 95 95 96 101 101 103 105 109 111 114 116 116 117 118 120 122 123 124 127 129 130 130 132 135 136 136 137 138 140 142 143 144 145 149 151 152 157 157 III.13. Vessel feet III.14. Bronze vessel fragments with uncertain typological attribution III.15. Incerta IV. THE BRONZE VESSELS FROM DACIA POROLISSENSIS. THE ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOVERY CONTEXTS IV.1. Buciumi IV.2. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca IV.3. Ilișua/Arcobadara IV.4. Moigrad/Porolissum IV.5. Orheiu Bistriței IV.6. he remaining sites: Bologa, Cuzdrioara, Florești-Șapca Verde, Gherla, Gilău, Turda/Potaissa 162 164 177 181 183 184 187 189 191 192 V. CONCLUSIONS 197 VI. ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 207 VII. ANNEXES 241 242 VII.1. Annexe I. List of the sculptural monuments from Roman Dacia with depictions of metal vessels VII.2. Annexe II. List of the main archaeological discoveries which indicate the existence of workshops for producing bronze vessels VII.3. Annexe III. Modern terminology: comparative table VII.4. Annexe IV. List of attachments with half-pierced loop from the Roman Empire 247 253 263 VIII. LIST OF ILLUSTRATION 263 IX. PLATES 267 F oreword oreutics, the art of metalworking, represents a research area which is increasingly attracting the attention of archaeologists. he toreutical products, especially those belonging to the ine arts, captured the interest of the ones fond of ancient culture ever since before the Renaissance. However, with the exception of the decorative, luxury vessels made of gold, silver, or even bronze, the scholarly interest on metal vessels had a slower start, and it got intensiied only during the last century. he metal vessels, mainly those made of copper based alloy, did not come to the attention of the archaeologists before the 1900’s. Generally, the archaeological literature refers to the fundamental works of Willers (1901, 1907), of the Scandinavian scholars, such as Ekholm, Norling-Christensen, Klindt-Jensen (3rd–4th decades of the century), of Radnóti (1937, 1938) and especially of Eggers (1951). I believe that from this enumeration (which I have mentioned here just for the sake of exemplifying) an important name has unfortunately gone unnoticed, namely that of Alexandru Odobescu! His concerns for the publication of the Pietroasa hoard led him to a thorough study in the ield of the toreutics of metal vessels. In the inal publication of the hoard (Paris, 1889–1900), a great number of metal vessels from several European collections has been included and discussed, while being illustrated with high quality drawings. Only in the second half of the past century, under the inluence of European archaeology, the attention of the Romanian specialists was directed towards the detailed research of the material culture from the classical Antiquity. I refer mainly to the ‘mobile’ material which had a secondary role for a long time, and which was mentioned in the publications of the archaeological excavations only illustratively, in the form of catalogues. It is only the specialization on various categories of small inds that has revealed the great potential of interpretation and of dating, as well as the high quantity of information which can be obtained from the analysis of such objects. Of course, within these categories of material, there are signiicant diferences in the quality and quantity of the information they can provide. Until recently, coins, terra sigillata, brooches or lamps were considered the main sources for the dating of the archaeological contexts. he glass and bone objects, or the bronze vessels (and their fragments) did not use to belong to this pre-eminent category. Yet, the research is advancing in this respect, as well: the detailed investigations carried out both for the glass objects and especially for the metal vessels have been showing a considerable progress. T Starting from the premise that, with respect to such aspects as form, technique and decoration, nothing is produced unchanged for a period of time reaching up to two or three decades, and provided that even the use of objects might change or cease, it became possible for scholars to isolate and conine the stages of such changes. In this way, a typology and a very close dating of whole series of metal vessels from the pre-Roman and Roman period have been achieved. However, the archaeological research referring to the Roman metal vessels is, unfortunately, not equally developed on the whole territory occupied by the Romans and the adjacent areas. In the case of Romania such discoveries are only partially known and a synthesis on the topic of the metal vessels discovered until the present times is missing. One should mention that before the Roman conquest (1st century BC – 1st century AD) the territory of today’s Romania was part of the Barbaricum, and therefore, the vessels (of Roman origin) arrived here as import pieces from the Roman Empire. After the conquest, the vessels discovered on the territory of Roman Dacia (2nd–3rd centuries AD) are not ‘imports’ anymore (even if they are not local products!), unlike those found outside the Dacian province (in the Barbaricum). he diferentiation is important from the point of view of dating and, perhaps, also for determining the time span and the way of usage which might be diferent within the two aforementioned territories. Mrs. Silvia Mustață’s doctoral research comprised in this volume represents the fulilment of this desideratum, as it provides the ield of archaeology, and especially that of Romanian archaeology, with a detailed analysis and presentation of the metal vessels from a clearly delimited area, namely that of the former Roman province Dacia Porolissensis. Her initial intention to include in her study an analysis of the whole Roman Dacia proved to be unachievable for several reasons; the huge quantity of material to be processed is just one of them. he intensity and quality of the investigations in this more restricted area proved to be much more eicient as, due to the lack of time, the material from the whole province could not have been thoroughly studied. he author of the present book realized very early during her scientiic activities in the ield of Roman archaeology, the importance of studying bronze vessels as a signiicant source for archaeological research, not only in view of dating and establishing a proper chronology, but also because of the information they can ofer regarding the reconstruction of the economical, social and even cultural life in the Roman world and beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. he result of her interest in the ield is shown by a series of publications on the topic, culminating in the present volume. Without insisting more on the necessity of such a study for the Romanian and European archaeology, which otherwise is explained in the introduction by the author, one should emphasize the way she approached the subject. he author aimed to provide an exhaustive examination of this speciic material category, starting from the actual state of the art in the ield, in Romania. he volume is structured into four main chapters, along with the annexes. Without emphasizing the importance of each chapter separately, there are two speciic aspects which highlight the contribution of the present work, compared to the previous studies on the topic: – the establishment of an appropriate terminology in Romanian concerning the bronze vessels, directly linked to the existing terminology in other European languages, inalized in Annexe III, in the form of a comparative terminological table; – the exhaustive, monographic analysis of the topic, extended to the whole Europe. Starting with the ancient sources, and continuing with the production technology, metal alloys and workshops, the produced forms, repairs, the geographical distribution and the chronology etc., the author takes into consideration all the aspects related to the bronze vessels industry from the Roman Empire, and she integrates the vessels from Dacia Porolissensis in this broader context. Due to its approach, the present volume represents a Novum, a pioneering work, not only within the Romanian archaeological research, but also in the ield of European archaeology! It is a reference work, which must be taken into account by the future research in the ield of Roman metal vessels, both in Europe and in Romania. It will be necessary for further research to follow the model established in the present volume, while analyzing the archaeological discoveries from other areas of Romania (from inside and outside of the Roman province). 10 I am convinced that this publication, which fulils a long-awaited desideratum, will be extremely useful for the specialists, and especially for the Romanian archaeologists, as it ofers them a recommended model to follow, as well as an adequate terminology. Speyer, 25 June 2017 Richard Petrovszky 11 A cknowledgements he present volume represents the result of a research started as a student and inalized during the doctoral studies carried out between 2007 and 2013 at the “Babeș-Bolyai” University from Cluj-Napoca. I am grateful to prof. dr. Alexandru Diaconescu for his guidance as a student and for the fact that he sparked my interest in Roman material culture and, especially, in the study of Roman bronze vessels. he research would not have possible without the support ofered by prof. dr. Nicolae Gudea who accepted to supervise my PhD research and guided me with patience during this period. I would also like to express my gratitude towards dr. Sorin Ilie Cociș who ofered me, since I was a student, his constant aid and assistance for inishing this research. he same thoughts go towards dr. Richard Petrovszky for his guidance and important advice, but also for the fact that his passion for Roman bronzes is contagious and it always made me want to know and, more important, understand more. here is a long list of persons, professors, colleagues and friends, who helped me along the way with relevant discussions, advice, bibliographical material, encouragements and who deserve my gratitude: prof. dr. Radu Ardevan, conf. dr. István Bajusz, prof. dr. Gelu Florea, conf. dr. Eduard Nemeth, conf. dr. Ligia Ruscu, lector dr. Liliana Suciu-Mateescu (“Babeș-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca), prof. dr. Doina Benea (West University of Timișoara), dr. Vitalie Bârcă, dr. Cristian Găzdac, dr. Aurel Rustoiu (Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, Cluj-Napoca), Szilamér Péter Pánczél, Katalin Sidó, dr. Oana Toda (Mureș County Museum, Târgu Mureș), dr. Monica Gui, dr. Eugen Iaroslavschi, dr. Răzvan Mateescu, dr. Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț (National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj-Napoca), dr. Cristina Mitar (Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation, Deva), dr. Vasile Moga, dr. Anca Timofan (National Museum of the Union, Alba Iulia), dr. Lóránt Vass (Aquincum Museum, Budapest), Zsolt Mráv (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest), dr. phil. Joachim Gorecki, prof. dr. Markus Scholz (Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main), dr. Margherita Bolla (Archaeological Museum, Verona), dr. Dénes Gabler (he Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Archaeological Institute, Budapest), dr. Alexandru Popa (Regensburg University), dr. phil. Gabriele Rasbach (Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt am Main), Virginia Rădeanu (County Direction for Culture and National Heritage, Cluj-Napoca), dr. Dorel Bondoc (Museum of Oltenia, Craiova), dr. Mariana Egri, dr. Cristian Claudiu Filip, ass.-prof. T dr. Manfred Hainzmann (he Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna), dr. Ștefania Lalu, dr. Cosmin Onofrei and dr. Dávid Petruț. A signiicant part of the objects analysed in this volume has never been published before. I would like to thank the specialists responsible for these groups of inds for allowing me to include them here: prof. dr. Nicolae Gudea (the auxiliary forts from Moigrad/Porolissum–Pomet Hill, Buciumi and Bologa), conf. dr. István Bajusz (the old collections and stray inds from Moigrad/Porolissum), dr. Corneliu Gaiu (the auxiliary fort at Ilișua/Arcobadara), dr. Sorin Ilie Cociș (Cluj-Napoca/Napoca- Victor Deleu Street), prof. dr. Radu Ardevan (the auxiliary fort at Gherla), Valentin Voișian (Florești-Șapca Verde), Claudiu Iov (Moigrad/Porolissum-stray inds). A proper re-evaluation of the published inds could not have been possible without the help and kindness of the specialists from the museums where they are stored: National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj-Napoca (dr. Viorica Crișan, prof. dr. Ioan Piso and especially dr. Melinda Ildikó Mitu and dr. Irina Nemeti), History and Art County Museum, Zalău (Dan Culic, dr. Horea Pop, dr. Dumitru Gheorghe Tamba), Bistrița-Năsăud Museum Complex, Bistrița (dr. Corneliu Gaiu, Elena Pleniceanu, dr. Radu Zăgreanu), History Musem, Gherla (Mihai Meșter) and Hungarian National Museum, Budapest (Zsolt Mráv). he drawing of the material was made with the help of Anca Diaconescu, Márton Ferenczi, Narcisa Șugar and Lóránt Vass to whom I would also like to thank. During the doctoral studies I had the possibility of using the resources of several important libraries on matters of Roman provincial archaeology and the time spent there was decisive for inalizing this research. For this I am thankful to the specialist from Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt am Main and from Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz am Rhein, as well as to Domus Hungarica Scientiarium et Artium Foundation for the research possibilities in Budapest as their fellow. his volume would not have been possible without the unconditional support ofered by my family. I am grateful to my mother and to Radu and Alpár for everything. Finally, I would like to thank the editors of Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum for the possibility of publishing this volume in their series. 14 I. Introduction I.1. Preliminary remarks he Roman metal vessels1 were imported items in the Dacian provincial milieu, produced in certain workshops from the Empire and subsequently distributed over wide areas. In the present state of the art they represent a primary archaeological source which can ofer important information regarding the chronological, economical and everyday life aspects within and outside the borders of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the study of this category of inds has not represented until now a priority of the Romanian archaeology, nor of the specialists who studied Roman Dacia or Dacia Porolissensis in particular. Although the topic itself has a great potential for research, most of the inds are still unpublished. Under these circumstances the analysis and publication of the metal vessels from Roman Dacia is more than necessary. One of the main arguments in this regard is represented by the period itself during which Dacia existed as a Roman province in comparison with the neighbouring areas. he metal vessels discovered here relect the demand and consumption of such goods in a Roman province, within a shorter time span of less than two centuries. he choice of analysing the inds from Dacia Porolissensis was determined by a series of factors. An exhaustive research, which would have encompassed the entire province, although preferable, remains a desideratum of the author of this volume, but could not have been accomplished within the limited period of time dedicated to the completion of the doctoral research since, as mentioned before, most of the discoveries remain unpublished. For this reason, a narrower area, namely Dacia Porolissensis, has been chosen as a starting point of this endeavour. he main propose of the volume is to analyse, revaluate and make available for the scientiic community the inds from Dacia Porolissensis seen not T By metal vessels I mean the bronze and iron vessels discovered in the researched area. To my knowledge no Roman vessel made of precious metal has been discovered until now in Dacia Porolissensis. Moreover, the number of the iron vessels is small, the category being represented by the two toilet vessels discovered in Cluj-Napoca, on the site from Victor Deleu Street. hey are exceptional inds in the rest of the Roman Empire as well. For this reason most of the information included in this volume refers to Roman bronze vessels. he term bronze is used as a convention and not to designate a speciic type of copper alloy. For a discussion regarding the types of copper alloys used in Roman times see subchapter II.3.1.1. 1 as a isolated territory, but as a component of a wide and complex socio-economic and cultural system represented by the Roman Empire. Consequently, the inds were integrated in the general context of the circulation of Roman metal vessels in the Roman Empire, with the hope that this will lead to a better understanding of the Dacian realities and of the Roman metal vessels industry in general. he volume was structured in two main parts: one dedicated to the bronze vessels industry in the Roman Empire (chapter II) and the second to the analysis of the metal vessels from Dacia Porolissensis (chapters III-V). hough it has a general character, the overview of the main sources (from the ancient writers to iconographical representations and the technology of production) from chapter II will hopefully ind its utility for anyone interested in the topic of the Roman bronze vessels. For an easier reading the catalogue of the inds was integrated, according to type, in chapter III, together with the typo-chronological analyses. Several parts of the analysis have been published before, as individual studies, in diferent journals or collective volumes. hese texts were included in the present volume as well, in order to ofer a complete image of the metal vessels from Dacia Porolissenss. Moreover, in most of the situations new publications determined an update of the information that had been initially published. he small number of studies written in English dealing with the typo-chronological aspects of this category of inds did not favour the existence of a well elaborated terminology for denominating the diferent types identiied. For this reason the term used for each type was adapted in English starting from the terminology used in general in the international archaeological literature, taking into account, of course, the contributions written in English when it was the case2. Unfortunately, it was not possible to carry out metallographic investigations on the inds included in this volume. Hopefully, this will be achievable in the future together with a revaluation of the inds. I.2. The study of the Roman bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis. History of the research he analysis was based on a number of 119 pieces, of which 53 have not been published before. he published material appeared in excavation reports, in site monographs or in studies concerned with the bronze inds from various settlements throughout the province. However, with only a handful of exceptions, these works were limited to a strictly archaeological presentation of the material, lacking a typological classiication and a placement of the pieces against a historical background. In the following paragraphs, those studies will be mentioned which attempted to investigate more or less in depth certain aspects pertaining to the bronze vessels coming from the area under study. At the present moment, there are only a few attempts at synthesising the information related to the bronze vessels from Roman Dacia, evidently including the pieces from Dacia Porolissensis among them. he most signiicant is the exhibition catalogue drawn up on the occasion of the 11th Congress on Ancient Bronzes held in Bucharest3. Apart from a repertoire of the pieces, the catalogue is also accompanied by a general text authored by C. Mușețeanu which addresses the bronze vessels from Dacia (including those dated before the Roman conquest) and Moesia Inferior4. he author provides only a summary of the main types of inds, without making typo-chronological classiications, while the catalogue entries ofer brief and not always correct information regarding these aspects. Speaking of the studies seeking to analyse certain types of bronze vessels at a provincial level, one must mention A. Ștefănescu’s paper dedicated to the bronze paterae from Roman Dacia5. he 15 analysed specimens also include a part of the known casseroles, strainers/dippers and bowls with tubular handle from Dacia Porolissensis. he author’s enterprise represents a irst attempt to analyse some types of vessels at the level of the entire province, even if some of the aspects related to the proposed typological classiications are questionable. See the modern terminology comparative table from Annexe III. For a more detailed discussion of the Romanian terminology see MUSTAȚĂ 2013. 3 ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003. 4 MUŞEŢEANU 2003. 5 ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004. 2 16 A more recent synthesis on the issue of the bronze vessels from Roman Dacia is owed to the same author6. On the basis of the pieces known from the specialised literature, she produced an overview of the main types of bronze vessels attested in Dacia. In certain cases a possible local production is suggested, even if, except for potential repairs, there is no evidence of that at the present moment. Aside from the problems connected to the terminology it employs, the study, although useful since it incorporates most of the pieces published until 2008, did not manage to supply adequate typological and chronological classiications for many of the types of bronze vessels discussed. Returning to Dacia Porolissensis, in the following a series of contributions which treated in greater detail certain aspects related to Roman bronze vessels will be highlighted in chronological order. First, there is the publication of the Roman bronze objects from the fort at Gilău. On this occasion, the authors turned their attention to the information regarding the typology and chronology of the bronze vessels included in their study7. he same holds true with respect to the publication of the bronzes from the fort at Gherla8, as well as of some lots of pieces originating from Ilișua/Arcobadara9. Probably the most in-depth study of a bronze vessel coming from the territory considered in the present volume was produced by D. Isac when analysing the globular balsamarium with relief decoration discovered in the fort at Gilău10. he author succeeded in ofering an exhaustive presentation of the piece, pertinently putting forward aspects related to technique, artistic execution, production centres and distribution areas. he issue of the vessel from Gilău was once more discussed by G. Alexandrescu11 following the analysis of a globular balsamarium with relief decoration discovered at Slokoshtitsa (Kiustendil, Bulgaria) which was also decorated with agonistic scenes. In this context, some supplementary typological and iconographic clariications determined by the evolution of the research of the type subsequent to D. Isac’s study were supplied. Recently, the iconography and technical details displayed by the vessel from Gilău have been readdressed by Al. Diaconescu12. Also, Á. Alföldy-Găzdac’s study dedicated to the bronze pieces from Dacia housed in the collection of the National Hungarian Museum in Budapest regards with special attention the bust balsamarium from Moigrad/Porolissum13. he item is typologically and chronologically classiied, with emphasis on the technical issues it raises. he reassessment of the discovery circumstances of the metal hoard from the fort at Orheiu Bistriței, initially considered to have been found at Dipșa and attributed to the period prior to the Roman conquest14, is owed to C. Gaiu who, based on the inventories of the Evangelic Gymnasium from Bistița, managed to reconstitute the initial composition of the hoard15. hus, a typological re-classiication of the bronze vessels was attempted, suggesting a potential hiding of the hoard items in the time of the Marcomannic wars. I.3. The Latin terminology16 he use of Latin terms for designating Roman artefacts preserved until today represents a subject which was much debated in the literature. Regarding the Roman bronze vessels and the Roman vessel shapes in general, W. Hilgers’ study, “Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefäße nach der antiken Schriftquellen”17, represented from the moment of its publication ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b. DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 53–54, nos. 1–3, Figs. 1/1–3. 8 GĂZDAC 1995, 401–402, 410, nos. 1–4, 418–419, Figs. 1/1, 2/2–4. 9 NEMETI 2001, 98, nos. 28–31, 101–102, Pl. II/16, III/1–3. 10 ISAC 2000; ISAC 2001b. 11 ALEXANDRESCU 2005. 12 DIACONESCU 2013, 216–236. 13 ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2005. 14 GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971. 15 GAIU 2005. 16 For an individual publication of this discussion see MUSTAȚĂ 2011a. 17 HILGERS 1969. 6 7 17 a milestone for all the scholars who considered the use of Latin names convenient. Even if the above mentioned author never intended it, his study together with “Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines”18 edited by Ch. Daremberg and E. Saglio encouraged this line of research19. Although it represents a very useful tool for any specialist dealing with Roman vessels, regardless of the material they were made of, it has to be stressed from the start that Hilger’s intention was never that of creating a catalogue of Latin names designating diferent vessel shapes. His aim was expressed very clear in the introduction: “Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich, ausgehend von den Bezeichnungen römischer Gefäße in den antiken Schriftquellen, mit deren Funktionen und vor allem Formen [...] In der Archäologie ist es üblich, bestimmte Gefäßtypen mit bestimmten Namen zu benennen [...] Die Benennungen sind aber selten gesichert, oft nur wahrscheinlich richtig, mitunter aber auch ofensichtlich falsch. Die vorliegende Arbeit kann nur in weniger Fällen eine neue Identiizierung bringen, in einigen möchte sie bisher gebrauchte als falsch oder allzu unbegründet ausmerzen. Wenn es ihr aber gelingt, in vielen anderen Fällen die bisherige Deutung anhand der schriftlichen Überlieferung zu überprüfen und dabei neue Argumente für ihre Berechtigung oder wahrscheinliche Richtigkeit beizubringen bzw. durch Überprüfung dieser Überlieferung von selbst zu den bisher verwendeten Termini technici zu gelangen, ist eine weitere wichtige Aufgabe erfüllt”20. he study gathers in a catalogue all the vessel names which appear in the Latin sources. he author tries, up to a certain extent, to assign the Latin names from the sources to objects coming from archaeological excavations, but, with a few exceptions21, most of the identiications do not have a real base and in many cases one term is illustrated through several shapes with diferent functionalities. At a closer look it is obvious that the number of identiied Latin terms is much higher than the shapes of known vessels22. Most of them do not have a correspondent in reality23, just as well as for many known shapes no ancient name has been identiied yet24. he problems arise from the fact that the information contained by the ancient texts is ambiguous and incomplete25. his situation is obvious from the start with respect to vessels for everyday usage which, due to their common character and frequency, did not receive detailed descriptions from the ancient writers. he vague character also originates in the lack of intention from the authors of describing speciic shapes. he vessels were never the main subject around which the action evolved and they were in general collaterally mentioned. Such premises determine a totally uneven presentation of the information: in some cases some aspects referring to a vessel are described, in other instances, emphasis is placed on completely diferent features, e.g.: a certain shape can have a lid or not, can present handles or not etc. here are few situations in which complete descriptions, which allow proper identiications, are ofered26. he situations when the same shape was labelled by the Romans with several diferent terms have to be taken into consideration as well. In this regard Marcus Terentius Varro’s account, about the same vessel shapes which are named with Latin terms when used in cultic activities and with Greek ones when DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877–1919. A critical approach referring to the way “Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines” has inluenced and has been employed by the specialists dealing with the Greek and Roman material culture can be found at ALLISON 1999, 59–65. For a useful discussion of the Latin, Greek and Italian terms used in “Giornali degli Scavi from Pompeii” see ALLISON 2006, 16–38. 20 HILGERS 1969, 1. 21 Between the identiications which seem plausible the following can be mentioned: turibulum (HILGERS 1969, 82–83, 294–295); amphora (HILGERS 1969, 35–36, 99–102); dolium (HILGERS 1969, 35–36, 171–176); operculum (HILGERS 1969, 70–71, 234–235); atramentarium (HILGERS 1969, 39, 112); cortina (HILGERS 1969, 51–52, 155–156); situla (HILGERS 1969, 77–79, 282–283); infundibulum (HILGERS 1969, 61, 198); lanx (HILGERS 1969, 65–67, 206–209); mortarium (HILGERS 1969, 68–70, 225–227); simpulum (HILGERS 1969, 279). 22 he catalogue comprises a number of 382 Latin terms designating vessels: HILGERS 1969, 91–305. 23 See HILGERS 1969, Taf. 1–4. 24 See TASSINARI 1995, 18–19. 25 For a discussion regarding the occurrence of the information related to Roman bronze vessels in ancient sources see subchapter II.2.1. 26 TASSINARI 1993, 21. 18 19 18 used in everyday life, should not be ignored27: Qui vinum dabant ut minutatim funderent, a guttis guttum appellarunt; qui sumebant minutatim, a sumendo simpulum nominarunt. In huiusce locum in conviviis e Graecia successit epichysis et cyathus; in sacruiciis remansit guttus et simpulum. To this it adds the lack of information in the descriptions, referring to the material the vessels were made from. An example in this direction is ofered by the last two books of Martial’s epigrams: book XIII (Xenia) and XIV (Apophoreta)28, both of them a very important documentary source with respect to everyday life aspects and the objects employed. hey comprise the texts attached to the gifts ofered for Saturnalia, respectively the gifts which were given to the guests during visits. Although an important number of vessels are mentioned, most of the time it is not known what they were made of and the descriptions are not accurate, since it was not the author’s intention to describe vessel shapes. Another important aspect is represented by the impossibility of using the Latin names in such a manner that could cover all the terminological variety required by a typology. he only compromise in this direction could be ofered by a mixed terminology which is not desirable due to the confusions it would create29. he modern typologies are based on elements which were never important for the person from the past who used a certain vessel. he situation is the same today: we do not notice in every detail the morphology of the vessels we use in everyday activities. his is why vessels with similar functionalities appear in the ancient accounts under the same name, even if they were diferent from a morphological viewpoint. An example for this is ofered by the vessels used during the toilette in Roman times. Even if the ancient sources mention terms like ampulla30 or unguentarium31 as vessels for keeping diferent crèmes or perfumes, the shapes existing in reality are made from diferent materials and display a very diverse morphology, especially the ones made from copper alloys: from lask-shaped pieces and globular forms to bust or head-shaped vessels32. At a closer look, even if all of them can be included in the general category of toilette vessels, their functionality difers, each shape being used for diferent activities during this process33. To this, the arbitrary usage of some Latin terms, which in Antiquity had nothing or little to do with vessel shapes, has to be mentioned. One such example is represented by unguentarium, a designation widely used in the archaeological literature. When trying to analyse the original contexts where the word appears, it is surprising to see that it was mentioned only once in the ancient sources and this mention is a late one, dated in the 5th century AD, in a letter sent by Evodius, bishop of Rouen, to St. Augustine34. “Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine” contains only the form unguentarium (aes) which refers to the money used for buying perfume, unguentaria (taberna), thus the shop of a perfumer –and unguentarius, -a, the perfumer35. “Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines” does not include the term unguentarium, only that of unguentum and it mentions a funerary inscription from Lyon which belonged to a unguentarius36. A similar example as the one presented above is represented by balsamarium, a modern word which was never used in Antiquity by the Latin speakers37. It is a technical term and for this reason it was also not included in “Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines”38. For the same reason there is no mention in the ancient sources of a vessel with such a name39. he variants balsamarius or balsamaria VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA, V, 124; the same reference to Varro’s text appears in STRONG 1979, 131, note 2, with the mention that the reference is not exact: the account can be found at VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA, V, 124, not at V, 125. 28 MARTIAL, XIII (XXVIII, XXIX, CIII), XIV (XII, XIII, LII, XCIII-XCVIII, CI-CIII, CV-CXVIII). 29 TASSINARI 1993, 21. 30 HILGERS 1969, 37–38. 31 HILGERS 1969, 298. 32 See e.g.: SZABÓ 1984; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995. 33 See the discussion at SZABÓ 1984; see also NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000. 34 HILGERS 1969, 298; MIGNE, PL, XXXIII, 698. 35 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 747, s. v. unguo. 36 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877–1919, V/1, 591–598, unguentum (V. Chapot). 37 MARTI 1996, 979, note 4. 38 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877–1919. 39 HILGERS 1969; the author mentions the fact that the form balsamarium does not exist in Latin: HILGERS 1969, 310/ Salbgefäß. 27 19 exist in Latin with an adjectival meaning, that of balsamic. Both forms derive from balsamum-i, formed from the Greek word bálsamon which, in turn, comes from the Semitic languages40. hus, balsamarium can be used for denominating vessel shapes as a technical term which became an archaeological convention, but not as a Latin name. Both unguentarium and balsamarium, if used, need to be employed at a general level, without attributing special functionalities to the vessels they would denominate, namely that of perfume, crème, oil containers, since it is still very diicult to be sure about their real content. It is not clear at all what kind of content each individual shape had41. Considering the above mentioned and the fact that the ancient names for each shape are not known, the use of a modern, descriptive terminology represents a more cautious choice, especially when it comes to typology. he use of ancient names, which carry a strong functional component, can create serious confusions. Probably the best example from this point of view is represented by the term patera. W. Hilgers identiied two shapes as paterae42: a shallow, open vessel, without a handle and the same shape, this time with a cylindrical handle, plain or decorated with parallel grooves. In “Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine”, patera is deined as a wide, lat shape, with a reverted rim which was used for pouring the wine on the altar or on the head of the animal which was about to be sacriiced43. If the irst shape identiied by W. Hilgers corresponds from a morphological viewpoint to a patera44, the second one represents something totally diferent: a shallow vessel with a cylindrical handle, ending with zoomorphic or anthropomorphic representations45, known in the German literature as “Grifschale”46, which has a diferent functionality. In “Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines”, patera is considered to be a vessel used for libations during sacriices, the Latin version of the Greek shape phiala and it is clearly speciied that the vessel does not have a handle47. he most important contribution in this direction, which pointed out the major functional diferences between patera and “Grifschale”, based on a thorough analysis of the iconographical and written sources, belongs to H. U. Nuber48. he author makes a clear distinction between patera, a vessel without handle, provided or not with an umbo, which was used during the sacriice for libations only by the priest, and “Grifschale”, a shape with a handle which represents together with the jugs (with trefoil rim or with spout) the handwashing set used in the votive milieu as well as in the everyday activities for washing during the toilette or for washing the hands during the meals49. Although patera, “Grifschale” and the casserole represent three diferent shapes with diferent functionality, they are constantly designated in the literature – the metal pieces and their imitations in glass or pottery – with the term patera. he major problem which arises from this is related to the functionality. Since patera is a vessel used only in the votive milieu and during the domestic cult, the same type of functionality is attributed to the other shapes as well, and, subsequently, they are used as proof of cultic activities50. his situation distorts the image we have on religious activities being that patera is ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 65, s.v. balsamum. SZABÓ 1984; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995; MARTI 1996, 980, 985–990; see also the discussion regarding the functionality of the objects: subchapters III.11 and III.12. 42 HILGERS 1969, 71–72, Bild 59–62 with the speciication that the vessel illustrated in Bild 62, a casserole used for mixing and/or measuring as part of the wine sets, is not considered by the author a patera. he scholars who identiied the casserole as a shape with patera referring to Hilger’s study probably did not pay much attention to the text accompanying the illustration: „Man plegt heute auch eine andere Gefäßformen, die Kelle oder Kasserollen (Bild 62) als patera zu bezeichnen. In Wahrheit ist uns aber ihre Benennung in der Antike unbekannt” (HILGERS 1969, 72). 43 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 488, s. v. patera. 44 HILGERS 1969, 71, Bild 59. 45 HILGERS 1969, 71, Bild 60–61. 46 See subchapters: II.2.2.2 and III.6. 47 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO 1877–1919, IV/1, 341, patera (E. Pottier). 48 NUBER 1973. 49 See the discussion in subchapter II.2.2.2. 50 See e.g.: MAN 2010 where the pottery imitations of bronze casseroles are considered a proof for an intense religious activity on the eastern part of Roman Dacia. In MAN 2003, 59–60, the author tries to relate the vegetal decoration displayed by the handles of bronze casserole imitations in pottery from Cristești (Mureș County) with the cult of Liber 40 41 20 an exceptional discovery which was used in exceptional situations51. he presumption of a religious or votive character needs to be taken into consideration with caution, since, at least in this case, not the objects are the ones that determine the cultic or profane character of the context of discovery, but the other way around: the discovery circumstances should indicate if the object was used or not in votive activities. his false identiication determined the misinterpreting of the scenes depicted on funerary monuments representing servants who carry with them the handwashing set or the representations of instrumenta sacra on the lateral sides of votive altars52. Another example of confusions which can occur when the Latin terms are misused is represented by the identiications of the vessels designated with the modern terms jugs or spouted jugs provided or not with a trefoil rim53, with the Latin words guttus, lagoena or urceus. he ancient sources describe guttus as a vessel with narrow neck54 and only one rim opening, used in diferent activities: for serving the wine, for keeping the oil used during meals or during the toilette, for pouring the water as part of the handwashing set, but also employed in the votive milieu55. Lagoena, a corrupt form from laguna56, is, according to the same sources, a vessel with narrow rim, globular body, which can have one or two handles. A precise identiication of a vessel shape existing in reality is not possible. he shape generally identiied with this term is the common Roman jug with narrow rim and one handle, identiication based mainly on the inscriptions found on the vessels, containing the term lagona or lagoena. However, this designation was used for other shapes as well and it seems that it refers more to functional aspects: container for wine, than to a shape in particular57. Urceus /urceolus was used in the ancient accounts to describe two diferent shapes: a vessel with handle and wide rim, used for serving the wine or for pouring the water during handwashing in the Christian cult as well, but also a vessel with lid used for storing supplies and related to the so-called honey pots58. Based on these descriptions the attempt of distinguishing between the diferent shapes of jugs existing in the archaeological material in order to identify them with one of the above mentioned Latin terms seems almost impossible. he available data is scarce and disproportionate. Some sources mention functional aspects when referring to a vessel, others morphological elements, therefore it is not possible to extract all of the features which should deine a shape. he equalization of the terms trulla59 and trulleum60 with the shape designated as casserole also needs to be done with caution. Even if there is a high probability that the terms were indeed used to designate Pater. For other objects of this type from Roman Dacia see RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1997, with a more cautious approach in extending the cultic functionality of the objects and a discussion which emphasizes on the random use of the terminology in the literature. Analyzing the imitations of metal casseroles with the handle decorated in relief discovered at Sirmium, Singidunum and Viminacium, called paterae, I. Popović explains the presence of such a great number of pieces through the expansion of the cult of Silvanus (POPOVIĆ 2008). Another paper which uses in an improper manner the term patera also belongs to A. Ștefănescu (ȘTEFĂNESCU 2004). he author presents three categories of Roman bronze vessels: casseroles, bowls with tubular handle (“Grifschalen”) and sets of dippers and strainers. In the title all three are named paterae, while in the text the term is only attributed to “Grifschalen”. See also: TASSINARI 1970a with the speciication that the term patera is used at a general level, without attributing to it a religious or cultic meaning. Subsequently (TASSINARI 1970b, 162), the author keeps her choice of using the term patera at a general level, but considers that regarding some categories of casseroles, the ones with the handle decorated in relief, a religious meaning cannot be excluded, even though the ones discovered at Pompeii, despite the Bachhic representations on the handles, were part of the wine services. For both functionalities see PETROVSZKY 1993, 89–91 and for objects of this type see PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002. 51 he discoveries of vessels which indeed can be identiied with paterae are very rare. See e.g.: TASSINARI 1975, 34, nos.: 25, 26, Pl. VII/25, Pl. VIII/26. In the same category of the paterae the author includes two casseroless with the handle decorated in relief and two bowls with tubular handle. 52 See the discussion in subchapter II.2.2.3. 53 For a discussion regarding the modern terminology employed in this case, see subchapter III.3. 54 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 286, s. v. guttus. 55 HILGERS 1969, 58–60. 56 ERNOUT, MEILLET 2001, 338, s. v. lagona. 57 HILGERS 1969, 61–65; for the possible multiple functionalities of the vessels identiied with the term lagoena see ALLISON 1999, 65. 58 HILGERS 1969, 83–86. 59 HILGERS 1969, 291–293. 60 HILGERS 1969, 293. 21 the casseroles, the information ofered by the ancient sources seems to indicate their use in a speciic context: as pairs inside the drinking sets61. Another question which needs to be addressed in this context refers to the correctness of using the term ministerium with its two components: vasa escaria (the set for serving and consuming the food) and vasa po(ta)toria (the drinking set)62 for designating the group of vessels used for serving and consuming food and drinks. First of all, the use of the terms cannot be extended on all the shapes without taking into consideration the nature of the material they were made of. he ancient sources refer with respect to these terms to vessels made out of precious metals and glass, and especially to the silver ones: argentum escarium and argentum potorium63. he terms ministerium and escarium were never associated in the accounts with bronze vessels or pottery64 and potorium appears associated with vessels set with precious stones65. he most serious problems which arise, especially regarding the bronze vessels, when using a classiication based on such a strong functional component, is represented by the fact that for many shapes the functionality is either uncertain or multiple: there are vessels which were used for more than one purpose. As such, a classiication based on functionality can only force in some situations the framing of the objects in ixed categories, even if it is not clear in which context they were used. Taking into account all the above discussed issues, the use of Latin terms, when analysing Roman bronze vessels and not only, has to be done with caution. Due to the strong functional meaning, they cannot be used as such within a typology. A modern, pure descriptive, terminology, deriving from the morphology of the shapes can constitute a safer and more correct approach. Still, this does not mean that the Latin denominations should be ignored. A discussion on the possible terms used by the Romans to denominate a certain shape should ind its place inside the analysis. BENDER 2000. HILGERS 1969, 15. 63 See MICHELI 1991. 64 HILGERS 1969, 179, 222: ministerium is a term which designates gold and silver sets, usually used in cultic activities; a lot of the sources which mention it refer to the Christian cult. 65 HILGERS 1969, 263. 61 62 22 II. The bronze vessels industry in the Roman Empire. General considerations II.1. A brief overview of the research he issue of Roman bronze vessels was the subject matter of numerous specialised studies. In the following lines I will not analyse at length the contribution of each specialist, because such an enterprise would not be appropriate for the present study. Instead, an attempt will be made to highlight the most important stages the research in this ield underwent, focusing on those works which brought major contributions to the evolution of the study of Roman bronze vessels66. After a period during which bronze vessels stayed in the shadow of collections and antiquarian interest, when only those pieces considered valuable from an “artistic” point of view were catalogued67, the beginning of the 20th century signals the commencement of the scientiic research of this category of archaeological material. he two fundamental works of H. Willers dedicated to the Hemmoor-type buckets68 and to the Roman bronze vessels industry69 laid the methodological foundations for the research and originally characterised the repertoire of the production centre from Campania, as well as of certain provincial workshops. For the irst time bronze vessels T For an overview of the state of Roman bronze vessels research during the irst three quarters of the 20th century, see RADNÓTI 1970. A detailed analysis of the evolution of the study of Roman metal ware between the years 1946 and 1975, and 1976 and 1985 respectively was carried out by J. Wielowiejski (WIELOWIEJSKI 1977; WIELOWIEJSKI 1988). he author presents in depth the new artefactual discoveries of this type, as well as the progress registered with respect to technology and production centres, chronology, function and commercial routes, with an emphasis on the research carried out on the European Barbaricum. A thorough analysis of the state of research of bronze vessels from Poland was also accomplished by J. Wielowiejski (WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 130–138). For the state of research concerning Spain, up to the year 1984, see WIELOWIEJSKI 1984a and for a research history of production stamps present on Roman bronze vessels, see PETROVSZKY 1993, 17–19. A synthetic presentation of the evolution of research in what concerns the Roman imports into the north European Barbaricum can be seen in BERKE 1990, 5–9. 67 See, e.g.: REINACH 1894, 307–336; BABELON, BLANCHET 1895, 560–588. 68 WILLERS 1901. 69 WILLERS 1907. 66 were used with the prospect of determining commercial routes from the Empire towards Barbaricum. At the same time, the Roman bronze vessels held in the Museum from Zagreb were published70. As a consequence of the impetus received by this ield of research from Willers’ studies, a series of publications that conirmed the importance of Roman bronze vessels as a irst-hand source for the analysis of the contacts between the Roman Empire and the European areas north of the limes appeared after the First World War71. Regarding the Roman provincial environment, the most important contribution dating from the inter-war period is the monograph dedicated by A. Radnóti to the bronze vessels from Pannonia72. he volume represents the irst attempt made at such a scale and, due to the author’s diligence, many of the conclusions he had reached are still valid today. Although only the complete or least fragmentary vessels were taken into account, most originating from the funerary sphere or from deposits, the analysis was not limited to Pannonia, but included most of the known discoveries of a certain type from the entire Roman Empire. hus, the major informative potential of this material category for the study of daily life aspects was proven. At the same time, the Roman bronze vessels from Martigny (Switzerland) were published73. he period after the Second World War was marked by the specialists’ ever growing interest in Roman bronze vessels. When H. J. Eggers’ study was published in 195174, it provided a premier overview on the issue of Roman imports into the north European Barbaricum. he typology and chronological system devised by Eggers, with the appropriate corrections and nuances that occurred in the course of time, will lay at the foundation of research for the next decades. he work also put forward the irst detailed analysis of the literary sources referring to the Roman trade in Barbaricum. Based on the analysis of the material, it attempts to reconstitute the irst directions of inlow followed by the imported pieces, in deined chronological intervals. After the appearance of Eggers’ volume, the research of Roman bronze vessels discovered outside the Empire’s borders will pursue two directions: the publication of new inds and the reinement of the chronology he proposed75. Regarding the latter direction, such an endeavour was necessary because the north European Barbaricum was not a uniform area and so Eggers’ chronology could not be applied to some of the regional realities. J. Kunow accomplished a much more thorough treatment of the imports issue76. One of the major contributions of this work is the attention it drew to the fact that Roman imports from Barbaricum have a greater lifespan than many of the locally produced pieces and for this reason they cannot represent a secure basis for a chronological system concerning these areas77. Further contributions of J. Kunow’s refer to the function of imported pieces78, viewed diferently within and outside of the Empire, to a reassessment of the commerce problem and to the attempt of determining, on the basis of funerary inds, certain aspects about the human groups which consumed such products. Once the publication of the bronze vessels from Poland was completed, a new chronology speciic to Central Europe was developed79. A revaluation and reinement of the chronological framework proposed by Eggers on the basis of the imports found in northern Europe is HOFFILLER 1904. EKHOLM 1934 (the analysis is based on a series of bronze spouted jugs and jugs, as well as on silverware); EKHOLM 1935; NORLING-CHRISTENSEN 1952. 72 RADNÓTI 1938; see also RADNÓTI 1937 (an important lot of Roman bronze vessels from Museo Profano del Vaticano, Rome, was published). 73 DEONNA 1933. 74 EGGERS 1951. 75 SAKAŘ 1970 (Bohemia); LINDEBERG 1973 (Gotland); KRASKOVSKÁ 1978 (Slovakia); KUNOW 1983 (northern Europe); WIELOWIEJSKI 1985 (Poland); RAEV 1986 (Lower Don basin); LUND HANSEN 1987 (northern Europe); KARASOVÁ 1998 (Bohemia). 76 KUNOW 1983: two import categories are taken into account: bronze and glass vessels. 77 KUNOW 1983, 28–30, 113; WIELOWIEJSKI 1988, 35. 78 For a thorough analysis of the function of silver and bronze vessels in the east European Barbaricum, see WIELOWIEJSKI 1973; for a more recent investigation into the function of bronze vessels north of the Norico-Pannonian limes, see WIELOWIEJSKI 1995. 79 WIELOWIEJSKI 1985. 70 71 24 owed to U. Lund Hansen80. he discovery and complex publication in 2002 of the princely grave from Mušov (Morava, Czech Republic)81, with its exqusite pieces of Roman imports (especially furniture and bronze vessels) has to be mentioned among the important contributions as well. With respect to the Roman provincial environment, the beginning of the post-war period was marked by the publication of the Roman bronze vessels from the “Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam” in Nijmegen82. Subsequently, there will be a considerable increase in the number of studies dedicated to the Roman bronze vessels found within the Empire. he activity of the specialists willing to study Roman metal vessels was encouraged since 1986 by the organisation of meetings and international congresses centred on the study of ancient bronzes, initially once every two years, meetings in which Roman bronze vessels represented an important topic of discussion for several decades. During the same time, other studies which dealt with the bronze vessels from certain Roman provinces or modern states such as Roman Britain83, hrace and Moesia84, or Slovenia85 were published. he large quantity of unpublished pieces will be comprised in the corpora belonging to the “Römische Bronzen” series86, in museum catalogues dedicated to igured bronzes87 or speciically to bronze vessels88, in individual studies dealing either with the pieces coming from a site89 or from a region90, or with certain types or shapes of bronze vessels from a province or from the entire Roman Empire91. Concerning the last category, one must mention LUND HANSEN 1987; for an in-depth analysis of the evolution of the chronological systems devised for the European Barbaricum, see LUND HANSEN 1987, 29–36. 81 PEŠKA, TEJRAL 2002. 82 DEN BOESTERD 1956: a lot comprising 314 pieces was published. he new inds which entered the museum collections between 1954 and 1996 would be published in 1997 (KOSTER 1997). 83 EGGERS 1968. 84 RAEV 1978. 85 BREŠČAK 1982. 86 MENZEL 1960 (Speyer); MENZEL 1966 (Trier); LEIBUNDGUT 1976 (Avenches); KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1977 (Augst and its environs); FAIDER-FEYTMANS 1979 (Gallia Belgica); LEIBUNDGUT 1980 (western Switzerland, Bern and Wallis); MENZEL 1986 (Bonn); KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1994 (Switzerland: new discoveries and reassessments). 87 LEBEL 1962 (Montbéliard, France); LEBEL 1963 (Lons-le-Saunier, France); LEBEL 1965 (Langres, France); BOUCHER 1971 (Vienne, France); COMSTOCK, VERMEULE 1971 (Boston, USA); BÁNKI 1972 (Székesfehérvár, Hungary); DELLI PONTI 1973 (Lecce, Italy); BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976 (Lyon, France); GALLIAZO 1979 (Treviso, Italy); BRONZES ANTIQUES 1981 (Besançon, France); FIRMANI 1985 (Vittorio Veneto, Italy); FRANKEN 1998 (Bonn, Germany); BRAVAR 2002 (Trieste, Italy); STUPPERICH, THOMAS 2003 (Rheinzabern, Germany). 88 TASSINARI 1975a (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France); BARATTE ET ALII 1984 (Chalon-sur-Saône, France); HAYNES 1984 (Toronto, Canada); SZABÓ 1990 (Veszprém, Hungary); BOLLA 1994 (Milano, Italy); BONNET ET ALII 1989 (Paris, France); TASSINARI 1995 (Rouen, France); RATKOVIĆ 2005 (Belgrade, Serbia); BIENERT 2007 (Trier, Germany); JOVANOVIĆ 2010 (Split, Croatia). 89 GRAUE 1974 (the cemeteries from Ornavasso, Italy); CARANDINI 1977 (Pompeii, Italy); BÓNIS 1978 (Szomor-Somodorpuszta, Hungary); NOLL 1980 (Mauer bei Amstetten/Mauer an der Url, Austria); BÓNIS 1981 (Káloz, Hungary); BÓNIS 1982 (Környe, Hungary); BÓNIS 1983 (Zomba, Hungary); FEUGÈRE 1984–1985 (Chalain-d´Uzore, France); HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985 (Brugg/Vindonissa I, Switzerland); HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986 (Brugg/Vindonissa II, Switzerland); HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1987 (Brugg/Vindonissa III, Switzerland); CAVALIER 1988 (Apt, France); HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989 (Baden/Aquae Helveticae, Switzerland); BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990 (Hagenbach, Germany); KOHLERT-NÉMETH 1990 (Frankfurt am Main-Heddernheim/Nida, Germany); FLÜGEL 1993 (Kemptem/Cambodunum, Germany); KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993 (Weissenburg, Germany); KÜNZL 1993 (Neupotz, Germany); FEUGÈRE 1994 (Vertault, France); FLÜGEL 1994 (Rottweil/Arae Flaviae, Germany); PETROVSZKY 1994; PETROVSZKY 1996 (the shipwrek from Mahdia, Greece); MÜLLER 1997 (Haltern, Germany); KAPELLER 2003 (Avenches/Aventicum, Switzerland); RATKOVIĆ 2004 (Kladovo/Diana, Serbia); MÜLLER 2006 (Bergkamen-Oberaden, Germany). 90 POPOVIĆ ET ALII 1969 (Yugoslavia); ÉSPERANDIEU, ROLLAND 1959 (Seine-Maritime department, France); ROLLAND 1965 (Vaucluse-Basses-Alpes department, France); SZABÓ 1980 (the limes of Pannonia Inferior, between Vetus Salina and Lussonium); OGGIANO-BITAR 1984 (Bouches-du-Rhône department, France); AZNAR ET ALII 1990 (Spain); BONNAMOUR 2000 (the region of the Saône River, France); POZO 2000 (Baetica); POZO 2002 (Baetica); BARBARENSCHATZ 2006 (Neupotz, Hagenbach, Lingenfeld/Mechtersheim and Otterstadt, Germany); ERICE LACABE 2007 (Hispania). 91 MAJEWSKI 1964 (anthropomorphic balsamaria); CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970 (jugs with the body fashioned from two 80 25 the study elaborated by H. U. Nuber92 regarding the bronze handwashing sets and their imitations in precious metals, glass, pottery or alabaster. Using the information disclosed by written and iconographic sources, apart from devising a typology and a chronology of the material known at the time, the author also provided a complex analysis of the function of the set both in the votive and in the profane and funerary environment. he new publications brought a major contribution to the evolution of Roman bronze vessels research. First of all, there was a considerable increase in the quantity of published material and also in the quality of publication, allowing a reinement of the typological aspects and of those related to the manufacture period of the types. Important progress was also registered with respect to function, while chemical analyses carried out for lots of Roman bronze vessels brought to light the connection between the type of alloy employed and the inished product93. A series of studies dedicated to the evidence and production technology analysed the diferent stages a bronze vessel went through, from the alloy to the inished product, proving that the manufacture of bronze vessels during the Roman times required the existence of large-scale workshops and craftsmen with advanced technical knowledge94. During the last decade of the 20th century an important change took place in what concerns the way one relates to Roman bronze vessels as an archaeological source. If up to that moment, with few exceptions, most of the researchers who dealt with the pieces discovered within the Empire referred to the typo-chronology established by H. J. Eggers95, the works that appeared beginning with 1990 succeeded in presenting a new, solid methodological basis, speciic to the analysis of the material originating from Italy and from the Roman provincial environment. Among this series of contributions, the irst that should be mentioned in the context is the publication of the talks occasioned by the round table held at Lattes, in France in the year 199096, whose subject was the late Republican Roman bronze vessels. he results of the research group involved in this enterprise led to a much more precise typological deinition, to a more critical approach of the issue of tracing or from a single piece of metal); NUBER 1973 (handwashing sets); RAEV 1977 (bronze sheet spouted jugs); BOLLA 1979 (bronze sheet spouted jugs); SZABÓ 1981 and SZABÓ 1982–1983 (jugs with the handle ending in the shape of a human foot); BOLLA 1986 (bronze sheet casseroles); BOLLA 1989 (bronze sheet spouted jugs); POZO 1988 (anthropomorphic balsamaria from Hispania); NOTTE 1989 (Hemmoor type buckets); SZABÓ 1991a (Alikaria type spouted jugs with trefoil mouth); PERSE, PETROVSZKY 1992 (Eggers 162 straining sets); KÜNZL 1993a (the table service from Neupotz: bronze sheet spouted jugs, jugs with the body manufactured from two pieces of metal, oval platters with handles, casseroles and straining sets, basins with semi-circular lid); KÜNZL 1993b (the kitchenware from Neupotz: Westland-type cauldrons); GORECKI 1994 (Boesterd 276, 288 jugs); SZABÓ 1994 (bronze sheet spouted jugs); SZABÓ 1995 (bucket types from Pannonia); SZABÓ 1999 (Alikaria type bowls with tubular handle); PETROVSZKY 2000 (Dambach type jugs); BRAUN 2001 (balsamaria decorated in relief ); MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002 (anthropomorphic balsamaria); PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002 (Trau type casseroles); TOMAŠEVIĆ BUCK 2002 (authepsae); DAHLIN HAUKEN 2005 (Westland type cauldrons from Norway); BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007 (Tassinari A 1000 jugs with two handles). 92 NUBER 1973. he list of discoveries drawn up by Nuber would be supplemented in 1996 with eight new pieces (HEYL 1996). 93 he irst relevant lot of Roman vessels (from a quantitative viewpoint) for which the alloy composition was analysed is represented by the “Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam” collection from Nijmegen (DEN BOESTERD, HOEKSTRA 1966); for investigations carried out on other groups of Roman bronze vessels and for the composition of the alloys, see subchapter II.3.1.1. 94 DRESCHER 1959; MUTZ 1972; DUBOS 1989; PERNOT 1991; AUBERT 1993; LEGENDRE 1996; BÖCKING ET ALII 2004; PERNOT 2004; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004. 95 See, e.g., CARANDINI 1977; RAEV 1978. Applying Eggers’ typo-chronology to the Roman provincial environment represents a methodological error. Even if we are dealing with products manufactured inside the Empire, which at some point in time ended up in the north European Barbaricum through commerce or by other means, once there, they relect realities and consumption mechanisms diferent from those seen in the Roman world. Of course, the fact that most of the times they surface in Barbaricum in closed contexts presents very important chronological clues, but they must not remain the only elements used when dating a type. Furthermore, the typological variety of the pieces of this kind reaching Barbaricum is much more modest in comparison to the situation from the Empire. he typology devised by Eggers cannot encompass a provincial reality, in some cases several types deined by the author correspond, in fact, to a single type, and in certain situations the discrimination he made between the types is either incorrect, or remains only general. See also WIELOWIEJSKI 1988, 35; PETROVSZKY 1993, 11–12. 96 FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991. 26 production centres, and to a more exact chronological framing of the main types of bronze vessels typical for that period. he problems related to the function of recipients in diferent cultural milieus were thoroughly treated, as well as the aspects referring to the production technology, also emphasising the importance of the Etruscan factor for the appearance and development of a bronze vessels repertoire characteristic for the Roman world. For the moment, this work represents the basis of every research aimed at analysing the Roman bronze vessels dating from the late Republican period. he year 1993 is marked by the appearance of three fundamental works for the study of Roman bronze vessels. First of all, there is the study carried out by R. Petrovszky treating the Roman bronze vessels with production stamps97, then the monograph publication of the metal objects (among which Roman bronze vessels) discovered in an old channel of the Rhine River, in Germany, at Neupotz98, and also S. Tassinari’s monograph on the Roman bronze vessels from Pompeii99. R. Petrovszky’s study analyses a number of approximately 750 bronze vessels with production stamps discovered on the territory of the Roman Empire and in Barbaricum. he undertaking surpasses by far a simple analysis centred only on the issues raised by the stamping. Apart from the very important stamp analysis, which enabled the author to make the irst correct identiication of the formal repertoire pertaining to the main production centres of the Roman Empire, R. Petrovszky’s contribution provides the typological redeinition of the discussed shapes as well. his was possible because there was also a change of perspective in comparison with the previous contributions. he author draws attention to the fact that, from now on, no specialist dealing with Roman bronze vessels would be able to ignore the importance of the technical aspects and their chronological evolution when studying this category of material. he typo-chronological evolution is placed by the author in the frame of the “three generations of vessels” (“die drei Gefäßgenerationen”) deined according to the technical aspects displayed by the inished products. Such an approach made it possible for the irst time to devise a coherent typology for one of the most widespread (but also problematic) shapes during the 1st and at the beginning of the 2nd century AD, namely the casserole, and much more. he publication of the bronze vessels from Pompeii was a research desideratum throughout the 20th century, and the vast study resulted from S. Tassinari’s analysis ofered a premier complete image of the presence of this material category in the domestic inventories of the site. he extremely great quantity of pieces was typologically classiied based on purely morphological criteria, according to a personal system, and was spatially placed in agreement with the ind spots100. he author’s scepticism regarding the chronological potential of the vessels, the possibility of establishing the production centres, or of the way the vessels were used101 (excepting large categories such as kitchenware), prevented her from putting forward a more detailed interpretation of the material. Despite this, apart from publishing a signiicant number of pieces, the merit of this work resides in the fact that it ofered a coherent presentation of the PETROVSZKY 1993. KÜNZL 1993. More than a thousand objects were discovered at Neupotz (out of which 297 were bronze vessels), mostly dated to the period between the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. he “deposit” label attributed to the discovery is only conventional, because the pieces were not all discovered together, but were identiied in several spots around the locality of Neupotz in Germany following the gravel exploitation carried out along a former arm of the Rhine River. hey are the result of the looting raids committed in the western provinces of the Empire during the second half of the 3rd century AD by the Franks and the Alamanni who, upon their return home were attacked by the Rhine leet and thus the objects robbed from the central and south Gallic area ended up in the water. hey were re-published as an exhibition catalogue in 2006 (see BARBARENSCHATZ 2006), demanded by an increase of the items discovered between 1993 and 2006. For another opinion that sees the mono-causal interpretation of the discoveries from Hagenbach, Neupotz, Lingenfeld/Mechtersheim and Otterstadt as unconvincing because it dismisses the possibility that some of the objects could have been deposited in the Rhine as part of a ritual, or that the area, being a favourable crossing place, could have been on the distribution route of the pottery centre from Rheinzabern, and also others, see SCHÖNFELDER 2006. 99 TASSINARI 1993. 100 For a contextual analysis of the material discovered at Pompeii, see ALLISON 2006. 101 “…è un sogno, como è utopistico pensare di poter stabilire che una certa brocca, per esempio ovoidale e fabbricata a martellatura, fosse usata per le abluzioni e venisse fabbricata tra il 50 e il 68 d, C, in una bottega campana.” (TASSINARI 1993, 18). 97 98 27 material, which could be used in subsequent analyses, and a typology that for the moment represents the reference base for an important number of shapes produced during the 1st century AD. Returning to the Roman provincial milieu, H. Sedlmayer’s publication of the bronze vessels from Noricum has to be mentioned102. he study represents a work model for any attempt to consider the material from a certain region. he author succeeded in integrating the pieces from Noricum in the context of the bronze vessels discovered in the Empire, by means of a rigorous typological and chronological analysis. With respect to certain shapes (e.g. the Eggers 69 basins) she is the one who irst provided a consistent, Empire-wide analysis. Because the investigation was mostly based on items whose circumstances of discovery were documented, a signiicant section of the volume is dedicated to the analysis of bronze vessels according to sites, out of which the discoveries from Magdalensberg naturally stand out. he pieces were not studied in isolation, but the other associated categories of material were also taken into account. In what concerns the issue of production centres, one must point to the critical revaluation of the archaeological evidence and of the information disclosed by written and iconographic sources carried out by J. Gorecki103. his reassessment currently allows us to have a more correct overview of the available data. From the recent publications, J. Lundock’s analysis of the deposition and distribution of the copper alloy vessels in Roman Britain104 represents, for this part of the Empire, the irst major contribution to the subject after the publication of H. J. Eggers’ study from 1968. But even if the author manages to ofer a in-depth statistical image of the discoveries of Roman bronze vessels from the province according to diferent types of sites (military, urban, rural), much needed and favoured in many cases by a good documentation of the archaeological contexts, the lack of a clear typological and, especially, chronological framing of the inds hinders the interpretation of these data. In the present state of the research Eggers’ study cannot represent the only base for the study of the bronze vessels from Britain and a reassessment of the inds from this point of view would be much need. his brief overview cannot be concluded without mentioning the proceedings of the International Colloquium held in Frankfurt am Main in 2009105. he main subject of discussion was represented by the metal inds from the Empire and from Barbaricum in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, with a special focus on vessels, brooches, military equipment, coins, and other categories of small inds. Regarding the bronze vessels, the contributions included in the volume ofer, in some cases for the irst time, a synthetic overview on the distribution, chronology, spectrum of types, functional categories, at a micro regional level or referring to wide areas of the Roman Empire. Without getting into details, it is worth mentioning here J. Gorecki’s complex analysis of the main categories of bronze vessels coming from military and civilian sites (from the Late Republic until the beginning of the 2nd century AD), with a special focus on the issue of the military supply with such goods106. Similar approaches envisaged the composition of the hoards from the second half of the 3rd century, formed as a result of the looting raids of the barbarians107, as well as the analysis of the types of Roman bronze vessels from Noricum108. As it was shown, in the course of over a century the research of Roman bronze vessels went from a simple collection of objects to a specialisation with a self-methodology. Nevertheless, aspects that were investigated only to a lesser degree still remain and they will hopefully attract the specialists’ attention in the future. First of all, groups of material as large as possible have to be subjected to chemical analyses, which at some point will very likely allow one to work out a set of criteria in order to identify the production centres. Just as stringent is the necessity to publish the Roman bronze vessels originating from the areas of Asia Minor and North Africa which were part of the Empire, because so far only a meagre 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 SEDLMAYER 1999. GORECKI 2000. LUNDOCK 2015. VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016. GORECKI 2016. PETROVSZKY, BERNHARD 2016. SEDLMAYER 2016. 28 quantity of material with this provenance was published. he enterprise would be even more relevant since it could most probably elucidate some of the aspects related to the local production in this region. For the Roman provincial setting, apart from the unpublished inds, the need to process the material originating from settlements becomes more and more apparent. With the exception of the Vesuvian towns, complete pieces which enable the development of elaborate typologies mainly come from funerary discoveries or deposits. his is the reason why, at the present moment, we only have a vague idea of how these goods were utilised in settlements and of the consumption diference between the civilian and military environments109. Furthermore, it is necessary to carry out more analyses focused on individual types, considering all the information known thus far. Such an endeavour will permit typological and implicitly chronological reinements and will most likely shed more light on some of the issues regarding the function of Roman bronze vessels. II.2. Ancient sources he ancient sources, both literary and iconographic, represent the starting point in the attempt to clarify some aspects referring to technology, production organisation, distribution and function of Roman bronze vessels. his venture, a very extensive one because of the great quantity of disparate data, denies a unitary methodological approach. he distinct character of the two categories of sources requires a diferent methodology, separately detailed for each. he main purpose of the analysis is to see at irst to what degree the information provided by the ancient authors and the iconographic representations relects some aspects of the daily life during the late Republican and Imperial periods, and especially of the provincial realities. To this efect, the inquiry cannot be limited only to the two types of sources. It is necessary, wherever possible, to confront them with the archaeological evidence. In addition, mainly with respect to the iconographic sources, the importance of the chronological factor and especially of a potential temporal discrepancy that could have occurred between the moment when the fresco, mosaic, votive or funerary monument were produced and the type of vessel they represented was not disregarded. It was not intended to approach the subject in an exhaustive manner. However, I tried to point out the most representative literary sources and iconographical representations which are essential in clarifying several aspects concerning the Roman bronze vessels. Regarding the representations on stone, the high quantity of stereotypical information which appears on the sculptural monuments from the Roman provincial environment determined a focus on the ones discovered in Roman Dacia, since, from my point of view, they relect a general tendency, characteristic for the Roman provincial milieu. II.2.1. Written sources Evidently, the informative potential of the literary sources that mention Roman bronze vessels is limited. here is no work directly addressing these pieces and most of the ancient authors’ references are only incidental. For this reason, considering that the author’s intention was not necessarily to communicate something about the bronze vessel, most of the time the relayed information is sketchy and dispersed. he chronological criterion is not feasible for approaching the subject, because most of the preserved information tends to concentrate between the Republican period and the 1st century AD. For several reasons it was not possible to restrict the period to the interval between the end of the 1st century AD and the 3rd century AD, in order to concentrate especially on the time when Dacia was part of the Empire. First of all, the sources for this time frame are scarce, but also such an approach would not have been correct considering that certain issues regarding function are not chronologically limited to the period when a certain author was writing. 109 Regarding this discussion, see also BRIDGER 1993, 66; DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 17. 29 II.2.1.1. Types of sources he incidental nature of most of the references made by the sources with respect to Roman bronze vessels excludes right away the existence of some rules or preferences for certain works in which these could come up. Most of the data can be found in Pliny the Elder’s encyclopaedic work, Naturalis Historia, without which our knowledge about the ancient world would have been signiicantly reduced. he ancient texts mentioning Roman bronze vessels can be classiied as follows: agricultural treatises (Marcus Porcius Cato, De agricultura), oratorical speeches (Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem (De signis), Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino), mechanical treatises (Heron from Alexandria, Pneumatica), architectural treatises (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, De architectura), culinary recipe books (Apicius, De re coquinaria), encyclopaedic works (Caius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia), satires (Caius Petronius, Satyricon), ethnographic literature (Cornelius Tacitus, De origine et situ Germanorum), annals (Cornelius Tacitus, Annales), epigrams (Marcus Valerius Martialis), biographies (Caius Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum). II.2.1.2. The informative potential of ancient sources Before the actual analysis of the ancient sources, some comments on the character of the information relayed by the ancient authors are necessary. Unlike the vessels fashioned from precious metals that, because of their exceptional nature beneited from a closer attention110, the references to bronze vessels are rarer and usually concern the special categories that stood out in the Roman world either because of the remarkable technical or artistic execution, or because of an extremely high price. hese discoveries are infrequent, especially in the provincial environment. On the other hand, there are very few data about the vessels employed in daily activities, a category in which most of the inds can be included. Furthermore, at least for the moment it is impossible to conirm the accuracy of some of the mentions in the lack of other evidence, either archaeological, or iconographic. a. he appearance of bronze vessels at Rome. he appearance, spread and beginning of the bronze vessels’ production at Rome is subsumed to a general phenomenon related to the introduction of metal vessels in the Roman world. A separate treatment of the bronze specimens is not possible because there are no sources to refer exclusively to this type of recipients and it would not be correct either, since the beginning of the use of bronze and silver vessels is tightly connected to the radical changes that took place at Rome towards the end of the Republic. Unfortunately, the ancient texts do not provide any data related to the vessels employed in the daily activities in the period of inception of Roman toreutics, the emphasis being placed on the luxury ware. Until the last two decades of the Republic, Rome was short of precious metal, and silver vessels were exceptional even on the tables of the nobles111. Relevant for the matter is Pliny the Elder’s recount about the Carthaginian envoy arrived at Rome, envoy which caused anxiety to the senatorial families since they had to borrow one from another the only existing silver set: invenimus legatos Carthaginiensium dixisse nullos hominum inter sese benignius vivere quam Romanos. eodem enim argento apud omnes cenitavisse omnes112. After the conquest of Syracuse, the expansion policy carried out by the Romans lead to the inlow of a very large quantity of toreutics pieces in Rome, most as war booty. In the irst stage, the austere Roman character did not allow these items to enter private property, but they were publicly displayed in markets as part of the state treasury or dedicated in temples113. hus, speaking of the role the bronze For an overview of the most relevant references from the ancient sources regarding the Roman vessels made of precious metal see GORECKI 2016, 182. 111 STRONG 1979, 123. 112 PLINY, NH, XXXIII, (50) 143: “We read that the Cathaginian ambassadors declared that no race of mankind lived on more amicable terms with one another than the Romans, inasmuch as in a round of banquets they had found the same service of [silver] plate in use at every house!”. 113 RIZ 1990, 7. 110 30 vessels played in the acoustics of theatres, Vitruvius mentions that after Corinth was vanquished, Lucius Mummius dedicated in the temple of Luna from Rome the bronze vessels taken during the destruction of the Greek city’s amphitheatre114. he contact with the luxury and the extravagance characteristic for the Hellenistic world caused profound changes in taste as compared to the previous period and these were also relected in the way the Roman society began to view private luxury. A shift occurs from the public opulence, permitted by the Roman mores because it relected Rome’s greatness, to the private, which indicates the personal power in society115. he demand for luxury objects constantly increased. Greek silver vessels and Corinthian and Delian bronze vessels represented a requisite for marking a certain status116. True collectors emerged, willing to acquire original Greek pieces at extremely high prices117. In this context, Cicero’s speech against Verres is very plastic, relecting both the large quantity of luxury bronze vessels from Sicily, and how they were valued by the Romans118. It is important to underline that such an attitude towards the original Greek and Hellenistic products determined a change in their function in the Roman milieu. hey ceased to be used in daily activities, now playing a part in display; they were meant to be seen. hey receive a purely decorative role, as proven by engraving them with the family name or placing them on pedestals119. his intensive demand for luxury vessels made from silver and bronze stemmed the commencement of a Roman production which will gradually part ways with the Greek prototypes, developing a speciic formal and decorative repertoire. b. he technology of bronze vessels. he only remaining information regarding the type of copper-based alloys can be found in Pliny the Elder’s encyclopaedic work, namely in book XXXIV which refers to copper, iron and lead. he author described four types of alloys: the Corinthian bronze and that called hepatizon, the Delian, Aeginetan, and Campanian bronze respectively120. he Corinthian bronze is, to Pliny’s mind, maxime laudatur121, [pretium est] immo vero ante argentum ac paene etiam ante aurum Corinthio [aeri]122, and it was supposedly discovered accidentlly by the Romans when they burnt down Corinth and the golden, silver and copper objects melted together because of the heat123. He distinguished three types of Corinthian bronze: eius aeris tria genera: candidum argento nitore quam proxime accedens, in quo illa mixtura praevaluit; alterum, in quo auri fulva natura; tertium, in quo aequalis omnium temperies fuit124. Aside from these, the author mentions a fourth one: praeter haec est cuius ratio non potest reddi, quamquam hominis manu est, at fortuna temperatur in simulacris signisque illud suo colore pretiosum ad iocineris imaginem vergens, quod ideo hepatizon appellant, procul a Corinthio, longe tamen ante Aegineticum atque Deliacum, quae diu optinuere principatum125. VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5, 36. For the entry of propaganda elements from the public sphere into the private, see ZANKER 1988, 265–295; CIMA DI PUOLO 1990, 41–42. 116 RIZ 1990, 7. 117 CIMA DI PUOLO 1990, 43: especially prized were the silver vessels produced by the Greek craftsman Mentor (PLINY, NH, XXXIII, (55) 154). Pliny also informs us that: L. Vero Crassus orator [habuit] duos scyphos Mentoris artiicis manu caelatos HSC–, confessus tamen est numquam iis uti propter verecundiam ausum (“the orator Lucius Crassus had a pair of chased goblets, the work of the artist Mentor, that cost 100,000 [sesterces]; yet admittedly he was too ashamed ever to use them”) (PLINY, NH, XXXIII, (53) 147). 118 CICERO, IN VERREM, DE SIG. 119 RIZ 1990, 7. 120 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (3–5, 20) 6–10, 95. 121 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (3) 6: “the most highly praised”. 122 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (1) 1: “in fact Corinthian bronze is valued before silver and almost even before gold”. 123 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (3) 6. 124 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (3) 8: “here are three kinds of this sort of bronze: a white variety, coming very near to silver in brilliance, in which the alloy of silver predominates; a second kind, in which the yellow quality of gold predominates, and a third kind in which all the metals were blended in equal proportions”. 125 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (3) 8: “Besides these there is another mixture the formula for which cannot be given, although it is man’s handiwork; but the bronze valued in portrait statues and others for its peculiar colour, approaching the appearance 114 115 31 Regarding the origin of the alloy, it is worth mentioning the story told by Trimalchio, who, in his ignorance, confuses the conquest of Corinth by Lucius Mummius with Troy’s conquest by Hannibal: “Et forsitan” inquit “quaeris, quare solus Corinthea vera possideam: quia scilicet aerarius, a quo emo, Corinthus vocatur. Quid est autem Corintheum, nisi quis Corinthum habet? Et ne me putetis nesapium esse, valde bene scio, unde primum Corinthea nata sint. Cum Ilium captum est, Hannibal, homo vafer et magnus stelio, omnes statuas aeneas et aureas et argenteas in unum rogum congessit et eas incendit; factae sunt in unum aera miscellanea. Ita ex hac massa fabri sustulerunt et fecerunt catilla et paropsides et statuncula. Sic Corinthea nata sunt, ex omnibus in unum, nec hoc nec illud 126. he identiication of the types of alloys described by Pliny as characteristic for the bronzes produced in Corinth on the basis of the analyses carried out on the discovered pieces gave rise to numerous controversies in the specialised literature. Unfortunately, these controversies cannot be solved given the ambiguity of the ancient sources. he situation is aggravated by the fact that, until the present moment, the bronze objects from Corinth brought to light by archaeological excavations could not conirm Pliny’s description, despite the identiication of the metallurgic workshops active during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD127. hus, it was concluded either that the Corinthian bronze is not actually the bronze produced in Corinth, but that the term refers to a speciic alloy used by several workshops from the Oriental part of the Empire128, or that the true Corinthian alloy is in fact the fourth of Pliny’s categories, namely the hepatizon129. he last opinion is criticised because of the much too low gold content of the “black” bronzes, considering that for the Corinthian bronzes a minimum 15% gold content is claimed130. Recently it has been considered that Pliny’s account was misunderstood by the scholars. Instead of a light or golden colored copper alloy, Corinthium aes was an artiicially patinated black copper alloy (with small quantities of gold, silver, iron or arsenic) used for inlaying and creating contrasting colors, as it can be seen on the components of the handwashing service with Egyptian deities and Nilotic scenes discovered at Egyed (Hungary)131. Returning to Pliny’s alloy classiication, no recipe is provided for the next two categories, the Delian and Aeginetan bronze, and this hinders from the start the attempt to identify what they refer to. We are told that: Antiquissima aeris gloria Deliaco fuit, mercatus in Delo celebrante toto orbe, et ideo cura oicinis132, and regarding Egina: Proxima laus Aeginetico fuit, insula et ipsa eo, nec quod ibi gigneretur, sed oicinarum temperatura, nobilitata133. he last category, the Campanian bronze, and by comparison the bronze used in the provinces (especially in Gaul) beneits from a much more detailed description given by the author: In reliquis generibus palma Campano perhibetur, utensilibus vasis probatissimo. Pluribus it hoc modis. namque Capuae liquatur non carbonis ignibus, sed ligni, purgaturque roboreo eribro profusum in aquam frigidam ac saepius simili modo coquitur, novissime additis plumbi argentarii Hispaniensis denis libris in centenas aeris. ita lentescit of liver and consequently called by a Greek name hepatizon meaning “liverish”, is a blend produced by luck; it is far behind the Corinthian blend, yet a long way in front of the bronze of Aegina and that of Delos which long held the irst rank”. 126 PETRONIUS, SATYRICON, L: “‘You may perhaps inquire,’ said he, ‘how I come to be alone in having genuine Corinthian stuf: the obvious reason is that the name of the dealer I buy it from is Corinthus. But what is real Corinthian, unless a man has Corinthus at his back? Do not imagine that I am an ignoramus. I know perfectly well how Corinthian plate was irst brought into the world. At the fall of Ilium, Hannibal, a trickster and a brave knave, collected all the sculptures, bronze, gold, and silver, into a single pile, and set light to them. hey all melted into one amalgam of bronze. he workmen took bits out of this lump and made plates and entrée dishes and statuettes. hat is how Corinthian metal was born, from all sorts lumped together, neither one kind nor the other”. 127 MATTUSCH 2003, 219–222, 247. 128 JACOBSON, WEITZMAN 1992, 245; for an overview of the ancient sources and of the literature see GIUMLIA-MAIR, MRÁV 2014, 73–76. 129 GIUMLIA-MAIR, CRADDOCK 1993. 130 JACOBSON, WEITZMAN 1995, 270. 131 GIUMLIA-MAIR, MRÁV 2014. 132 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (4) 9: “he Delian bronze was the earliest to become famous, the whole world thronging the markets in Delos; and hence the attention paid to the processes of making it”. 133 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (5) 10: “he next most famous bronze was the Aeginetan; and the island of Aegina itself became celebrated for it, though not because the metal copper was mined there but because of the compounding done in the workshops”. 32 coloremque iucundum trahit, qualem in aliis generibus aeris adfectant oleo ac sale. it Campano simile in multis partibus Italiae provinciisque, sed octonas plumbi libras addunt et carbone recocunt propter inopiam ligni. quantum ea res diferentiae adferat, in Gallia maxime sentitur, ubi inter lapides candefactos funditur; exurente enim coctura nigrum atque fragile conicitur. praeterea semel recoquunt quod saepius fecisse bonitati plurimum confert.134. Pliny also makes some comments on the type of copper used for the vessel production: novissima est quae vocatur ollaria, vase nomen hoc dante, ternis aut quaternis libris plumbi argentarii in centenas aeris additis 135. Although many aspects of this description are unclear and others cannot be conirmed for the moment because a bronze vessels workshop has yet to be found in the Empire, the specialists agree that plumbum album means tin and plumbum nigrum lead136. he term plumbum argentarium seems to also refer to tin137. From Pliny’s recipe it appears that he is referring to an alloy with a tin content between 3% and 10%. From the chemical analyses138 carried out on bronze vessels, it was noticed that in the case of those manufactured by hammering or pressing the tin concentration never grows over 13–14%, because a larger quantity would have made the alloy much too frail. In the case of cast vessels, besides tin it is absolutely necessary to add lead, to make the alloy more malleable and to allow it to be poured into the mould139. he results of the analyses executed on a group of 133 bronze vessels from Italian museums (Naples and Rome) and from the museum in Nijmegen (he Netherlands) showed that only 38.8% of them (51 specimens) can be ascribed to one of the three categories described by Pliny (Campanian tin, Italic tin and aes ollaria)140. he aspects related to the inishing of bronze vessels are for the moment known only from direct observation of the inished products and from experimental archaeology studies. Ancient sources provide a single piece of information regarding this stage of the technological process, namely the tinning of the vessel surface, also noted by Pliny the Elder in book XXXIV: stagnum inlitus aereis vasis saporem facit gratiorem ac compescit virus aeruginis, mirumque, pondus non auget. [...] [plumbum] album incoquitur aereis operibus Galliarum invento ita, ut vix discerni possit ab argento, eaque incoctilia appellant141. he operation is conirmed by surviving specimens142. here are Roman bronze vessels (especially open shapes) that display traces of tin. he method is quite common for casseroles, which were usually tinned completely on the inner surface, while on the outside this was done only on the upper half of the vessel wall; however, it must be mentioned that the chemical analyses proved that this was not pure tin, but an alloy of stannum with lead143. PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (20) 95, 96: “Among the remaining kinds of copper the palm goes to bronze of Campania, which is most esteemed for utensils. here are several ways of preparing it. At Capua it is smelted in a ire of wood, not of charcoal, and then poured into cold water and cleaned in a sieve made of oak, and this process of smelting is repeated several times, at the last stage Spanish silver lead being added to it in the proportion of ten pounds to one hundred pounds of copper: this treatment renders it pliable and gives it an agreeable colour of a kind imparted to other sorts of copper and bronze by means of oil and salt. Bronze resembling the Campanian is produced in many parts of Italy and the provinces, but there they add only eight pounds of lead, and do additional smelting with charcoal because of their shortage of wood. he diference produced by this is noticed especially in Gaul, where the metal is smelted between stones heated red hot, as this roasting scorches it and renders it black and friable. Moreover they only smelt it again once whereas to repeat this several times contributes a great deal to the quality”. 135 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (20) 98: “he last kind is that called pot-bronze, taking its name from the vessels made of it; it is a blend of three or four pounds of silver-lead with every hundred pounds of copper”. 136 PIRZIO BIROLLI STEFANELLI 1990a, 6. 137 WIELOWIEJSKI 1984b, 131–132. 138 For a more thorough discussion of the alloys used for producing Roman bronze vessels, see subchapter II.3.1.1. 139 PIRZIO BIROLLI STEFANELLI 1990a, 8, 25–26. 140 WIELOWIEJSKI 1984b, 132–133, Tabelle 2. 141 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (48) 160, 162: “When copper vessels are coated with stagnum the contents have a more agreeable taste and the formation of destructive verdigris is prevented, and, what is remarkable, the weight is not increased. [...] A method discovered in the Gallic provinces is to plate bronze articles with white lead so as to make them almost indistinguishable from silver; articles thus treated are called ‘incoctilia’”. 142 For the technical details of the tinning process, see subchapter II.3.3.5. 143 DEN BOESTERD, HOEKSTRA 1966, 105. 134 33 Although the surface treatment of the bronze vessels employed in daily activities was necessary in order to prevent corrosion, especially considering that such pieces remained in use for quite a long period, the actual process, as well as the substances required, cannot be inferred from the specimens preserved to date. Nevertheless, the ancient authors do provide important data on this matter. A paragraph from the work of Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato Maior) informs us that, in order to avoid corrosion, bronze vessels were polished with armuca144 (the watery juice obtained from olives after the extraction of the oil145). he information is adopted by Pliny the Elder as well, in his Naturalis Historia146.he latter also points to the use of oil to stop the degradation of bronze items: Aera extersa robiginem celerius trahunt quam neglecta, nisi oleo perunguantur. Servari ea optime in liquida pice tradunt 147. Concerning the production centres, except for the one in Corinth, already discussed here, the sources mention only two others, Capua and Nola. Cato Maior nominates the two cities as the best places to purchase common bronze vessels (buckets, oil jugs, wine and water vessels)148, an opinion shared by Pliny149. Cato’s recount should be viewed with caution because it relects the situation from the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd century BC and probably indicates a vessels production older than the one we usually attribute to the Capuan centre, dated to the late Republican and early Imperial periods150. To this efect, another relevant paragraph can be found at Suetonius, in the life of Caesar, which mentions that the old graves from Capua were destroyed by discharged soldiers, with the purpose of building new houses, but also of robbing the tombs of the old vessels of remarkable execution151. At the present moment, direct proof regarding the copper alloy vessels production in Alexandria remains unknown152. However, the ancient literary sources and papyri supply many references to the manufacture of vessels from precious metals, silver and gold153. Most likely there were workshops making bronze vessels as well, as demonstrated by the extremely large number of inds. he signiicant number of plaster mouldings from the Museum of Cairo, part of them displaying patterns of bronze vessels components, could also indicate the existence of bronze vessels workshops in Egypt154. c. Trade-related issues. he large quantity of Roman imports (bronze vessels included) found in Barbaricum155 clearly shows the intensity of the contacts that must have taken place both in the limes area and outside the Empire’s borders. Despite the fact that the ancient texts do not make any direct mentions of a bronze vessels export to Barbaricum, one inds references to silver vessels and it can be assumed that the rest of the traded Roman products, especially bronze recipients, beneitted from similar distribution and receiving mechanisms156. As stated above, the only Roman goods recalled by the sources are the silver vessels mentioned in a paragraph of Cornelius Tacitus’ Germania. Speaking of the Germanic peoples, the author claims that: (argentum et aurum propitiine an irati di negaverint dubito. nec tamen adirmaverim nullam Germaniae venam argentum aurumve gignere: quis enim serutatus est? possessione et usu haud perinde adiciuntur. est CATO, DE AGR., XCVIII. HUMPHREY ET ALII 1999, 336. 146 PLINY, NH, XV, (8) 34. 147 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (21) 99: “hings made of copper or bronze get covered with copper-rust more quickly when they are kept rubbed clean than when they are neglected, unless they are well greased with oil. It is said that the best way of preserving them is to give them a coating of liquid vegetable pitch”. 148 CATO, DE AGR., CXXXV. 149 PLINY, NH, XXXIV, (20) 95, 96; see also subchapter II.3.1.1. 150 GORECKI 2000, 446. 151 SUETONIUS, DIVUS IULIUS, 81. 152 ABDOU DAOUD 1998. 153 See BURKHALTER 1998, 130–132, LUKASZEWICZ 1998 and GORECKI 2000, 450 with the bibliography. 154 See subchapter II.3.2.1.a. 155 See EGGERS 1951; KUNOW 1983; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985; RAEV 1986; LUND HANSEN 1987. 156 For the literary sources regarding the Roman imports into Barbaricum, see EGGERS 1951, 72–77. A critical analysis of the sources concerning the Romans’ trade with the areas outside the Empire can be found in KUNOW 1983, 41–55. 144 145 34 videre apud illos argentea vasa, legatis et principibus eorum muneri data, non in alia vilitate quam quae humo inguntur; quqmquam proximi ob usum commerciorum aurum et argentum in pretio habent formasque quasdam nostrae pecuniae adgnoscunt atque eligunt)157. he idea that Barbarians would have placed no value on precious metal vessels (and metal vessels in general) is contradicted by the archaeological discoveries, mainly consisting of funerary inds. Evidently, they no longer had the same value they did in the Roman world. In this new context the vessels were used primarily to mark a certain status in society. Most likely we can witness here a change of function. Furthermore, their intrinsic metal content should not be disregarded among the reasons for their hoarding, a fact proven by the large deposits of metal items dated to the second half of the 3rd century AD, a consequence of the looting raids committed by the Franks and Alamanni in the western provinces of the Empire158. With respect to the inlow routes followed by these pieces, in the Annales Tacitus points to the presence of Roman merchants outside the Empire, namely in Maroboduus’ Kingdom: [Catualda] valida manu inis Marcomanorum ingreditur. [...] Veteres illic Sueborum praedae et nostris e provinciis lixae ac negotiatores reperti quos ius commercii, dein cupido augendi pecuniam, postremo oblivio patriae suis quemque ab sedibus hostilem in agrum transtulerat159. Tacitus also mentions an important point about the barbarians’ right to trade within the Empire: propior, ut, quo modo paulo ante Rhenum, sic nunc Danubium sequar, Hermundurorum civitas, ida Romanis; eoque solis Germanorum non in ripa commercium, sed penitus atque in spledidissima Raetiae provinciae colonia. passim sine custode transeunt; et cum ceteris gentibus arma modo castraque nostra ostendamus, his domos villasque patefecimus non concupiscentibus160. he ancient texts are also short on providing any data regarding the price of bronze vessels. he maximal price edict issued by Diocletian in the year 301 AD is silent on the cost of metal recipients161. he only mention of the value of a bronze vessel (an authepsa) appears at Cicero: domus referta vasis Corinthiis et Deliacis, in quibus est authepsa illa, quam tanto pretio nuper mercatus est, ut, qui praetereuntes praeconem enuntiare audiebant, fundum venire arbitrarentur162. Authepsa163 is actually the ancient version of the modern day samovar. Functionally speaking, these vessels were used to heat the water needed for preparing wine, during toilet, or by medics. he specimens known to date were exclusively made from TACITUS, GERMANIA, V (2–3): “he gods have denied them gold and silver, whether in mercy or in wrath I ind it hard to say; not that I would assert that Germany has no veins bearing gold or silver: for who has explored there? At any rate, they are not afected, like their neighbours, by the use and possession of such things. One may see among them silver vases, given as gifts to their commanders and chieftains, but treated as of no more value than earthware. Although the border tribes for purposes of traic treat gold and silver as precious metals, and recognise and collect certain coins of our money”. 158 KÜNZL 1993; BARBARENSCHATZ 2006. he disregard for the artistic quality of a piece can be observed in the case of the Neupotz hoard, in which part of the very nicely executed silver vessels were cut into pieces in order to divide the captured silver in equal shares (see STUPPERICH 2006a, 106, Abb. 112; STUPPERICH 2006b, 109, Abb. 115). 159 TACITUS, ANNALES, II, 62: “With a strong following [Catualda] entered Marcomanian territory. [...] here they discovered the ancient Suebian spoils, together with a number of sutlers and traders out of the Roman provinces, drawn from their respective homes and implanted on hostile soil irst by the commercial privileges, then by the lure of increased proits, and inally by oblivion of their country”. 160 TACITUS, GERMANIA, XLI (1): “Nearer to us – to follow the course of the Danube, as before I followed the Rhine – comes the state of the Hermunduri: they are loyal to Rome, and with them alone of Germans business is transacted not on the river bank, but far within the frontier in the most thriving colony of the province of Raetia. hey cross the river everywhere without supervision; and while we let other peoples see only our fortiied camps, to them we have thrown open our houses and homes, because they do not covet them”. he situation of the Hermunduri is exceptional and it probably illustrates a reality prior to the end of the 1st century AD (KUNOW 1983, 45–46, note 357). 161 HUMPHREY ET ALII 1999, 502–505. 162 CICERO, PRO ROS. AM., XLVI. 133: “a house crammed with Delian and Corinthian vessels, among them that selfcooker, which he recently bought at so high a price that passers-by, hearing the auctioneer crying out the bids, thought that an estate was being sold”. From a Republican period graiti from Pompeii we know that the owner of a store ofered a reward of 65 sestertii to the person who would return the stolen bronze urn, meaning that the cost of the object was at least that much (COOLEY, COOLEY 2004, 170). From the graiti exhibited by a bronze bowl discovered at Châbles, dated to the 3rd century AD, we ind that the object was priced at three and a half denarii (AUGUSTONI, ANDERSON 2001, 178–182). 163 DAREMBERG, SAGLIO, I/1, 585, authepsa (E. Saglio); DAREMBERG, SAGLIO, I/2, 821–822, caldarium (E. Saglio). 157 35 bronze and can be classiied in two types: with cylindrical body and with vessel-shaped body. Both types possess feet and the working principle is identical: the body of the vessel contained a metal cylinder provided with a grate on the inferior part. Incandescent coals were introduced inside the cylinder, thus heating the water from the rest of the vessel. he vessel was equipped with a lateral spout, allowing hot water to pour. Discoveries of this kind are rare in the provincial environment164. d. he daily use of Roman bronze vessels. Because the issue of the Latin names of bronze recipients was discussed elsewhere in this volume165, the present discussion will not include a comment on each shape. Instead, the most important information transmitted by the written sources will be noted which, limited as they are, enable the identiication of certain shapes or aspects connected to function. he exact use of a deined shape can rarely be ascertained only based on the data provided by ancient texts. Direct references are few and most of the times raise interpretation problems. Related to kitchenware, the only work ofering a more precise, if incomplete image of the recipients employed for cooking and serving is De re coquinaria attributed to Apicius. Among the cooking vessels, the following are featured: a broiling pan, a frying pan, a casserole, a large cauldron for boiling pieces of meat, a shallow pan, a slightly tall pottery vessel for cooking, a slightly tall bronze vessel for cooking, a small and deep vessel for preparing sauces, a deep pan for superimposing vessels and a boiling vessel with double walls used to prepare foodstuf in “bain-marie”. Among the serving vessels, these are recalled: a metal serving vessel, a circular serving plate, a vessel for serving mushrooms, a small spoon, a ladle and a lagon-shaped vessel166. If regarding some of the types mentioned above (e.g. the frying pan, the boiling cauldron, the double-walled vessel, the metal serving vessel and the circular plate, the spoon, the ladle) we have a good idea what shapes they refer to, the rest are inexact and prevent any identiication. Nevertheless, Apicius’ work gives us an idea on the variety of cooking utensils that could have been in use in a rich Roman kitchen. Concerning the vessel for serving mushrooms, the specialists in classical philology reached the conclusion that this was not necessarily a special vessel for serving mushrooms, but more likely a mushroom-shaped vessel (boletar, boletarium)167 which has not yet been archaeologically identiied. he Romans used another kitchen vessel for preparing mushrooms168, mentioned also by Martial in one of his epigrams169. Another piece of information related to the function of bronze vessels is to be found at Cato. Speaking of the way olive oil was produced and of the duties of the overseer guarding over the successful completion of the process, the author warns against the use of bronze vessels, because these would give the oil a bad taste170. he examination of original specimens shows that the only category of bronze vessels used for the transportation (and not storage) of olive oil is represented by balsamaria. hese were meant for transporting the oil to the baths171, the bad taste being irrelevant in that particular instance. In addition, Martial recounts the use of bronze strainers for cooling the wine with snow before its consumption, an important aspect that could never have been shown by archaeology172. he only detailed description of a bronze vessel can be read in Pneumatica, authored by Heron from Alexandria173. he book presents a collection of mechanical contraptions that work on the principles of air, steam, or hydraulic pressure. Most of them function on the basis of various vessels, but out of all, only the authepsa discussed earlier has a correspondent among the original pieces. he advantage of Heron’s work is that the manuscript, along with the author’s sketches, was preserved in various transcriptions. Even if the outline of the vessels from the sketches difers quite widely from one variant to 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 DUNBABIN 1993, 120–127; TOMAŠEVIĆ BUCK 2002, 213–222. See subchapter I.3. referring to the Latin terminology. HUMPHREY ET ALII 1999, 168–169. HELTTULA 1994. HELTTULA 1994, 10–12. MARTIAL, XIV (CI). CATO, DE AGR., LXVI. NENOVA-MEDJANOVA 1995, 51. MARTIAL, V (LXIV), XIV (CIII). HERON, PNEUMATICA, 74, 75. 36 another, the working principle of the devices is the same. his was also described by Heron174: the steam produced with the help of burning coal was directed through a pipe system in a steam chamber that communicated also through a pipe with the igurine placed above the coal. he ire was maintained because of steam pressure. Cold water was introduced through the oriice on the upper part, on the left, it was heated around the cylinder and evacuated through another oriice placed on the lateral of the vessel. Vitruvius, in book V of his treatise De architectura, when describing the way theatres should be built, mentions the use of bronze vessels to improve the acoustics. He tells the following: Ita ex his indagationibus mathematicis rationibus iant vasa aerea pro ratione magnitudinis theatri, eaque ita fabricentur, ut, cum tangantur, sonitum facere possint inter se diatessaron diapente ex ordine ad disdiapason. Postea inter sedes theatri constitutis cellis ratione musica ibi conlocetut ita, uti nullum parietem tangant circaque habeant locum vacuum et ab summo capite spatium, ponanturque inversa et habeant in parte, quae spectat ad scaenam, suppositos cuneos ne minus altos semipede175. After that comes an account of how these vessels should be arranged. hus, if a small-sized theatre is considered, the spectators’ seats should be equally divided between an upper and a lower section, separated by a horizontal row made up from thirteen bronze vessels, placed at an equal distance from each other. he thirteen vessels must correspond to a number of seven musical frequencies (six realised by six pairs of vessels, the seventh by the thirteenth vessel, located in the middle)176. In case of a large theatre, the spectators’ seats should be distributed between four sections, separated by three rows of vessels. he irst row is constituted of thirteen vessels that work exactly like in the case of the small-sized theatre. he second row must be composed of twelve vessels (the central, thirteenth position remains inactive), while for the third row thirteen vessels will also be employed177. Consequently, for a large theatre 38 bronze vessels would have been needed, but ceramic vessels could be used instead178. here are other examples in De architectura of using bronze vessels because of their resonance. Wishing to stress that war machines are not always a viable solution when besieging a fortress, Vitruvius recalls the case of Apollonia, where the enemy had dug tunnels under the walls in order to get inside: Tum vero Trypho Alexandrinus ibi fuerat architectus; intra murum plures specus designavit et fodiendo terram progrediebatur extra murum dumtaxat extra sagittae missionem et in omnibus vasa aenea suspendit. Ex his in una fossura, quae contra hostium specus fuerat, vasa pendentia ad plagas ferramentorum sonare coeperunt179. Evidently, the extent to which the aforementioned principle was indeed put to use in Antiquity to accomplish the acoustics of theatres remains problematic. Vitruvius himself declares that: Dicet aliquis forte multa theatra quotannis Romae facta esse neque ullam rationem harum rerum in his fuisse; sed errabit in eo, quod omnia publica lignea theatra tabulationes habent complures, quas necesse est sonare. [...] Cum autem ex solidis rebus theatra constituuntur, id est ex structura caementorum, lapide, marmore, quae sonare non possunt, tunc echeis hae rationes sunt explicandae. Sin autem quaeritur, in quo theatro ea sint facta, Romae non possumus ostendere. Sed in Italiae regionibus et in pluribus Graecorum civitatibus. Etiamque auctorem habemus Lucium Mumium qui diruto theatro Corinthiorum ea aenea Romam deportavit et de HERON, PNEUMATICA, 74; DUNBABIN 1993, 126–127. VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5, 1–4: “Hence in accordance with these enquiries, bronze vases are to be made in mathematical ratios corresponding with the size of the theatre. hey are to be so made that, when they are touched, they can make a sound from one to another of a fourth, a ifth and so on the second octave. hen compartments are made among the seats of the theatre, and the vases are to be so placed there that they do not touch the wall, and have an empty space around them and above. hey are to be placed upside down. On the side looking towards the stage, they are to have wedges put under them not less than half a foot high”. 176 VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5, 7–14. 177 VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5, 16–31; for Vitruvius’ music theory, see LANDELS 1967, 81–90. 178 VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5, 37. 179 VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., X, 16, 10: “But at that time Trypho of Alexandria was the architect in charge. Within the walls he planned tunnels and, removing the soil, advanced beyond the wall the distance of a bowshot. Everywhere he hung bronze vessels. Hence in one excavation which was over against the tunnel of the enemy, the hanging vases began to vibrate in response to the blows of the iron tools.” 174 175 37 manibus ad aedem Lunae dedicavit180. Until the present moment, there is no clear evidence that bronze vessels were used in theatres, or that specially designed recipients for this purpose were in production. he outcome of the archaeological excavations carried out in Greek and Roman theatres is rather inconclusive for the matter, especially since, if the principle was indeed employed, there are very few chances that the vessels remained there once the constructions ceased to function. he only theatre where bronze fragments (thought of as deriving from resonant vessels) were found in the auditorium area is the Odeon of Herodes Atticus from Athens181. Another argument that partially supports Vitruvius’ model are the niches discovered in some theatres, located between the spectators’ seats, niches in which such vessels are believed to have been placed. he archaeological excavations conducted in the theatre from Scythopolis (Beth She’an, Israel) documented twelve stone cavities placed at equal distances from each other, in the inferior access area and the upper part of the auditorium. Furthermore, the scene wall of the theatre from Gioiosa Ionica (Calabria, Italy) was provided with ten niches facing the audience, and two of these contained ceramic vessel fragments. he presence of niches was also noted in the course of the 15th–19th centuries at the theatres form Aizanoi (Turkey), Caesarea Maritima (Israel), Nikopolis (Greece), Taormina (Sicily) etc., but unfortunately these are no longer preserved182. II.2.1.3. Conclusions he analysis of the literary sources concerning Roman bronze vessels allows some conclusions. From a chronological point of view, the ancient texts span over a period of approximately three centuries (the beginning of the 2nd century BC – the end of the 1st/beginning of the 2nd century AD). Considering the long interval, the available data is meagre, especially since there are very few clear accounts and an even smaller number is relevant for elucidating certain aspects pertaining to the toreutics of Roman bronze vessels. Judging from the nature of the information, several situations in which the ancient authors refer to bronze vessels can be recognised: • bronze vessels are mentioned only by chance, without any intention to be discussed by the author (Suetonius, Divus Iulius); • the mentions have the purpose of highlighting certain technical aspects or special characteristics (Heron of Alexandria, Vitruvius, Pliny the Elder); • the references appear in the context of describing daily life scenes (Cato, De agricultura; Cicero, In Verrem (De signis); Apicius, De re coquinaria; Martial). Most of the sources can be attributed to the third category, a natural situation considering that the majority of the bronze vessels are actually recipients used in daily activities. Another point that should be emphasised is that the ancient texts mainly relect the circumstances at Rome and the life of a wealthy stratum of society, circumstances that can hardly be ascribed to the provincial environment, given the fact that there is very little information concerning the provinces. Of course, the interpretation of the sources must be carried out with due caution and critical regard. Ancient texts, subjected to the authors’ bias, are only a part of the attempt to reconstitute certain aspects of Antiquity. hey must be supplemented by, and compared to, the information provided by iconographic representations and archaeological discoveries. VITRUVIUS, DE ARH., V, 5: 7–8: “Someone will say, perhaps, that many theatres are built every year at Rome without taking any account of these matters. He will be mistaken in this. All public wooden theatres have several wooden loors which must naturally resound. [...] But when theatres are built of solids, that is of rubble walling, stone or marble which cannot resound, the use of bronze vases is to be followed. But if you ask in what theatre this is done, we cannot show any at Rome, but we must turn to the regions of Italy, and to many Greek cities. We ind a precedent in Lucius Mummius who destroyed the theatre at Corinth, and transported these bronze vessels to Rome, and dedicated them, from the spoils, at the temple of Luna”. 181 ARNS, CRAWFORD 1995, 107–108. 182 ARNS, CRAWFORD 1995, 108–109. 180 38 II.2.2. Iconographic sources II.2.2.1. The informative potential of iconographic representations Unlike the literary sources, the iconographic representations are in many cases much more useful, precisely because of their visual nature. Most of the information conveyed by this category refers to the function of the recipients. he details concerning the shape, and especially the types and sub-types, as well as the manufacture material, are much harder to discern. his is irst of all due to the fact that, in most of the cases, the rendered shapes are corrupt, schematic, and their depiction depends on the possibilities of representation aforded by the material. Often, the symbolic value of a certain type of representation determined to some extent the artisan’s disinterest in reproducing important details which would allow one to establish the type of recipient (this is especially true for the provincial art). Furthermore, some forms could be imitated in other categories of material (glass, pottery etc.), so an exact identiication of the original pieces is practically impossible as long as not all the details were illustrated. On the other hand, if we start from the premise that a type of bronze vessel has the same function as its imitations made from other materials, the iconographic representations play an essential role in establishing the function of the recipients and the association of shapes. As with the ancient texts, the various types of representations should be viewed critically and analysed considering the background of their creation. Taking them out of context can only lead to the wrong conclusions. II.2.2.2. Types of representations a. he fresco. From across the Roman Empire, the majority of preserved pictured representations relevant for the subject are to be found in the houses of Vesuvian towns. Given their large number, I will conine to their analysis, considering it relevant for the degree to which these representations actually relect aspects of the daily life from the Augustan era until the eight decade of the 1st century AD. A. E. Riz’s study dedicated to the bronze vessels illustrated on frescos from the cities in the Vesuvius area led to the identiication of 234 such representations, chronologically situated between the period of the second style (the Augustan period) and the period of the fourth style (Nero, Vespasian) of Pompeiian painting183. heir number appears great, but at a closer look the situation is very diferent. he practice of reproducing sacred vessels on frescos is not Roman, and Roman painting is tributary to Greek painting. In painting, the Romans took over the Greek custom of dedicating to the gods vessels that served as showpieces in temples or theatres. For the Romans, the luxury vessels represented in paintings, which through Greek mediation were endowed with sacred qualities, were intended to showcase the costly inventory owned by the master of the house184. From the total of 234 vessel representations recalled above, 216 represent sacred vessels (dedications to gods, divinity attributes, lustration vessels etc.), nine belong to sets for serving drinks and food, seven to kitchen services and two illustrate vessels used during meal time185. Except for the shop signs, these are not functional vessels, but decorative, architectural elements integrated into the architecture of the fresco. hey are placed in atemporal, ictional landscapes, in sumptuous settings that do not render the daily reality from Rome or from elsewhere in Italy186. he increasing importance of luxurious decorations in the Flavian period determined the representation of fourth style vessels mostly as sacred vessels187. For this reason, they must be interpreted with caution, especially since the Pompeiian painting is tributary to the trend promoted by Rome, and 183 184 185 186 187 RIZ 1990, 20–22, 49–106, Taf. 11–63. RIZ 1990, 8, 24–25. PETROVSZKY 1993a, 511. RIZ 1990, 24–25. RIZ 1990, 5. 39 the Campanian painter had at his disposal a repertoire of the models circulating in the artistic circles of the Roman Empire188. Also, the chronological discrepancy between the type of vessels depicted and the moment they were represented is rather high. his phenomenon is tightly connected to the issue of the appearance of metal vessels in Rome, discussed earlier in the present volume. he value placed by the Romans in the Greek toreutics pieces, their association with a certain luxury and status, means that few of the specimens rendered by frescos were indeed the ones used in the daily activities of the time189. In the depiction of bronze vessels during the second, third and fourth Pompeiian styles, one can observe the inluence of some pieces of toreutics produced between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC (Etruscan, Attic, Eastern Greek, from Magna Graecia, hracian, Macedonian, Alexandrian), during the middle of the 2nd century BC (Delian) and the Republican period. he only categories that are exclusively inluenced by the Imperial period are the cauldrons and inkwells190. Another important point to stress is that most of the vessels seen in Roman-Campanian frescos, although bronze-coloured, actually represent precious metal shapes. An explanation might reside in the fact that, starting with Augustus, a certain sobriety was imposed with respect to the luxurious decoration of the private space. Consequently, both in the private and the public frescos, precious metal vessels were depicted as bronze vessels191. To conclude, the bronze vessels represented in the Vesuvian frescos which have a correspondent among the original pieces refer either to forms produced a long time before, or to decorative vessels owned by the rich stratum of the Roman society, a situation that cannot be expanded over the provincial environment. he common vessels categories, the Roman bronze wine services generally used in this period, do not make an appearance in painting most likely also because of the presence of model books in which the new shapes were not introduced192. Among the representations relevant for the 1st century AD, one can mention here a shop sign from Herculaneum, from the House of the Black Salon, where under the heading AD CVCVMAS (in translation: at the cauldrons) four full spouted jugs are represented, of bronze, glass, pottery and gold (from left to right). he price of the wine they contain is written below: A IIII S, A III S, A IIII SS, A II S, meaning four, three, four and a half and two asses per sextarius193. Although the four jugs were painted in diferent shades to suggest that they were manufactured from diferent materials, the actual shape is only seen in bronze and corresponds entirely to the specimens discovered in Vesuvian towns (Tassinari E 5000 type194). he same observations can be made for a series of depictions illustrating types of jugs195 (Tassinari C 1221 type196) and cauldrons197 (Tassinari U 2120 and possibly T 2000 types198) which are present in the repertoire of the bronze vessels from Pompeii. b. he mosaic. As with the fresco, the themes illustrated on Roman mosaics are for the most part tributary to the Romans’ preference for certain type of scenes and to model books. Especially the RIZ 1990, 41. he presence of model books is proved by the repetition of certain scenes at rather lengthy time intervals. Relevant for this matter is the scene depicting doves or peacocks drinking water form a krater or from a bronze basin, scene originating in a representation executed by the mosaicist Sosos at Pergamon in the 2nd century BC. he same scene appears on a mosaic from Capua, on one from Pompeii, and on another one from the Villa Hadriana at Tivoli (MICHELI 1990, 124–125), at relevant chronological distances (DUNBABIN 1999, 26-28). 189 For the role played by decorative bronze vessels in the Roman world, see MICHELI 1990, 121–128. 190 RIZ 1990, 31–32. 191 RIZ 1990, 48. 192 PETROVSZKY 1993a, 513. 193 DUNCAN-JONES 1982, 46, note 3; PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 218, tav. 196; RIZ 1990, 77, no. 113, Taf. 37/1. 194 TASSINARI 1993, II, 77–88. 195 RIZ 1990, 78, no. 115, Taf. 37/3. 196 TASSINARI 1993, II, 53–57. 197 RIZ 1990, 104–105, Taf. 62/1–2. 198 TASSINARI 1993, II, 244–247, 253–265. 188 40 mythological scenes (the majority, when considering the total number of inds) fall in this category, but also some nature scenes199. For this reason, when attempting to identify the represented pieces with the ones appearing in real life, the same problems as in the case of the Vesuvian frescos will be encountered: most of the times we are not seeing vessels that have actual correspondents, but pieces that relect a situation from way back, not from the moment when the mosaic was made, and often not speciic to the Roman world. he only representations that are relevant for the theme of the present volume are those illustrating daily life scenes involving bronze vessels200. One of the most important mosaics from this category is the one discovered in the villa from Marbella (Malaga, Spain) (Fig. 1), covering one of the sides of the peristyle, dated towards the end of the 2nd century AD. It depicts the implements and the supplies needed for a banquet, as well as a part of the instrumenta balnei. On the vertical sides one can notice the toilet set comprising three strigiles and two bowls with lat handles (“Badenschalen”), possibly followed by a krater with a ladle or a strainer inside. he horizontal rows illustrate diferent kinds of foodstufs placed on the table or hanging, interposed with various kitchen utensils. Among the table service, two amphorae are represented, one ceramic, the other bronze, a spouted jug, another krater with a ladle (simpulum), glasses and a jug placed on the table, and in the last row an authepsa for heating water201. In this case too, the represented scenes should be viewed with caution. he shapes are corrupt, some were produced until the end of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd century AD, whereas the krater202 is a shape no longer seen in the chronological interval attributed to the scene. Another mosaic relevant from the point of view of the implements used in the baths is the one discovered at Aquincum, in the civilian town, in the baths of a private home, dated after the middle of the 3rd century AD203 (Fig. 2). It illustrates a ighting scene between two combatants, assisted by a referee. In the upper part of the scene there is a ring with three strigiles hung on it and also a balsamarium most likely containing oil. Diferent variants of the authepsa also appear on a series of mosaics from northern Africa. For instance, there is the scene with the preparations for the banquet from a mosaic found at Carthage dated to the end of the 2nd century AD. Amongst the servants transporting various implements, one can see to the left a servant, of whom only the arm is preserved, holding an authepsa204 used during the banquet for heating the water needed to prepare wine or for handwashing. Moreover, the mosaic discovered in the private baths of a Late Antique villa at Sidi Ghrib (Tunisia) depicts a woman during her toilet time, surrounded by the appropriate utensils: sandals, a basket with clothes, a water basin, a jewellery box, a mirror and a bronze bucket. In the upper right side an authepsa is featured. his is the simplest variant of this category, shaped like a spouted jug and provided with a metal cylinder inside and a lateral illing hole205. his representation is extremely important because it proves that this type of recipient was not employed only as part of the drinking service, but also to heat water during the women’s toilet. See note 188. A series of mosaic scenes, typical for the Late Antiquity and dated at the earliest towards the end of the 3rd century AD, namely the venatio, prandium or sacriice scenes, were not taken into account (e.g. the scene of the sacriice to Diana on the mosaic from Lillebonne (DARMON 1994, 90–102, Pl. LXX-LXXXIX)). From the point of view of the Roman bronze vessels, the scene of interest recurrently featured in them is the handwashing scene. In order to provide an example of the use of the handwashing set in context, the most representative scenes of the period were discussed: the one on the Cesena plate and the other on the ivory box with the scene of the handwashing of Pontius Pilate (see below in this chapter). 201 DUNBANIN 1993, 130–131, Fig. 16. 202 For the symbolic value of the krater in Roman iconography, see subchapter II.2.2.3. 203 KISS 1973, 20, no. 13, Pl. V/1; also see BÓNIS 1968, 35–37, Abb. 15–16; BRAUN 2001, 95, Abb. 68. 204 DUNBANIN 1993, 131, Fig. 18; TOMAŠEVIĆ BUCK 2002, 215, Abb. 3. 205 DUNBABIN 1999, 322; TOMAŠEVIĆ BUCK 2002, 216, 218, Abb. 4. 199 200 41 Fig. 1. Drawing of the implements and the supplies needed for a banquet represented on the mosaic from Marbella (ater DUNBABIN 1993, 130, Fig. 16). Fig. 2. Mosaic from the baths of a house from Aquincum with representations of instrumenta balnei (© BHM– Aquincum Museum). 42 Fig. 3. Shop sign from the Farnese Collection, illustrating a metal vessels workshop (redrawn by Márton Ferenczi ater PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 12, tav. 5). c. Representations in stone. Sculptural monuments constitute the most important iconographic source for the study of Roman bronze vessels, irst of all because of the great quantity of inds of this kind. However, the very small number of scenes depicting daily life aspects signiicantly reduces the variety of the subjects they illustrate. Most of the representations are of a votive nature and in this context the main bronze set represented on monuments is the handwashing set which will be dealt with in depth when discussing the votive monuments. he only piece depicting a metal vessel workshop is a shop sign from the Farnese collection, probably originating from Rome and now kept in the National Museum from Naples206 (Fig. 3). he central scene illustrates a man holding an anvil placed on a large-sized pedestal, while another man is about to strike it with a hammer. On the right side of the relief, a third man is sitting, inishing a vessel, whilst on the left a fourth, accompanied by a boy, assists them. he vessels produced in the workshop are sculpted on the superior part; among them, two buckets and serving recipients stand out. On the upper left side there is a scale used for weighing the necessary metal quantities. On the basis of the stylistic features, the relief is dated between the reigns of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius207. J. Gorecki doubts for good reasons the fact that this is a bronze vessels workshop because a part of the represented forms have correspondents in some silver vessels chronologically attributed to the interval between the 1st century AD and the beginning of the 2nd century AD208. he most important thing is that the relief illustrates several important technological stages: weighing the metal, hammering the metal sheet in order to shape 206 207 208 ZIMMER 1982, 185–186, no. 121; MICHELI 1990, 112; GORECKI 2000, 451–452. ZIMMER 1982, 185–186, no. 121. GORECKI 2000, 451–452. 43 the vessel, inishing the product, and inally displaying the inished vessels. It relects a state of afairs that is at the present moment generally accepted in the specialised literature, i.e. that the metal vessels workshops were rather large and functioned according to a rigorous labour division, with specialised workers for each stage of the technological process209. he type of scenes rendered on votive monuments in which bronze vessels are involved can be grouped in two large categories: sacriice scenes represented on votive reliefs and altars, and representations of sacriice instruments (instrumenta sacra) illustrated on the lateral sides of the votive altars. In the complex sacriice scenes210 two diferent categories of vessels are present: a low vessel without handle (held in hand by the person making the sacriice) and a set of two other vessels (a spouted jug and a bowl with annular base and tubular handle) seen in the hands of the servant, camillus211, assisting the priest. Although we are dealing with two diferent recipient categories, with diferent functions (as will be shown below), the general opinion in the specialised literature is that the set with spouted jug and handled vessel was used in the sacred environment for libations in the course of the sacriice. Starting from this idea, the general term used to designate the handled vessel is patera, while the spouted jug is called with the Greek term oenochoe. H. U. Nuber’s study212 previously mentioned in this volume213 is fundamental for elucidating the function of the two vessel categories, providing an exhaustive analysis of the inds consisting of sets with spouted jugs and bowls with handle (“Grifschale”) from the entire territory of the Roman Empire known until the year 1972. Starting from the information supplied by the literary and iconographic sources (reliefs with sacriice scenes), the author reaches the very pertinent conclusion that in the case of animal sacriices, in all the situations in which liquid oferings are performed a vessel called patera by the literary sources is used, vessel which is never described as possessing a handle. his is also supported by the representations. In all the sacriice scenes illustrating the person performing the sacriice, he is always holding in his hands a vessel with omphalos and without handle214. hus, it becomes clear that the set of vessels held by the camillus is not a libation set, its function being connected to another moment of the sacriice. here are several moments in the course of the sacriice when vessels were used. Lanx and olla extaris were not used for liquids and must be excluded; they can neither be resembled with the bowl with tubular handle because they have known shapes that are diferent from the bowl215. Judging from the recognised examples, olla extaris has a form more similar to that of a cauldron216, whilst the lanx was shaped like a lat plate or platter217. Another moment involving vessels was that of the wine and sacred smoke ofering. he scene is very often represented on reliefs and it is also recalled by literary sources. However, the camillus holding the set in his hands is not involved in the scene and is always illustrated rather far from it. Moreover, the person performing the sacriice is pouring the wine from a vessel without handle, from a patera, similar to the moment when the entrails of the animal are sprinkled with wine218. According to the analysis of the reliefs, a patera is used when blessing the animal, and not the handled vessel. Another possibility is that the blood gushing at the moment the animal was stabbed will have been collected in the handled bowl. If this scenario would be valid, then the issue of the spouted jug paired with the vessel would remain unsolved. Although there are no reliefs illustrating WILLER 2006, 179–181, Abb. 239; see also subchapter II.3.2.2 dedicated to the organisation of the workshops. NUBER 1973, 91–92, Taf. 23/1a-b, 26/2; HELY 1996, 128, Abb. 19. 211 Camillus or camilla (depending on gender) represent in the Roman votive art the iconographic type of the waiting servant. hey were usually children from high status families who assisted the priest during the various stages of the sacriice. he name, recalled by sources, is apparently synonym with the term puer (for the camillus type see SPAULDING 1911). 212 NUBER 1973. In this context, I have considered it useful to briely present the author’s arguments because these are fundamental for establishing the function of the set. 213 See the subchapter dedicated to the history of research (II.1). 214 NUBER 1973, 102. 215 NUBER 1973, 100–101. 216 NUBER 1973, 100. 217 HILGERS 1969, 65; NUBER 1973, 100. 218 NUBER 1973, 101. 209 210 44 this scene, the sources use the term patera for describing the vessel in which the blood was collected and later ofered219. Given these circumstances, the only moment when the set could have been used remains the washing of the priest’s or oiciant’s hands prior to the actual beginning of the sacriice220. here are several arguments that plead in favour of this interpretation. First of all, there is the stereotypical representation of the camillus type. From the relief analysis one can notice that each participant is characterised by attributes or by clothing, pointing to their role during the sacriice (the priest is capite velato and holds the ofering vessel in his hand, the one striking the animal wields an axe etc.). Because of the stereotypical nature of the depictions, the camillus is represented the same, with the bowl in his left hand and the spouted jug in his right. hus, it is hard to believe that he would have carried these items just to give them over to someone else and not for using them directly221. Moreover, the camillus is always seen with a piece of cloth on his shoulder, the mantela, used for wiping the hands222, representing the third component of the set. To conclude, the bowl, the spouted jug and the towel make up a set used during the sacriice for washing the hands of the priest or oiciant accomplishing the deed. he set functions the same also in the funerary and the profane environment, as proved by the representations on funerary monuments and on silver plates223. he handled bowl must not be mistaken for the patera because these are two diferent vessels, in what concerns both shape and function224. he illustration of the set on one of the lateral sides of the votive altar from Stockstadt am Main (Fig. 4) dedicated to the nymphs by Lucius Memmius Iuvenis in the year 166 AD225, with the spouted jug from which water pours into the handled bowl, must be interpreted as a symbol of the ritual cleansing carried out before the beginning of the actual sacriice226. Evidently, the exclusive identiication of the specimens presented on the reliefs with bronze pieces is not possible. he corruption of the forms due Fig. 4. Representation on a to nature of the raw material of the representations does not allow an exact votive altar from Stockstadt am Main (Germany) identiication. However, from the total number of inds known to date, the with the depiction of the set was mainly fashioned from bronze, although silver, glass, alabaster and handwashing set (redrawn pottery copies also existed227. he problems related to function concern all by Márton Ferenczi ater NUBER 1973, Taf. 28/2). the specimens, irrespective of the material of manufacture. Amongst other representations pertaining to the votive environment, the scene depicted on the altar from Ateste (Este, Italy), dedicated by Lucius Minucius Optatus228 (Fig. 5) and dated to the 1st century AD, is highly important. It involves a north Italic artisan specialised in bucket production, represented seated, with a block (caudex) in front of him, on which an anvil is placed. In his left hand he is holding a pair of tongs gripping a bronze vessel, while with his right a hammer with which he is on the verge of striking the vessel. In the upper part of the scene there are two inished bronze buckets229. he type of vessels produced by him is similar to the Eggers 21/22 buckets230. he representation conirms Lucius Minucius Optatus’ profession as a coppersmith and attests the existence of a bronze vessels workshop at Este that produced buckets of the aforementioned type. 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 NUBER 1973, 102. NUBER 1973, 105. NUBER 1973, 104. NUBER 1973, 105. See below in this subchapter. For the Roman sacred implements, see SIEBERT 1999, 32–47. CIL XIII 66. NUBER 1973, 107. NUBER 1973, 73–82. CIL V 2477. ZIMMER 1982, 185, no. 120; MICHELI 1990, 111–112; GORECKI 2000, 452. GORECKI 2000, 452. 45 Fig. 5. Representation on a votive altar dedicated by Lucius Minucius Optatus depicted as a coppersmith (Este, Italy) (redrawn by Marton Ferenczi ater PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 9, tav. 1). On one of the lateral sides of a votive altar from Bonn, dated to the irst quarter of the 3rd century AD and dedicated to the Germanic origin divinities called Matrones by Caius Candidinius Verus231, a meat boiling scene is depicted. A male character is seen stirring in a bronze cauldron which is hanging from a chain, above the ire232. Considering that this is a votive altar, the scene must be most likely connected to that moment of the sacriice when the animal entrails, exta, are prepared in the olla extaris233. Funerary monuments with vessel representations are much fewer in comparison to the votive ones. he recipients appear almost exclusively in funerary banquet scenes, here too most frequently in the context of handwashing. Despite the fact that most of the times the schematic depictions make it very diicult to discern the types of vessels visible on the mensa tripes, some observation can still be made regarding the handwashing set in a funerary context234. As an example, a funerary stele from Cologne235 illustrates a funerary banquet scene in the middle of which we see a man reclining on the kliné, before a mensa tripes. here is a servant on each side of the bed, the one on the right holding a simpulum in his hand, while the one on the left a spouted jug in his right hand and a bowl with tubular handle in his left. he two vessels held by the sevants are generally interpreted in the specialised literature as vessels used for libations during the funerary banquet236. Considering that, as mentioned before, the set of vessels is used both in the sacred and the profane environment for washing the hands, based on the analysis of the iconographic representations and of the archaeological discoveries, H. U. Nuber reached the conclusion that the funerary inventory relects the banquet scene displayed by the funerary monuments. hus, the graves include supply vessels, referring to the food on the banquet table, but also drinking vessels, representing the drinks consumed on the occasion. It is from this point of view that we should regard the use of the set in a funerary context. Once again, these are vessels used for washing the hands, as part of the table service237. Although most of the times we are dealing with symbolic representations, handwashing sets were actually discovered in the funerary milieu, and in some of the cases it was possible to identify a third element of the set, namely the mantela. In a tomb from Bartlow Hills (England), a set comprising a spouted jug and a bowl with tubular handle was found. Textile traces were observed on the vessels, originating from the towel used for wiping the hands238. A similar situation was noted in the case of a tomb from Szőlősgyörök (Hungary), where textile traces were discovered near the set, identiied as belonging to a towel folded several times239. A particular type of funerary monument is represented by the ones depicting the craftsmen at work, performing the professional activities they practiced during their life time. In the case of the bronze AE 1931, 18. KÜNZL 1993, 238–239, Abb. 6; HANEMANN 2006, 123, Abb. 133. For bronze cauldrons suspended above the ire with iron chains, dated to the 3rd century, see KÜNZL 1993; PETROVSZKY 2006a. 233 NUBER 1973, 100. 234 For a more thorough analysis of the vessels appearing in funerary banquet scenes displayed by funerary monuments from Roman Dacia, see subchapter II. 2.2.3. 235 NUBER 1973, 87, Taf. 20/2. 236 For a more detailed analysis of the vessels depicted on funerary monuments see the discussion regarding the monuments from Roman Dacia (subchapter II. 2.2.3). 237 NUBER 1973, 177. 238 NUBER 1973, 106. 239 HORVÁTH 1981, 78, Fig. 17. 231 232 46 vessels, only one such monument is known, discovered in 2005 during the excavations in the Roman necropolis at Autun. he stela depicts a craftsman who holds a hammer in his right hand and a metal jug in his left one, identiied with the jugs belonging to the Den Boesterd 288–290 types240. he monument is important because it conirms one more time the existence of the bronze vessels production from Autun and it gives new information regarding the repertoire of shapes and types manufactured here241. Remaining in the sphere of funerary monuments, the sarcophagus from Simpelveld represents one of the most important iconographic sources regarding the composition of the wine preparing sets in use at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century AD. It was discovered at Simpelveld (he Netherlands), in the vicinity of a villa rustica. Despite the sarcophagus shape, it housed a cremation grave. he deceased woman was illustrated on one of the interior sides of the sarcophagus, resting on a bed placed outside her house. On the other side of the sarcophagus, indoor scenes are represented242. Alongside a low cupboard on top of which glass bottles can be seen, there is a shelf containing a set of bronze vessels (Fig. 6): two Hemmoor type buckets (used for mixing the wine) on the upper shelf, and underneath a jug and a bronze sheet spouted jug (used for heating the water needed for wine preparation)243. he representation is relevant because it attests the use of bronze sheet spouted jugs as part of the wine services, with the purpose of preparing the so-called calda, at the same time conirming the use of the Hemmoor buckets as wine mixing vessels244. d. Representations on minor arts objects. he prandium scenes illustrated by the silver plates of Late Antiquity are extremely valuable for elucidating the function of the handwashing set, previously discussed in this volume, in the profane environment. Representative from this point of view is the silver plate from Cesena245. Its central medallion depicts ive men having lunch outdoors. On the right, there is a servant holding a spouted jug in his left hand and a handled vessel in his right. He is pooring water from the spouted jug on the hands of one of the participants. On his left shoulder he is wearing the mantela246. In the lack of the fork and knife, washing the hands during meal time was very important. he Greek and Fig. 6. Scene from the sarcophagus discovered Roman literary sources speak of the necessity of washing the at Simpelveld depicting a shelf with a set of bronze vessels (redrawn by Marton hands at the beginning of the meal, between the courses, and Ferenczi ater GORECKI 1994, 179, Abb. 4). in the end247. Another scene in which the set is involved in handwashing 248 is displayed by an ivory box from Brescia , dated to the year 380 AD. he servant with the mantela on his shoulder and holding the two vessels is pouring water over Pilate’s hand. he representations on the Cesena plate and on the box from Brescia both prove that the function of the set was also preserved during Late Antiquity. 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 TISSERAND 2010, 255, Fig. 3; GORECKI 2016, 209; see also subchapter III.5.2. Regarding the moulds and semiinished products discovered at Autun see subchapter II.3.2.1. CAVALIER 1988, 20; TOYNBEE 1996, 264, 281, Fig. 91–92. GORECKI 2006, 112. GORECKI 1994, 179, 181–182. NUBER 1973, 118, Taf. 29/b; HELY 1996, 138, Abb. 17. NUBER 1973, 118. NUBER 1973, 118. NUBER 1973, 125–126, Taf. 28/3; HELY 1996, 139, Abb. 18. 47 II.2.2.3. Representations of bronze vessels on votive and funerary monuments from Roman Dacia An analysis dedicated to the metal vessels represented on sculptural monuments from Roman Dacia has never been the subject of a detailed study. he interest of the specialists regarding the diferent vessel shapes depicted on such pieces was manifested at a general level or was focused on certain categories, namely the ceramic vessels249. N. Gudea was the irst who drew attention to the importance of iconography in pottery research, in a study dedicated to pottery production from Roman Dacia250. he author considers that the number of depictions representing ceramic shapes is scarce and that most of them are tributary to the stereotypy of Roman provincial art. Without trying to be exhaustive, he listed a number of fourteen monuments depicting ceramic vessels251. Still, a more comprehensive analysis regarding, again, the ceramic vessels represented on sculptural monuments was made by V. Rusu-Bolindeț 252. With this occasion a number of 153 votive and funeral monuments or architectural elements with such depictions were listed, considering that at least part of them could be related to metallic shapes. Even if there is a strong focus on shape and symbolism of the representations, the author acknowledges the diiculty of distinguishing between metallic, glass and ceramic shapes, since the attention to detail was never a priority for the stone carvers in Roman provincial environment253. To these one can add the observations made by C. Ciongradi regarding the decoration of votive altars from Roman Dacia. he author draws attention on the fact that, when dealing with a standardized production, the depictions of instrumenta sacra from the lateral sides of votive altars lose their original signiicance and become mere decorative elements254. From a methodological viewpoint, it has to be stressed from the beginning that an identiication based on the material from which the vessels were manufactured is not viable in this context. Taken into consideration the schematic representations, typical for provincial art, it was hardly possible, as it will be seen forward, to identify with certainty that a particular depiction corresponds with a bronze vessel used in reality. For this reason, in most of the cases it was possible to identify „metallic” shapes, without being able to indicate from which material they were made of. Still, since some speciic shapes were produced mostly from copper based alloys, having a small number of imitations from other categories of material (silver, glass, ceramic), one could take into consideration the possibility of identiication with bronze vessels. Another reason for which the identiication of the material cannot be the sole purpose of such an analysis is that the depiction of vessels on sculptural monuments is related to a certain symbolism and, because of this, it was never the intention of the stone carver to represent details which would allow a distinction between diferent materials. For these reasons the present analysis will focus, mainly, on establishing the extent to which the represented metallic shapes preserve their value of symbol in a Roman provincial environment. Accordingly, several types of representations, namely that of the vine stocks growing from a krater255 or that of the doves or peacocks drinking from a vessel256, which follow a tradition of representation and do not relect anymore a reality of the irst three centuries AD, were not analyzed here. In identifying the representations which correspond to metallic shapes, the following criteria were used: the shape of the vessels, paying a special attention to the ones produced from copper based alloys; the sharp angles of the handles which cannot be manufactured in glass or ceramic, because of For a history of the research see RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 113–114. GUDEA 1978. 251 GUDEA 1978, 136, 144–145. 252 RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994. 253 RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 113–114, 138–148. 254 CIONGRADI 2006, 216–217. 255 Regarding the decorative value of the krater in the Roman world see DUNBABIN 1993, 140; for the monuments from Roman Dacia see RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 116; CIONGRADI 2007, 413, Taf. 43/S/A 21b, 437, Taf. 67/Pf/S 1d, 438, Taf. 68/Pf/M1, 463, Taf. 93/Py/A 1e, 466, Taf. 96/Py/S 3b, 471, Taf. 101/Py/A 12a. 256 See note 188; for the situation from Roman Dacia see RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 116; CIONGRADI 2007, 425, Taf. 55/S/S 46, 482, Taf. 112/Te/M 2. 249 250 48 the nature of the materials; the shape of the rim and, sometimes, the way in which the handles were attached to the rim (in ceramic and glass these details are not so visible); for the jugs: the presence of a foot replaced in ceramics and glass with a ring-shaped base; the presence of vegetal, zoomorphic, or anthropomorphic appliqués at both ends of the jug handles; decoration patterns speciic for metal vessels. Representations of metallic shapes have been identiied on thirty ive sculptural monuments from Roman Dacia. Out of them, 14 are votive altars257 and 21 funerary monuments258, namely 15 aedicula walls, 3 pseudo-aedicula type altars/stelae of the pseudo-aedicula type, 2 funerary stelae, and a pyramid-shaped coping of funerary monument. he 14 votive altars259 display representations of the handwashing set on the sides, or diferent variations. Twelve of them come from Alba Iulia/Apulum (Pl. I-VI), one from Vețel/Micia (Pl. VII/2) and one from Geoagiu/Germisara, discovered embedded in the wall of the church from Poiana (Hunedoara County) (Pl. VII/1). Regarding the type of depictions, thirteen altars (nos.: 1–10, 12–14) display on the lateral sides variants of the handwashing set, while no. 11 was decorated on the right side with a jug with spout and on the left one with a krater-shaped vessel from which vine stalks and bunches of grapes grow. he identiication of these depictions with metallic shapes is based on the presence of certain characteristics. Regarding the jugs (Fig. 7), one can observe: the existence of a foot (nos.: 1–14), a trifoliar rim or a spout (nos.: 1–11, 14), the line dividing the neck from the body of the vessel (nos.: 2, 4–5, 7–8, 10), typical decoration at both ends of the handles (nos.: 1–5, 7–12, 14), sharp angles of the handles or their elevation (nos.: 3, 9, 11, 14), or speciic decoration patterns (nos.: 2, 6). he bowls with tubular handles (Fig. 8) display at their turn speciic features: the presence of an umbo on the inner base (nos.: 2–3, 7–10, 12, 14), tubular handle (nos.: 2, 4, 7–10, 13–14), decoration of the handle end with zoomorphic or anthropomorphic depictions in the case of the original objects (nos.: 2260, 14 – very probably a ram’s head), handles decorated with grooves (nos.: 2, 9–10 – the grooves are parallel with the diameter of the handle, not with its length, as it appears on the original objects). From the thirteen altars with representations of the handwashing set, in ive cases (nos.: 3, 5, 6, 12–13) the bowl with tubular handle (“Grifschale”) was replaced with another type of vessel, namely the casserole, situation indicated in three cases (nos.: 3, 5, and 6) by the lat handles and the height of the body261. he vessels depicted on altars nos. 12 and 13 display a body shape typical for the bowls with tubular handles, but the manner in which the handle is attached to the rim is, again, characteristic to the casseroles belonging to Petrovszky VI, 1–3 type262 or to certain types of silver casseroles263. But even if, as we have seen, most of the representations can be traced back to metallic shapes, their identiication with original objects is diicult. Regarding the bowl with tubular handle, such identiication is not possible because the depictions are too simpliied. One can only relate to the general shape without being able to indicate certain types. he replacement of the bowl with the casserole on the altars is a phenomenon that has no parallels on votive altars discovered outside Roman Dacia. For a list of the discussed votive altars see Annexe Ia. For a list of the discussed funerary monuments see Annexe Ib. 259 For an individual analysis of the vessels represented on votive altars from Roman Dacia see MUSTAȚĂ 2015a. 260 he handle of the bowl depicted on the altar from Apulum (no.: 2) displays a diferent decoration in comparison with other depictions or with the original objects: the zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome is replaced with a feline’s paw, element which is characteristic for the handles of jugs with trifoliar rim of the handwashing service belonging to Millingen type (see RADNÓTI 1938, 145–151, Taf. XIII/72–73; EGGERS 1951, 171, Beilge 53: “Bronzekanne mit Kleeblattmündung und nach oben geschwungenem Henkel” (Typ 125–126), Taf. 11/125–126; DEN BOESTERD 1956, 67–69, nos. 232–239, Pl. X/233, 236; NUBER 1973, 45–54; PETROVSZKY 1993, 112–113, Taf. 4/XIII, 1.). 261 See PETROVSZKY 1993, 85–88, 413, Taf. 2/VI, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b. 262 PETROVSZKY 1993, 85–88, 413, Taf. 2/VI, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b. 263 See, e.g., TRESORS D´ORFEVRERIE 1989, 101–102 (nos.: 31–32), 153–154 (no.: 101). 257 258 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fig. 7. Spouted jugs depicted on votive altars from Roman Dacia. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 12 14 Fig. 8. Bowls with tubular handle and casseroles depicted on votive altars from Roman Dacia. 51 Coming back to the jugs, one can presume, with caution, a possible correspondence of some of the depictions (e.g. nos.: 9, 11, 14) with the jugs with spout belonging to Alikaria type264 and of one of them (no.: 2) with a late variant of the Canterbury type265. he presence of the jug belonging to the Canterbury type on the altar from Apulum could suggest a later dating of the monument, end of the 2nd – beginning of the 3rd century AD, period during which these jugs with engraved decoration were produced, very probably in Danubian workshops266. Establishing the exact signiicance of these representations in the Roman provincial environment is not unproblematic. A similar analysis, regarding the vessels represented on the lateral side of the votive altars from Pannonia, was undertaken by Klára Szabó267. he paper analyses a number of 41 such depictions and their presence is explained by the author through the Italic tradition which was spread in the provinces268. he functionality of the handwashing set has already been discussed in this volume269. Its representation on various sculptural monuments is closely related to the iconographical type of camillus who is always represented with the jug in the right hand, the bowl in the left one, and the napkin, mantela, on the shoulder270. he depiction of the set on the lateral sides of votive altars is strictly connected to this functionality and it symbolizes the ritual puriication of the priest before sacriice, as well as the piety of the person who dedicated the monument. It is considered that the habit of representing instrumenta sacra on the lateral sides of votive altars is a consequence of Augustus’ religious policy. hus, a good citizen could express at a formal level his/her piety through the usage of this type of representations, common in Rome and Italy from the 1st to the 5th centuries AD. he new elements entered rapidly in the repertoire of the stone carvers and reached quite early a high tendency of simpliication271. Regarding the Roman provincial environment, based on the discoveries known so far, most of the altars with this type of representations can be placed chronologically from the second half of the 2nd century to the irst half and the entire 3rd century AD272. From NUBER 1973, 54–60. he identiication with the Alikaria type is sustained by the existence of the foot and of the trifoliar rim. However, taking into consideration the high degree of simpliication which characterizes these depictions, the identiication can only be hypothetical. 265 NUBER 1973, 60–73. 266 NUBER 1973, 69–70; a similar depiction, of a jug with engraved decoration, is present on the right side of a votive altar dedicated to Astarte, discovered at Corbridge (Roman Britain) and dated to the 3rd century (CSIR Great Britain I/1, no. 47). 267 SZABÓ 1991. 268 SZABÓ 1991, 175. 269 See subchapter II.2.2.2. 270 NUBER 1973, 96–125. 271 DE DECKER-SZABÓ ET ALII 2009, 779. 272 Votive altars with depictions of one or both components of the handwashing set are, of course, not characteristic only for Roman Dacia. For similar monuments from the rest of the Roman Empire see CSIR ÖSTERREICH I/3 (Carnuntum): no. 151 (2nd century AD), 187 (3rd century AD); CSIR ÖSTERREICH I/4 (Carnuntum): no. 445 (181 AD), 446 (2nd century AD), 447 (-), 448 (2nd–3rd centuries AD), 449 (2nd–3rd centuries AD), 450 (AD 170–172), 451 (2nd century AD), 452 (2nd century AD); CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/3 (Upper Germany): no. 80 (AD 178); CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/4 (Upper Germany): no. 11 (the 3rd quarter of the 2nd century AD), 36 (Severan period), 89 (1st of June 276 AD), 117 (Severan period); CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/10 (Upper Germany): no. 43 (probably 3rd century AD); CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/12 (Upper Germany): no. 273 (AD 212), 274 (AD 209), 302 (AD 180–185); CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/13 (Upper Germany): no. 2 (end of the 2nd century AD – beginning of the 3rd century AD), 10 (AD 186), 13 (AD 191), 18 (AD 167), 19 (AD 167), 20 (second half of the 2nd century AD), 21 (AD 166), 57 (end of the 2nd century AD – beginning of the 3rd century AD), 58 (last quarter of the 2nd century AD), 67 (-), 73 (second half of the 2nd century AD), 155 (-), 170 (15th of July AD 201), 189 (AD 206), 199 (third quarter of the 2nd century AD), 200 (2nd century AD?), 258 (2nd–3rd centuries AD), 290 (end of the 2nd century AD – beginning of the 3rd century AD), 312 (2nd–3rd centuries AD); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/1: no. 47 (3rd century AD), 181 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 182 (probably AD 211), 186 (3rd century AD), 193 (3rd century AD), 195 (possibly Caracalla), 198 (3rd century AD), 209 (beginning of the 3rd century AD), 221 (AD 131–161), 233 (3rd century AD), 301 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 302 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 310 (3rd century AD), 347 (2nd or 3rd century AD); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/2: no. 106 (-); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/3: no. 4 (-), 28 (probably the irst half of the 3rd century AD), 32 (-), 34 (-), 35 (-); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/4: no. 2 (after 158 AD), 8 (probably Hadrian-Antoninus Pius), 48 (before AD 158), 96 (probably Antonine period), 153 (Antonine period); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/5: no. 42 (-), 43 (-); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/6: no. 11 (possibly Antonine period), 13 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 24 (3rd century AD), 40 (3rd 264 52 the group of altars from Dacia, only four of them ofer a more precise dating, which corresponds to this period and, regarding the type of dedications, most of them have an oicial character (see Annexe 1a). A closer look to the manner of representation and the distribution area of the votive altars from Dacia indicates that their presence is not directly related with their symbolic value or the preference or piety of the dedicator. First of all, there is no coherence in representation: in four cases (nos.: 1, 2, 6, 14) the spouted jug appears on the right side and the bowl with handle on the left one, opposite from the position of the other representations (the jug on the left side and the bowl with handle on the right one: nos.: 3, 4, 7, 8–9, 10, 12–13). As mentioned before, in ive situations (nos.: 3, 5, 6, 12–13) the bowl was replaced in representations with a casserole, a vessel used for measuring and mixing the wine273, which has nothing to do with the handwashing set. To this it adds the fact that twelve of the altars come from Alba Iulia/Apulum, one from Vețel/Micia, one possibly from Geoagiu/Germisara. Taking all these into consideration, it can only be concluded that, very probably, the appearance of the handwashing set on the sides of the altars from Dacia is related to the preference of the workshops from Alba Iulia/Apulum and its surroundings for these decorative elements274. he identiication of a workshop based on the representations is not possible because of the diferences existing between them and the lack of the epigraphic dating elements prevents an analysis of a certain evolution of the shapes. he situation from Dacia is not unique. he stone carvers’ workshops from Emerita Augusta (Lusitania) showed the same preference for votive altars with such representations in comparison with the rest of the province275. From the Germanic provinces of the Empire, this type of altar is common for the area of Mogontiacum and its surroundings, like the statio beneiciarii from Stockstadt am Main276, and regarding Roman Britain, such sculptural pieces are common for the area along Hadrian’s Wall277. In these circumstances, it is very probable that the votive altars from Roman Dacia, with representations of instrumenta sacra, relect a Roman habit and tradition which lost its meaning over time and developed into a simple decorative element of the stone carving workshops from Apulum. he representations on funerary monuments are mostly related to the depictions of the iconographical type camillus/camilla on the lateral sides of funerary aediculae (Pl. VIII/15, 17, 19; IX/20– 24; X/25–26, 28; XI/29–31; XII/34), on pseudo-aedicula type altars/stelae of the pseudo-aedicula type (Pl. VIII/16; X/27), on funerary stelae (Pl. XII/33), and on pyramid-shaped copings of funerary monuments (Pl. VIII/18)278. Because of the schematic depiction of the vessels which usually appear on the mensa tripes as part of the funerary banquet scenes, none of them could be identiied as metallic shapes. he only vessels from the funerary banquet which can be considered metallic are the components of the handwashing set depicted lying on the loor, under or in the vicinity of the mensa tripes (Pl. XI/32; XII/33–35). From the seventeen representations of servants279, male attendants are depicted in nine cases (nos. 17–18, 22, 26- 31) and female ones in eight (nos. 15–16, 19–20, 23- 25, 33). he image on the aedicula wall from Napoca (no. 21), with a male and female attendant represented together, is less common. century AD), 92 (3rd century AD), 128 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 129 (beginning of the 3rd century AD), 138 (-), 140 (possibly AD 153), 141 (-), 145 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 160 (Severus Alexander), 182 (possibly 3rd century AD), 287 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 294 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 300 (2nd or 3rd century AD), 316 (-), 324 (2nd or 3rd century AD); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/8: no. 69 (-), 70 (-); CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/9: no. 3 (beginning of the 2nd century AD), 5 (end of the 2nd century AD – beginning of the 3rd century AD), 6 (-), 12 (end of the 2nd century AD or beginning of the 3rd century AD), 20 (2nd century AD), 21 (irst half of the 2nd century AD), 116 (-), 117 (possibly 3rd century AD); CSIR UNGARN VIII: no. 70 (3rd century AD), 76 (AD 222). For votive altars from Pannonia see SZABÓ 1991 and for Gaul see SZABÓ 1991, 171, 176, note 4. 273 See subchapter III.1. 274 CIONGRADI 2006, 216–217. 275 NUBER 1973, 91, note 507. 276 CSIR DEUTSCHLAND II/13, 10–13, 18–21, 57–58, 67, 73. 277 See CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/6. 278 For a detailed analysis of the servants depicted on the funerary monuments from Roman Dacia see PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010. 279 he use of the term servant instead of camillus/camilla is much more appropriate when discussing depictions which do not have a votive character. For the discussion see PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 172, 175–176. 53 None of the images depicts the servants with a complete handwashing set. hey usually appear with the spouted jug in the right hand and with the napkin, mantela, on the left shoulder, while the spouted jug is held in the left hand on the aedicula wall no. 19 from Napoca. he only exception is represented by another aedicula wall from Napoca (no. 21) on which all the components of the set are present, but the jug and the mantela are held by the male attendant, while the bowl with tubular handle is depicted in the hand of the female attendant. In one situation (no. 18) the male attendant holds in his hand another vessel than the spouted jug, which can be identiied with an askos. his “replacement” is not surprising, since, as far as it can be presumed so far, this type of vessel was used for ablutions as well, in relation with the washing sets280. he analysis of the iconography and attributes of the waiting servants represented on the funerary monuments from Roman Dacia showed a lack of iconographical unity in comparison with other parts of the Empire281. With few exceptions, similarities are hardly encountered even at a micro regional level. Concerning the attributes of the servants, if one leaves aside the spouted jug and the napkin which are quite frequent, the others can be interpreted as the result of mixing distinct elements from diferent iconographical types. It seems that the napkin and the bent arm of the servant, holding its end, are the most common “marks” of the Dacian waiting servant282. he vessels represented on the funerary monuments display at their turn the same characteristics of the metallic shapes discussed above. he jugs are provided with a foot or a well marked ring base (nos. 16, 19, 21, 23, 25–29, 31–35), with typical decoration at one or both ends of the handles, in many cases strongly stylized (nos. 16?, 22, 27, 30, 34), with a trefoil rim or a spout (nos. 18–19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30–35; possibly 15, 21, 25, 29), and with sharp angles of the handles or raised handles (no. 20, 32–35). he bowls with tubular handle from the aedicula wall no. 21 and the funerary stela no. 35 were represented with an umbo, but the handles end in a schematic decoration which cannot be identiied. In general, the shapes are strongly stylized and do not allow an exact identiication of the type of vessel which was depicted. he most accurate representation can be seen on the fragmentary aedicula wall no. 22. Despite the fact that only the upper part of the depiction is preserved (the neck, spout and the upper, decorated end of the handle), the main features of the vessel are rendered in detail and they allow the identiication with a variant of the Canterbury spouted jugs belonging to the handwashing set283. he signiicance of the servants represented holding the handwashing set has already been discussed in this volume284. heir presence inside the funerary banquet scenes has received various explanations. Among others, it was considered that in this context the handwashing set has to be seen as a relection of the same actions that occurred during the funerary banquet285. A less straightforward explanation, given by K. M. D. Dunbabin, starts from the idea that the Roman funerary iconography represents the result of a mixture of elements coming from both the profane and funerary milieus. he servants belong to both spheres and it is not possible to make a clear distinction between the two. In the author’s opinion, the attempt of identifying the funerary banquet scenes with a speciic moment, like the banquet taking place at the burial, one experienced by the deceased during his life, or one to which he or she could have aspired to, is a mistake because the scene of the funerary banquet is indeed a metaphor for a happy existence which could have encompassed or relate to each the above-mentioned moments286. he analysis of the instrumenta sacra in the private sphere and especially on funerary altars, led A. V. Sieber to the conclusion that the depiction of the handwashing set is a symbol of the drink ofering made at the grave, which would have been immortalized in stone, implicitly showing the piety towards the deceased of the See, e.g.: PROTO 2002, 381–383. See, e.g., the iconographical uniformity of the servants depicted on the funerary monuments from Virunum (CSIR ÖSTERREICH II.3). 282 PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 173–174, 176–178, 191–192 (graphs 1–5). 283 NUBER 1973, 60–73. 284 See subchapter II.2.2.2 (representations on stone: funerary monuments). 285 NUBER 1973, 177. 286 DUNBABIN 2003, 132. 280 281 54 ones who erected the monument287. No funerary altars with such representations have been discovered so far in Roman Dacia. However, I consider that the iconographical uniformity shown by the images of servants in all the profane, sacred, and funerary milieus does not sustain a diferent interpretation of their signiicance in funerary contexts. he appearance of the spouted jug under the mensa tripes on four of the monuments discussed here: the altar of pseudo-aedicula type from Ilişua (Pl. XI/32), the funerary stela from Şăula (Pl. XII/33), twice on the hinder wall of the aedicula from Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XII/34), and on a funerary stela also from Turda/Potaissa, associated with a bowl with tubular handle in this case (Pl. XII/35) did not receive any clear explanation until now. Still, a closer look at the way in which the table ware is depicted in funerary contexts can ofer important elements for understanding its meaning. Except for the stela from Turda/ Potaissa (no. 35) where the complete handwashing set is depicted, in all three other cases the jugs are associated with a panarium. If their purpose would have been that of serving jugs, their place should have been on the table, together with the rest of the serving ware. he explanation that they were placed under the table because there was not enough room to represent them on the table doesn’t seem satisfactory. Beginning with the Etruscan period and until Late Antiquity the representing canons of the table ware follow the same pattern: the drinking service is depicted on the table and the handwashing service under the table. Just to give few examples, the painting from an Etruscan grave at Traquinia/Corneto (Lazio, Italy) represents the drinking service on the table and the handwashing set, composed of a jug and a basin, under it288. he same situation can be observed on the fresco in the grave of Caius Vestorius Priscus from Pompeii where the handwashing service (consisting of jug and bowl with tubular handle), part of a beautiful set of silver table ware, is placed under the table289. In the prandium scene represented on the silver plate from the treasure attributed to SEVSO the handwashing set is on the ground, near the table290 and it can be found in the same position in a painting from St. Peter’s catacombs291. An explanation for this situation could be that the handwashing service, even if part of the table ware, had a particular functionality during the meal which is diferent from the rest of the vessels, a fact that determined a special iconography for its representation. So, it seems plausible that in the case of jugs represented under the mensa tripes in the funerary banquet scenes from Roman Dacia we deal with a simpler version of an iconographical tradition of representing the handwashing service under the table, which would have been manipulated later by a servant. he depiction of the complete handwashing set under the mensa tripes on the funerary stela from Turda/Potaissa (no. 35) proves very clearly this iconographical tradition. II.2.2.4. Conclusions he analysis of the iconographic sources from the Roman Empire referring to bronze vessels presents us with a disproportional view of the types of recipients in use. As shown above, there is much more information regarding the handwashing set in comparison with other vessel shapes. he situation is to be somewhat expected, irst of all because of the multiple uses of the set both in the sacred and in the profane and funerary environments. Furthermore, amongst the representations there is a propensity for the image of the servant, an extremely popular image in the Roman world, not to mention its stereotypical appearance. Daily life episodes, such as those depicted on the Simpelveld sarcophagus or on the Marbella mosaic, play a crucial role in elucidating some of the issues related to the association of certain types of vessels, but they are extremely rare. Another point to underline is the precaution required when interpreting the iconographic sources. As the case of the Vesuvian towns clearly shows, representations do not always relect the daily life. he 287 288 289 290 291 SIEBERT 1999, 176–180. DAREMBERG/SAGLIO, I/1, 346, aquaemanalis (E. Saglio). NUBER 1972, 74. MUNDELL MANGO 1990, 72, Abb. 3. DUNBABIN 1993, 138–138, Fig. 28. 55 same is true for the monuments analysed from Roman Dacia. Before interpreting a certain image and attributing a speciic symbolism to it, we irst have to inquire about the context of its creation. Also, we must keep in mind that Roman art is tributary to model books, a very noticeable fact in the provinces, and it is precisely their existence that casts doubts on the symbolic value of a representation or its correspondence to real-life elements. A correct interpretation of the data provided by iconographic sources cannot be carried out without the existence of a correct terminology for referring to vessel forms. hus, designating the set for handwashing with the terms patera and oenochoe caused and continues to produce serious confusions in the specialised literature, especially since a certain name implicitly suggests a certain function. Evidently, an unilateral approach that would be based on only one of the categories of sources discussed in the present volume would be incomplete right from the start. he pieces of information supplied by the literary, iconographic and archaeological sources conirm and complete each other. II.3. The production technology II.3.1. Alloys II.3.1.1. The type of alloys used for producing Roman bronze vessels For a rather long period of time, the issue of studying the composition of Roman copper alloys was regarded with reluctance by the archaeological world. It was seen as an unnecessary efort, considering that the generally accepted opinion viewed the composition of Roman bronzes not as a result of the artisan’s deliberate choice, but rather as an accident. Concerning the Roman bronze vessels, the irst analyses to be carried out on a representative lot of pieces were aimed at the bronze vessels collection of the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen, he Netherlands292. In the course of the study, a number of 314 objects was investigated: complete vessels, fragments, handles. he outcome highlighted the importance of analysing signiicantly large lots of Roman vessels discovered inside and also outside the frontiers of the Empire. In the following decades, the interest for the chemical study of the alloys from which Roman bronze vessels were manufactured increased exponentially. Amongst the most important contributions, we must recall the analysis of the bronze vessels from the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Köln293, those from the Strasbourg and Hagenau294 museums, as well as of a lot of vessels from the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen collection (discovered between 1954 and 1996)295. Furthermore, progress was also registered in what concerns the analysis of the vessels from a site, micro-region or entire region, sometimes much more relevant than the pieces belonging to museum collections, which, due to their heterogeneous nature, cannot ofer a complete view of a local or regional phenomenon. hus, investigations were carried out on lots of bronze vessels from Alesia296, Milano297 and Neupotz298, from the present-day territory of Denmark299, from Noviodunum300, Emona301, and Pompeii302. As a result of these eforts, a very large quantity of data was gathered. In the year 2002, the chemical composition of a number of ten thousand Roman bronzes (major statues, statuettes, vessels, military equipment, furniture ittings etc.) was known, out of which approximately 15% were represented 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 DEN BOESTERD 1956; DEN BOESTERD, HOEKSTRA 1966. STUTZINGER 1984. BECK ET ALII 1985. KOSTER 1997. RABEISEN, MENU 1985. CASTOLDI, STORTI 1992. ANKNER 1993; BOLLINGBERG, LUND HANSEN 1993; RIEDERER 1993. LUND HANSEN, BOLLINGBERG 1995. SIMION 1995. GIUMLIA-MAIR 2001. WAGNER ET ALII 2000; RIEDERER 2002. 56 Fig. 9. Diagram showing the relation between the name and composition of cooper alloys (redrawn ater BAYLEY 1990, 8, Fig. 1). by vessels303. he information that became available allowed some clearer answers to be given to the questions addressed by such an enterprise, answers which will be detailed below. Is there a direct link between the technical peculiarities of the alloy and the function of a piece, and can we speak of an alloy standardisation in the Roman world according to the inished product? To what degree can the alloy composition inluence the technological stages a product goes through and also to what extent does this help us to reconstruct the technological stages? Can the alloy composition be an identiier for the production centre of a piece? During the Roman age, copper was combined with one or more of the following elements: stannum (tin), lead and zinc. he other elements identiied by analyses (antimony, arsenic, cobalt, nickel, iron, silver) do not represent intentional additions, but originate from the ores of the main constituent elements. he term ‘bronze’ deines a single type of alloy, namely the one composed only of copper and tin. An alloy containing copper and zinc is called brass, and if tin is also present in this composition then we are dealing with an alloy based on copper, zinc and tin, i.e. gunmetal. Lead can also be added to all of the three types of alloy304 (Fig. 9). he analyses carried out on Roman bronze vessels clearly proved that the type of alloy was not chosen randomly; from this perspective, we can speak of a standardisation in the Roman world305. hus, three categories of alloys could be distinguished: bronze with 90% copper and 10% tin for manufacturing the body of the vessels, leaded copper (in some cases the added lead could reach rather high values) for the massively cast components such as attachments and handles306, and brass, which primarily characterises a bronze vessels production speciic to the Rhenish provinces307. RIEDERER 2002, 284. BAYLEY 1990, 7; GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 76–77. 305 he situation is not valid only for bronze vessels. he same phenomenon was observed in the case of the bells produced from bronze with a 20% tin content, making it a though alloy, very suitable for producing pleasant sounds (the bells started to be cast from a bronze with a greater tin content from the La Tène period onwards: see GIUMLIA-MAIR 2001, 25); also, certain types of brooches were produced only from brass with a 20% zinc content, precisely because of the aesthetic qualities of this alloy, which was similar to gold (see RIEDERER 2002); a similar case is that of the harness pieces from Alesia, made also from brass, most likely on the same aesthetic criteria (see RABEISEN, MENU 1985, 170). 306 GIUMLIA-MAIR 2001, 7–10, 30; RIEDERER 2002, 284–286. 307 NOTTE 1989; GORECKI 2000, 460. 303 304 57 he reasons behind this standardisation are very logical. First of all, it is the technical qualities of a certain type of alloy that determine the way it will be used. For instance, mirrors required an alloy which could be polished without diiculty, whereas for the massively cast bronzes the most convenient was an alloy easy to cast at a melting point as low as possible. Furthermore, the economic aspect must also be taken into account, namely the price of the constituent elements of the alloy, but also the possibility of a workshop to be supplied with a certain type of metal uncommon for the region where it functioned. he aesthetic issues must not be excluded either. he preference for brass when producing brooches and other decorative elements is most likely due to its colour. Not lastly, a precise knowledge of the properties of each type of alloy enabled the craftsman to work as eiciently as possible, avoiding rejected pieces308. Referring to bronze vessels, the recurring composition of 90% copper and 9–10% tin found in the body represents the ideal alloy, ensuring the elasticity needed for mechanically processing the objects. his proportion is not typical only for Roman bronze vessels. he analyses conducted on lots of recipients dated to the interval between the archaic Greek and the Hellenistic periods showed a similar composition309. he ‘recipe’ is attested by literary sources as well. In book XXXIV of the Naturalis Historia, Pliny the Elder claims that the bronze produced at Capua is the best for the manufacture of common ware. he composition he indicates consists in adding one part plumbum argentariu, identiied as tin310, to ten parts copper311, resulting in an alloy with a 9.1% tin concentration. Alloyed with copper, tin renders it greater mechanical hardness as well as an increased resistance to corrosion. he alloy becomes more malleable and is easier to deform. A 9–10% tin concentration inluences the quality of the alloy also from an aesthetic point of view. he reddish colour of copper becomes yellow and, at greater concentrations, even silvery. he melting temperature of copper (1083° C) is lowered to 1025° C by mixing it with 10% tin. A tin quantity of over 13% changes the qualities of the alloy, which becomes harder and more fragile312. Consequently, this appears to be the ideal solution for the pieces that would be hammered, as long as the lead quantity existent in the alloy does not go over 1%. he presence of a higher quantity prevents the hammering of the alloy, since it starts to crack in the process. his is due to the characteristics of lead, which does not mix uniformly within the alloy, but forms granules that ill the voids313. Precisely these properties make lead a very useful metal for the massively cast pieces, because it increases the luidity of the alloy and its resistance to corrosion, while lowering its melting point314. he production of brass Roman vessels represents a phenomenon speciic to the western provinces of the Roman Empire. For the moment, the precise location of the workshops is unclear, the specialists’ opinions ranging from eastern Gaul to the Rhineland315. Until now, no clear traces were found to allow the ield identiication of a workshop. he theory according to which the workshops would have functioned in the environs of present-day Aachen, more precisely at Mausbach-Gressenich (NordrheinWestphalia, Germany), is probably the most plausible. Recent surveys carried out in that area in order to identify heavy metals (lead, copper, zinc) proved the presence of zinc in the soil in quantities of 10000 parts per million, a value four times greater than the average quantity of zinc normally identiied in the earth316. he presence in the area of a raw material that could be exploited locally, fact which entails low production costs, determined the development of an industry based on the production of Hemmoortype buckets (Eggers 55–65)317 and certain forms of platters, bowls and basins manufactured from brass RIEDERER 2002, 290. CRADDOCK 1977, 106, 107, 110. 310 WIELOWIEJSKI 1984b, 131–132; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 288; for a diferent opinion, see GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 85. 311 See subchapter II.2.1.2. 312 GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 77; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 292. 313 DUNGWORTH 1997, 902; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 292–293. 314 GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 78; DUNGWORTH 1997, 902; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 297. 315 ERDRICH 1995, 34–35; GORECKI 2000, 460. 316 GORECKI 2000, 460. 317 WILLERS 1907; EGGERS 1951; NOTTE 1989; ERDRICH 1995. 308 309 58 with a zinc content between 15 and 20%318. From a chronological point of view, the workshops functioned from the middle of the 2nd century until the middle or end of the 3rd century AD319. For a very long time it was considered that brass (a copper and zinc alloy) could not have possibly been obtained in Antiquity through the cementation process, because back then zinc in a metallic state was unknown. he idea was grounded in its characteristics. Although naturally present in abundant quantities, its high degree of reactivity makes zinc absent as a native element. It can be found as sulphate (ZnS) or as a carbonate (ZnCO3), accompanying copper or lead ores. Its reduction in furnaces is not possible because it vaporises at a temperature of 905–917° C, before being able to melt, while the vapours, following the oxidisation process, adhere to the inner walls of the furnace. hus, in the attempt to mix zinc with copper, the former vaporises before the copper reaches its melting point (1083° C)320. Even though we cannot speak of a brass production at an industrial scale until the 1st century AD, pieces made from a copper alloy with zinc content were identiied already from the Bronze Age. Specialists unanimously regarded these items as resulting from an accident or from the mixing of copper with the zinc oxide deposited inside furnaces. Be that as it may, these cases are exceptional and the deliberate mixing of copper with zinc oxide probably occurred only rarely because of the extremely low quantity of ZnO that could be obtained. he brass thus resulted, with a zinc content never above 10%, was likely rather expensive and therefore its high appraisal attested by the Greek sources321. It appears under the name of oreichalkos (‘mountain copper’) in the Greek texts and as aurichalcum in the Latin ones322. he irst intentional production of brass through the cementation process took place at the beginning of the 1st century BC, in the region of Phrygia and Bithynia, for the purpose of striking a monetary series of Mithradates from Pontus. In the Roman world, the irst larger scale use of brass is also connected to coins, namely to Augustus’ issues of sestertii and dupondii from the year 23 BC323. From that moment on, the use of brass for coinage, as well as for making other types of products, would become generalised. he industrial use of brass in the Roman world is explained by the discovery of the cementation process. his consists in inserting zinc carbonate together with coal and pieces of copper in a crucible with a perfectly sealed lid, in order to prevent oxygen from getting inside324. he entire content is then heated to a temperature between 900° and 1000°, so that the ZnCO3 would turn to vapours, but the copper would not reach its melting temperature; otherwise the molten metal would go to the bottom of the crucible and only a small surface would stay in contact with the zinc vapours. he latter are absorbed by the solid-state copper. his results in a brass with a 22–28% zinc content, to be melted later and used to produce the desired objects. A similar process cannot be realised with other metals: lead has a much lower melting temperature, while tin rejects the absorption of zinc325. he advantages of using brass reside in the lower costs as compared to tin, and, similar to bronze, in reaching a greater hardness and resistance to corrosion. Furthermore, unlike bronze, brass allows the application of niello (a mix of copper and silver sulphate). his led to the production of a great number of brass harness pieces covered in silver foil with applied niello during the 1st century AD326. Among the RIEDERER 1993, 430. ERDRICH 1995, 34; GORECKI 2000, 460. 320 CRADDOCK 1978, 2; CRADDOCK 1990, 1. 321 CRADDOCK 1978, 2–8; BAYLEY 1990, 8–9; CRADDOCK 1990, 1–3; RIEDERER 1995, 207. 322 CRADDOCK 1978, 6–7; BAYLEY 1990, 9; GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 86; RIEDERER 1995, 208: the author considers that the term aurichalcum designates brass only in the Latin literature; the Greek term oreichalkos appears in texts only as a general denomination for a metal with an appearance similar to gold. 323 CRADDOCK ET ALII 1980: it is considered that the coins from Phrygia and Bithynia were obtained through the process of cementing the zinc sulphate which had been previously oxidised, whilst Roman brass was produced by cementing zinc carbonate; the hypothesis is based on the fact that Roman brass has an iron content originating from ore, which is not present in zinc sulphate, but in turns is found in ZnCO3. 324 For this type of crucibles see Annexe II.e and subchapter II.3.2.1. 325 CRADDOCK 1978, 9–11; BAYLEY 1990, 9; GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993, 86. 326 CRADDOCK 1978, 11; GIUMIA-MAIR 1993, 78. 318 319 59 disadvantages, the most important is the fact that brass loses around 10% of its zinc content after each remelting327. II.3.1.2. Analysis methods and the importance of archaeometry for the study of Roman bronze vessels he analyses that can be carried out on Roman bronze objects can be grouped in two large categories: microstructure studies (metallographic) and composition analyses328. Microstructure studies can be done with the help of a microscope and can ofer important information regarding the way a piece was processed. More precisely, they can determine the nature of the mechanical deformations a piece was subjected to, as well as the microstructure of the diferent types of alloys that were utilised. Composition analyses are also divided in two categories, namely destructive and non-destructive. From the irst category, archaeology most often uses the atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS). he non-destructive methods are represented by X-ray luorescence (XRF), energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM/EDS) and particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE)329. Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) requires one to take out a small sample from the analysed object, sample that must come from the metallic core and not from the oxidised areas, since the latter have a diferent chemical composition330. Inside the spectrometer, the sample is atomised with the help of radiation. hrough the process of absorption of these atoms the quantities of each constituent element of the alloy can be computed331. Atomic absorption spectrometry is one of the most secure methods of analysing copper-based alloys because, aside from the main elements, it can uncover just as well the quantity of residual elements originating from ores. Because it demands a sample, the method cannot be applied to corroded pieces that had not been stabilised (sampling can accelerate the degradation), or on complete or highly valuable items332. X-ray luorescence (XRF) is a method of analysing the surface of metallic objects and is used quite extensively on copper alloy based products. he problems that arise in this case are connected to the existent corrosion layer. Being a surface method, without previously cleaning thoroughly the areas to be investigated, the results will relect the chemical composition of the corrosion layer and not of the metal core333. For this reason, in what concerns copper alloy pieces, the use of an alternative method is recommendable. If no other method can be used, then the area of the piece that will be analysed must be cleansed very well from oxides334. Furthermore, X-ray luorescence is not suitable for brass items: when considerable lots of pieces are analysed, there is a risk of misidentifying brass objects. his happens because of the phenomenon of dezinciication sufered by brass in the course of time, especially in a wet environment, consisting in the almost complete depletion of zinc from its surface. In these circumstances, the proper identiication of the zinc content can only be made by analysing the metallic core335. Particle induced X-ray emission is a non-destructive analysis method that has been developed in recent years and it entails the ‘scanning’ of the piece with a proton beam, unlike the XRF, which uses electrons336. his has many advantages over the XRF. he proton beam emitted by the instrument is much more sensitive and can analyse the object to a depth of few millimetres337. For the moment, the PIXE method is probably the most suitable for analysing the archaeological material if a sample cannot be removed from the intended piece. BAYLEY 1990, 22. PERNOT 1993, 94. 329 GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005a, 276; for a detailed description of the stages and procedures of analysis, see POLLARD, HERON 2008, 25–33, 38–45, 49–50. 330 CRADDOCK ET ALII 1980, 55, GIUMLIA-MAIR 2001, 6. 331 POLLARD, HERON 2008, 25–27. 332 GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005a, 276. 333 DUNGWORTH 1997, 904; GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005b. 334 DUNGWORTH 1997, 904; for a detailed description of the method with valid results when employing XRF on copper alloys, see the recent publication of the bronze vessels from Egyed, Hungary (GIUMLIA-MAIR, MRÁV 2014, 81–82). 335 CRADDOCK 1978, 4. 336 POLLARD, HERON 2008, 59–50. 337 GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005b, 37. 327 328 60 he contributions brought about by archaeometry for the study of Roman bronze vessels concern three research directions: clarifying certain issues connected to technological stages, identifying production centres and establishing the sources of raw material used by workshops. he great number of analyses carried out on lots of Roman copper alloy vessels proved that in the case of this category one can rule out re-molten alloy as a source of raw material338. It is the characteristics of the inished product that dictated the nature of the alloy employed for its manufacture. he identiication of production centres is a long-term enterprise. he underlying assumption is that at a certain point in time, once there will be data regarding the chemical composition of the alloy from a large number of bronze vessels throughout the Empire, certain recurrences could be determined which would enable the establishment of some types of pieces as products of the same workshop. Precisely for this reason, the publication of bronze vessels accompanied by analyses bulletins represents a desideratum of present-day research. An approach that produces faster results is the analysis of a certain type of vessel at the level of the entire Empire. Nevertheless, in this case too there are many hindrances, especially connected to the fact the pieces are kept in various museums, most of the time from diferent countries, and no analysis was provided when they were published. A rather relevant example regarding the advantages of such an approach is the study carried out on a number of 322 bust-shaped balsamaria (out of which 30 were analysed) known until the year 2001, by V. Marti-Clercx and B. Mille339. For a very long time, the specialised literature regarded the specimens representing Negroids as produced in the Oriental part of the Empire (Alexandria), whereas the ones of inferior quality were attributed to the production centres from Pannonia and Gaul340. However, the results of the analyses showed that all of the pieces discovered in the western part of the Empire were made from an alloy which also contained zinc, an element that appears to indicate a western provenance for the pieces341. It was also noted that from an iconographic perspective the bust-shaped balsamaria found in the Rhenish and Danube lands include Negroid representations, whereas the repertoire of those coming from the Oriental part displays very few such igures, Dyonisiac representations and divinities being prominent instead342. Determining the sources of supply with raw material (copper supply) can be done by analysing the rate of lead isotopes in the alloy. his is possible because lead contains four isotopes whose quantity varies according to the geological context343. Such a study can only be undertaken in the case of the bronze vessels in which lead is found as a residual element originating from the copper ore. he pieces produced from leaded bronze are not suitable for an analysis to establish the copper sources, because lead is added intentionally in large quantities and thus the results will highlight the presence of lead and not that of copper344. he analyses conducted on lots of vessels from Pompeii produced in Capua showed that the main source of copper supply in that area were the copper mines from southern Hispania (present-day Huelva region) and from central and southern Sardinia345. Similar analyses executed on lots of copper alloy objects found in various areas in Gaul proved that each region had its speciicity and from this point of view represent a homogenous group. Given these circumstances, it is highly likely that the workshops used raw material provided by local mines346. he phenomenon of re-melting scrap metal in order to produce new pieces can be easily observed from composition analyses. he pieces that contain small quantities of tin, lead or zinc (1–3%) probably result from such a technique, because these small percentages have no bearing on the quality of the alloy and their presence can hardly be connected to a deliberate action of the craftsman. Such alloys were used to manufacture certain categories of objects whose inished form did not depend on the special properties of the metal, e.g. statuettes or needles (see RIEDERER 2002, 290). 339 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002. 340 MAJEWSKI 1964, 99, 104; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 57. 341 he pieces originating from the western part of the Empire were executed from a quaternary alloy (copper, lead, tin and zinc), whereas the specimens from the East were produced from bronze alloyed with lead (see MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 391, Fig. 10). 342 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 391–392. 343 BECK ET ALII 1985, 105. 344 WAGNER ET ALII 2000, 615. 345 WAGNER ET ALII 2000, 615–616. 346 BECK ET ALII 1985, 105, 108–109. 338 61 Another procedure regarded for a long time as relevant with respect to the supply sources of raw material consists in calculating the percentage diferences between the other residual elements existing in copper-based alloys: iron, nickel, silver, antimony, arsenic, cobalt, gold or cadmium347. Recent studies348 carried out on a lot of approximately 2000 copper alloy Roman pieces proved that, despite the diversity of the alloys utilised by the Romans, the objects are characterised by a very uniform recurrence of residual elements. hus, a typical Roman source used for ore extraction contains circa 0.03% nickel, 0.05% silver, 0.06% antimony, 0.05% arsenic and 0.01% cobalt. hough problematic, the results seem to suggest the use of a single large source of supply in the Roman times, without being able to pinpoint it for the moment. hese standard quantities allow for the diferentiation of Roman bronzes from the products of the neighbouring populations, the identiication of Roman pieces found in Barbaricum, as well as of foreign pieces appearing within the Empire. he safest identiier is the very low arsenic concentration, which occurs only exceptionally in the case of items originating from other areas349. Another important contribution of archaeometry for the study of Roman bronzes is the identiication of forgeries. he typical concentration of residual elements can be a deinite identiier in attributing a certain piece. II.3.2. Workshops II.3.2.1. Identifying the workshops Although the research of Roman bronze vessels registered signiicant progress in the last ifty years, the aspects related to workshops and their organisation are very little known. his situation is irst of all determined by the low number of preserved direct evidence. Until the present moment, from an archaeological point of view no metal vessels producing workshop has been exhaustively researched, and in the case of the structures that were investigated, most of the times the existing evidence can only attest that there was a vessel production, without providing additional information that would enable us to reconstitute the technological stages, from raw material to inished product. a. he moulds. At the current state of research, sixteen points are known where moulds attributed to the production of Roman copper alloy vessels were found350. To these one must add the plaster mouldings kept in the Museum of Cairo, Egypt with unknown provenance. hey can be divided in three categories, depending on the nature of the raw material of manufacture: stone moulds, more precisely limestone and steatite (soapstone) (Arab al-Mulk, Autun (Fig. 11/1–2), Camerton, Lyon (Fig. 11/3), Rennes, Vertault, Vichy, Tartous), clay moulds (Brigetio, Castleford, Condeixa-a-Nova, Milan, Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Stara Zagora, Straubing, Xanten), and plaster mouldings (Cairo Museum) (Fig. 10). Regarding stone moulds, although most of the discoveries originate from buildings or chambers identiied as workshops, the data provided when they were published, with very few exceptions, does not allow us to establish precisely the type of activity that had been going on. Most of the moulds from Augustodunum were discovered in block O of the building E located in insula C (chambers 1–29 (phase 1) and 1–6 (phase 2), which presents three habitation phases characterised by a succession of activities connected to iron and copper alloy (brooch production) working, and to pottery production351. he limestone moulds were discovered on the loor and in a pit emplaced in the centre of chamber 1–29 (phase 1). Except for this discovery, chamber 1–29 did not contain any other element that could point out to some activities connected to casting, all the evidence indicating a space used for post-casting activities (grinding, inishing)352. In chamber 1–6 (phase 2) the moulds were discovered on the loor, RABEISEN, MENU 1985, 171; DE DECKER, SZABÓ 2000; RIEDERER 2000. RIEDERER 2000. 349 RIEDERER 2000, 286–287. 350 See Annexe IIa. 351 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 113–126, 169–174. 352 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 115, Fig. 87; the information about the distribution of limestone moulds on the site is slightly contradictory: at p. 169 we ind that, although the moulds were discovered all over the site, the great 347 348 62 Catterick York Castleford Caerleon St. Albans Camerton Exeter Xanten Reims Rennes Hettange-Grande Straubing Vertault Vichy Condeixa-a-Nova Alspach Autun Augst Lyon Milan Szőny Este Stara Zagora Roma Santa Maria Capua Vetere Pompei Legend 63 0 limes of the Roman Empire civilian sites military sites stone mould clay mould semi-finished object lathe components trays for collecting metal waste cruciables used for brass production production centre mentioned in the ancient sources or epigraphically attested 500km Arab al-Mulk Tartous Alexandria Fig. 10. The distribution of the indicators of bronze vessel production inside the Roman Empire. together with other small copper alloy objects, and from a functional viewpoint the interior was identiied as a space destined for working bronze sheets353. he other similar moulds do not beneit from such exact information regarding the discovery context. We know for sure that the pieces from Camerton354, Lyon355, Rennes356 and Vichy357 were found in buildings identiied as copper alloy workshops, while the ones from Vertault358 and Tartous359 were discovered during the 19th century and were acquired by museums without recording in detail the circumstances of discovery. he stone moulds for producing bronze vessels were used on the basis of the bivalve mould system (Fig. 11/4). Of all the known discoveries, both components were preserved in a single case, i.e. the piece from Vichy. All were made from limestone, apart from the steatite specimens from Arab al-Mulk and Tartous, and were very likely manufactured with the help of a lathe360. his is indicated by the symmetry of the interior lines, as well as by the presence of a small dent in the centre of one of the moulds from Lyon, resulted from ixing the axis of the lathe. here are numerous controversies in the specialised literature concerning the function of these moulds, namely whether they were used to create wax models for a subsequent production of metal objects in the lost wax technique, or they served to cast directly the copper alloy pieces. he main argument invoked in favour of the wax hypothesis is that the stone these moulds were made from would not withstand the thermal shock caused when pouring metal361. Furthermore, in the case of the moulds and mould elements from Arab al-Mulk and Tartous, apart from the lack of any marks which could attest they had endured thermal shock, it is considered that the use of wax is proved by the vessel handle imprints. hese appear as straight on the mould, whereas on the inished product they should have been curved. Consequently, the authors claim that a straight, wax model was cast, and later, after it was removed from the mould, it was to be curved in order to make the inished product362. he situation is diferent for the moulds from Autun and Lyon. he inner surfaces of these pieces were treated with thin layers of clay to ease the removal of the product from the mould. he analyses executed on the pieces from Autun proved that the rock was subjected to temperatures of at least 400°C, whereas wax melts at 80°–100°C. hese elements demonstrate that the moulds were not meant for wax, but for pouring the metal directly363. In the case of components like handles and attachments, casting a wax model poses no major technical problems. However, for the body of the vessel it is very diicult to cast a model that could later be removed from the mould without being destroyed, considering that the interior diameter of some of the Autun moulds reaches 300 mm364. Such a method would pointlessly majority lies in a secondary position, the only area in which a certain coherence can be observed being chambers 1–29 (phase 1) and 1–6 (phase 2) from block O of the building E from insula C; at p. 115, where phase 1 of the chamber 1–29 is described, the presence of the moulds is regarded as “...plus anecdotique que révélatrice d’une activité de fonderie...” because the function of the chamber is connected with inishing activities, while Fig. 86 on p. 114 illustrates the distribution of limestone moulds in building block O during phase 3. 353 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 122. 354 CUNLIFFE 1984, 195; BEAGRIE 1989, 183. 355 MUTZ 1972, 37–38, Bild 53–57. 356 LE CLOIREC 1996, 15, Fig. 1. 357 MORLET 1957, 157–158, Fig. 98. 358 FEUGÈRE 1994, 161–162, Fig. 21; CHAUDRON-PICAULT 2005, 138, 144–145, Fig. 15/1–4; on the occasion of the irst publication (FEUGÈRE 1994), the piece was identiied as a mould for producing basin handles; in the second publication (CHAUDRON-PICAULT 2005, 144, ig.15) the inished product is considered to be a type of handle shaped like two confronting dolphins; the piece requires a reassessment in order to determine with certainty if it was used for producing vessel handles or furniture handles. 359 TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984; POULSEN 2002. 360 MUTZ 1972, 38; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 173; for the lathe inishing of stone objects, especially architectural elements, during the Roman period, see PRECHT 1991; BESSAC 2004. 361 TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984, 100; FEUGÈRE 1994, 161; GORECKI 2000, 453. 362 TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984, 100; POULSEN 2002. See also the discussion in subchapter II.3.3.1. 363 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 173–176. 364 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 173. 64 Fig. 11. Stone moulds. 1–2. Autun (ater CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 170–171, Fig. 137/2078, 138/454); 3. Lyon (ater MUTZ 1972, 38, Bild 54); 4. The reconstruction of a bivalve limestone mould (ater CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 172, Fig. 141). complicate the chain of operations. Unfortunately, the number of inds of this type is too low to reach a deinite conclusion, as long as the stones from which these moulds were made did not beneit from analyses and a parallel existence of the two methods cannot be ruled out. Regarding the shapes of the recipients cast in these moulds, for Autun one can speak of casseroles, platters and plates365, for Camerton of casseroles and platters366, and for Lyon of casseroles and a low, barely deep vessel, possibly the body of a bowl with tubular handle (“Grifschale”), a shape very likely also produced in the mould from Vichy. As for the moulds for various components, the discovery from Rennes represents the prototype of a handle with unclear attribution for the moment367, the object from Vertault possibly corresponds to the Eggers 97 hemispherical basins368, an early production of jugs and amphorae handles can be recognized on the mould from Arab al-Mulk369, while the moulds from Tartous were used for making handles for platters, casseroles, spouted jugs, jugs and simpula370. A very interesting element for the specialised production of the workshops is the fact that, until the present 365 366 367 368 369 370 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 173. CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 175. LE CLOIREC 1996, 15. FEUGÈRE 1994, 162; BIENERT 2007, 166. POULSEN 2002, 330–331. TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984, 88. 65 moment, the moulds for components were never discovered together with those used for casting the accessories (handles, attachments etc.). A series of discoveries characteristic for the production of pewter vessels, particular to the western part of the Empire, but especially to southern Britain, were left out of the current volume. he reasons for the exclusion lie in the speciic regionalism of the production, but also in the chronological interval in which it takes place, during the 3rd and 5th centuries AD371. An approximate number of sixty stone moulds discovered exclusively in Roman Britain were attributed by specialists to this type of vessels372. A closer examination of the pieces could probably clarify if these moulds were indeed used only for the production of pewter vessels373 and if we cannot possibly think of a bronze vessels production, already attested by the inds from Castleford. he number of clay moulds (Fig. 10) is much smaller than that of the stone moulds and, except for the pieces from Castleford, which can be connected to the activity of a workshop, the discovery context does not provide additional information with respect to the artisanal activity. he specimens from Santa Maria Capua Vetere, deinitely used for producing elements (handles, bases) belonging to metal vessels, are unpublished, and the mould with Pan’s mask is an isolated ind374. he mould from Stara Zagora375 was discovered in a secondary position and no details regarding the discovery context are known for the items from Straubing376. Discoveries of this sort, which also include the mould for a bowl handle ending in an anthropomorphic protome from Birgetio377, as well as that for the end of a handle from a spouted jug or jug found at Xanten378, are problematic because it is not clear whether they were used to cast the wax models for later producing the metal pieces, or they were the basis for some pottery imitations of the metal pieces379. Regarding them as direct evidence for the production of metal vessels must be done with caution. A diferent situation is represented by the two clay moulds from Condeixa-a-Nova. Even if no indication concerning the context of the discovery is given in the publications, their association with possible semi-inished or scrap bucket attachments together with the relevant number of inal products identiied in the area, they all fully testify for a local production of Hispanic buckets of Delgado types I-IV which does not seem to have been widely distributed outside the Iberian Peninsula380. Moreover, the two clay moulds from Milan, used for producing attachBEAGRIE 1989, 175–176. BEAGRIE 1989, 183–188; GORECKI 2000, 456. 373 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 175; GORECKI 2000, 456. 374 TASSINARI 1998a, 88, 92, Fig. 6, note 6. 375 MINKOVA, JANKOV 2004, 320, Fig. 1. his mould fragment represents the only direct evidence of a possible local bronze vessels production in hrace, which was claimed by some authors based on the distribution area of certain types, namely variants of bronze sheet spouted jugs (RAEV 1977; RAEV 1978, 616–617; RAEV 1986, 36–39) and types of cauldrons (RAEV 1984; RAEV 1986, 24–26). he more recent literature emphasises the role played by Stara Zagora/Augusta Traiana, Bulgaria (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2001; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002b, 591–593) and Kyustendil/Pautalia, Bulgaria (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002b, 594–598; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002c) in the manufacture of certain types of bronze vessels which were imitated locally. he hypothesis of the production of some bucket type variants (the type called by B. Raev “Balčik” (RAEV 1978, 628)) or of the so-called Oriental variant of the Neuburg – Eggers 35–36 type buckets in hrace seems viable, despite the impossibility to precisely locate the production centre. However, in the case of some of the bronze vessels attributed by R. Nenova-Merdjanova to the locally produced types, a reassessment would probably be needed because we might be dealing with repaired vessels, not locally produced variants, inferior from a technical and artistic point of view (see e.g. the Millingen type spouted jug: NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2001, 197, 199, no. 20, 202, Taf. 2/4; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002b, 592–593, Fig. 4). 376 WALKE 1965, Taf. A/3–4; PRAMMER 1978, 18, 20; FLÜGEL 2000, 126; GRALFS 1994, 134, no. 228, 146. 377 NUBER 1973, 72–73, note 391, Taf. 12/1a-b. 378 NUBER 1973, 51, note 276, Taf. 12/2a-b; it is possible that the mould was used for making attachments for the handles of Millingen type spouted jugs (see the spouted jug discovered in the tomb from Hoby (Laaland/Lolland, Denmark): ECKHOLM 1934, 356, Fig. 7; NUBER 1973, Taf. 7/1). 379 HOFFMANN 1984; GORECKI 2000, 458–459. he decoration displayed by the casserole handle mould from Straubing, atypical for a metal casserole (WALKE 1965, Taf. A/4) made some of the specialists question its belonging to the group of moulds employed for producing metal vessels, considering instead that we could be dealing with coroplastic moulds (see SEDLMAYER 1999, 6). 380 ALARCAO 2000, 78–79, no. 122–123; ERICE LACABE 2006, 275–279, Fig. 6; ERICE LACABE 2007, 210–212; 371 372 66 ments for Eggers 36 buckets and Eggers 69 basins were discovered in a refuse pit related to a structure in which bronze working activities were undertaken. he traces of copper alloy residues identiied on the moulds indicate that they were used for pouring metal381. What strikes in this case is the chronological diference between the types, which would indicate a workshop active for a long interval382. he moulds from Castleford383 were deinitely employed for producing copper alloy vessels decorated with enamel. he type of lask does not have exact parallels among the items found to date, but the actual shape can be seen in similar objects known from the Empire, and the models used for enamelling (approximately 20 diferent models) ind analogies in other Roman pieces decorated in this technique384. It is sure that they represent the products of a workshop, fact conirmed by the discovery of a nearby pit containing ceramic moulds for making spoons385. Unfortunately, neither of the two pits could be connected to some structure that might have functioned as a workshop, although they most likely served such a structure. It is not clear either if the two archaeological features were contemporary or not. Regarding the chain of operations, one must remark that in this case the method of the lost wax was not employed. he moulds were imprinted with the help of a model probably fashioned from another material (possibly wood) and the metal was directly poured into them. As stated above, no information is known about the place of discovery of the plaster mouldings stored in the Museum of Cairo. heir inclusion inside the group coming from Mit-Rahineh/Memphis (Egypt), as suggested by C. C. Edgar, cannot be argued with certainty. hey were deinetly part of the inventory of a bronze workshop which functioned in Egypt and were used, very probably, for casting wax models for future moulds386. b. Semi-inished products. he pieces identiied as semi-inished products used for the manufacture of copper alloy vessels total to an extremely low number in comparison to the number of inished products known throughout the Empire. In the specialised literature, six points yielding discoveries of this type have been noted387 (Fig. 10): Alspach (Fig. 12/1–4), Augst, Autun (Fig. 12/5–9), Condeixaa-Nova, Hettange-Grande and Reims. Of these, the inds from Alspach, Hettange-Grande and Reims represent raw pieces of cast alloy, in diferent stages of processing, which were to be raised in the shape of the inished product, whilst the ones from Augst and Autun comprise component parts (attachments and handles) which were removed from the mould but were never deburred and inished. he poorly rendered details of the two bucket attachments from Condeixa-a-Nova rather indicate the fact that they were cast in low quality moulds in comparison with the other examples belonging to the type388. here are no indications in the publications regarding the presence of soldering on the back of the pieces. he discovery contexts do not provide much information in this case either. Except for the pieces from Autun389 and Augst390, which had surfaced from artisanal areas, the ones from Alspach391 and Hettange-Grande392are chance inds, little is known today of the circumstances of the discovery from for this type of attachments discovered outside of the Iberian Peninsula see BIENERT 2007, 148, 155–156 (nos.: 167–168). 381 GRASSI 2011, 163, Fig. 2; GRASSI 2015, 159, Fig. 7; GORECKI 2016, 209. 382 If the production of the Eggers 69 basin was set by the scholars in the last decades of the 1st century BC, with examples coming from 1st century AD contexts (see SEDLMAYER 1999, 58), the production of the Eggers 36 buckets started only around the middle of the 2nd century AD and continued until the middle of the next century (see the discussion in subchapter III.10.2). 383 BAYLEY 1995, 105, 109–111, Fig. 5–8; BAYLEY, BUDD 1998, 195–196, 203–222. 384 BAYLEY 1995, 109–110; BAYLEY, BUDD 1998, 220–222. 385 BAYLEY 1995, 106–108; BAYLEY, BUDD 1998, 196–203. 386 EDGAR 1903, I-III; POULSEN 2002, 310–311; for a recent discussion regarding the function and use of the plaster mouldings see also: VNUKOV ET ALII 1990, 37-46; DIACONESCU 2013, 213-214. 387 See Annexe IIb. 388 See ALARCAO 2000, 78 (no. 124), 104 (nos. 300.1–7); ERICE LACABE 2006; ERICE LACABE 2007, 210–212. 389 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 180–181, Fig. 147–148. 390 FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, 130–13, Abb. 1/11, 4/37. 391 LEGENDRE 1996, 68–73, Fig. 1–11. 392 EIDEN 1995, 151–153, Abb. 10–13; LEGENDRE 1996, 73–75, Fig. 12–13. 67 Fig. 12. 1–4. Alspach. Bronze cauldrons in diferent stages of production (ater LEGENDRE 1996, 72, Fig. 11); 5–7. Autun. Semi-finished bucket attachments (ater CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 180, Fig. 147/264, 265, 685); 8–9. Autun. Semi-finished amphora handles (ater CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 181, Fig. 148). Reims393, and no information regarding the context of the discovery is given for the two attachment from Condeixa-a-Nova. he pieces from Alspach, Hettange-Grande and Reims are especially important because they illustrate a production method diferent from the direct casting in stone moulds discussed earlier in this volume. Moreover, the four cauldrons from Alspach were found in diferent stages of mechanical deformation, and the shape of one of them was nearly that of a inished product. he raw circular plaque identiied in the deposit from Hettange-Grande illustrates a stage prior to that displayed by the Alspach cauldrons, when the process of hammering the cast plaque had only just began. hus, on the basis of these discoveries, the main technological steps a coppersmith took to produce a Westland type cauldron can be generally reconstituted, and potential production centres can also be noted. he specimens in question represent variant NE 5–6 from the typology devised for the Westland type cauldrons from Neupotz394 and Eggers’ type 14395. Most of the discoveries accumulate in an area located west of the Rhine and north of the Loire Rivers and the semi-inished products from Alspach and Hettange-Grande conirm the hypothesis that this type was produced somewhere in eastern Gaul396. 393 394 395 396 MUTZ 1972, 150–152, Abb. 429–436; TASSINARI 1975a, 49–51 (nos. 95–101), Pl. XXI/95–96, XXII/97–101. KÜNZL 1993b, 232, Abb. 1. EGGERS 1951, 160, Taf. 3/14. KÜNZL 1993b, 233–234. 68 he seven semi-inished pieces from Reims illustrate a production method similar to the one described above, with the comment that in this case the raw metal plaque was cast together with the base ring. hey are at an early stage of the mechanical deformation process and on their surface one can see hammer marks. he inished products were probably platters or Eggers 106–108 and 117–118 basins397. he bronze sheet under processing from Augst probably went through a similar treatment as the ones previously discussed, considering that hammer marks are visible on its surface. he exact type of the inished product cannot be determined. It is possible that this was a plate, but the intention of producing another item, not a vessel, cannot be disregarded. he semi-inished attachments and handles398 discovered at Autun prove that the Eggers 36 buckets399 were in production in the artisanal area, and possibly also a variant of Tassinari A 1000 amphora with two handles400. heir presence points to the possibility of connecting the polishing activities carried out in the artisanal quarters with the metal vessels production as well401. he fact that the attachment from Augst is semi-inished is demonstrated by the burr still seen on the body of the piece, as well as by the process of piercing the hole for attaching the handle, probably started with a drill but never completed. he shape on which the piece was to be attached remains unknown, but is presumed to be some kind of bowl/basin or platter402. When analysing the pieces in this subchapter, except for the attachments from Condeixa-a-Nova, the possibility that some of them could have been rejected and not pieces retrieved at diferent stages of production has been taken into account. However, neither their physical characteristics, not their discovery contexts indicates this. No casting defects were observed, and for the material with known discovery circumstances an intentional withdrawal from use could not be observed. c. Production residue. hree categories of archaeological inds that can be connected to the Roman copper alloy vessels production were classiied as residue: component parts of the lathe403, metalworking “trays” containing bronze scraps (powder or cut-ofs) resulted from lathe turning404 and large-sized crucibles used for obtaining brass through the cementation process405 (Fig. 10). None of these three categories present anything to connect them directly and exclusively to the vessels production. hey rather indicate certain types of activities that could also include some of the technological stages typical for copper alloy recipients. he lathe axis from Augst406 is the only discovery of this type from the Roman Empire. It was brought to light from the third phase of a chamber in insula 30 of the artisanal quarters, identiied as a fabrica. Chronologically, the third phase can be dated between the middle and the third quarter of the 3rd century AD407. Apart from this piece, numerous fragmentary bronze items were identiied and their presence was explained by the author of the publication as an outcome of the metal recycling phenomenon. No other element from the chamber provides supplementary data on the presence of the lathe. he “trays” used in workshops for recycling alloy residue resulted from lathe inishing the pieces would be, at irst sight, characteristic for Roman Britain (Fig. 10) because until the present moment they have not been identiied anywhere else. his situation is, however, probably determined only by EGGERS 1951, 169–170, Taf. 10/106–108, 11/117–118. he two discovered jug handles were not made from copper alloy, but from white metal (a tin and lead mix) (CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 180–181, Fig. 148). At the current state of research, I do not know of any inished product of this type manufactured from white metal. 399 EGGERS 1951, 162–163, Taf. 5/36. 400 TASSINARI 1993, 28. 401 GORECKI 2000, 453. 402 FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, Abb. 1/11; GORECKI 2000, 453; for a detailed discussion of the identiication possibilities of the piece, see subchapter III.14. 403 See Annexe IIc. 404 See Annexe IId. 405 See Annexe IIe. 406 FURGER 1997, 34–37, Abb. 4–5; FURGER 1998, 132–133, Abb. 18. 407 FURGER 1997, 34; FURGER 1998, 132. 397 398 69 the state of research and does not necessarily represent a peculiarity of the British workshops. In all of the ive cases (Caerleon408, Catterick409, Exeter410, St. Albans411 and York412) these archaeological features appeared in chambers or buildings that functioned as workshops for producing and inishing copper alloy items. he “trays” consisted of a series of rectangular holes, between 0.2 and 1 m deep, dug out in the loor of the workshops and plated on the sides and sometimes on the bottom with wooden boards or with tegulae (Caerleon). Inside them, successive, very thin, laminated-like layers of bronze powder combined with alloy residues and sandy earth were discovered. his layered deposition was caused by water, during the decantation process. he presence of these “trays” was explained by their supposed location under the work table of the lathe, while the residues were deposited with the help of a constant water low, although no traces of the lathe feet or of a work table could be indetiied on the loor413. he only thing that connects this kind of discoveries to the copper alloy vessels production is the presence of the lathe. Even though vessels were not the only objects the Romans inished on the lathe, they probably represent the category for which this procedure was employed the most. he discovery of crucibles used for obtaining brass through the cementation process414 represents direct evidence for brass production, but not for the vessels manufacture. his is the reason why only those inds attesting a large-scale brass production were considered here, which can also imply a vessels production. Such crucibles were discovered at Autun415 and Lyon416. In both cases the discovery context of the pieces ties them to artisanal activities. he specimens retrieved from Autun are provided with a lid and have diferent capacities. hey are able to hold between 1–1.5 and 12 kg of brass, while casting a casserole, for instance, required 1.5 kg of metal417. Given the amplitude of the discovery, the pieces from Lyon present us with more information regarding the course of the technological process. hus, 5000 crucible fragments and lids were found, belonging to approximately 272 individual vessels. One of their peculiarities is the way the lid was attached: it covered the crucible only after the vessel was illed with the required quantities of copper, zinc carbonate and coal. he lids were not burnt before, but fresh clay was used precisely to seal as well as possible the crucible, not allowing the oxygen to get inside418. he largest specimens can reach a rim diameter of 25 cm and a length of 55 cm. Concerning the alloy quantity that could be produced at once, it could get to 30–35 l419. he lab analyses carried out on the inside walls of the crucibles showed the presence of a large quantity of zinc aluminate and zinc silicate, explained by their contact with zinc vapours420. hese are not the only crucibles of this type discovered in the Roman Empire, but they are the only ones as large as this. Similar, smaller in size pieces provided with lids are also known from Xanten421 and from Roman Britain422, but they were probably intended for a smaller scale production. d. he role of production stamps in identifying production centres. For very much of the information we hold regarding the production centres of copper alloy vessels we are indebted to the presence of production stamps on some categories of recipients, since, as showed before, direct evidence is extremely scarce. ZIENKIEWICZ 1993, 28, 54–57, Fig. 13–14. BAYLEY ET ALII 2002, 164–166; WILSON, WACHER 2002, 46, 92–93, Pl. 4. 410 BIDWELL 1980, 31–34, Fig. 19–20. 411 FRERE 1972, 11, 18–19; GORECKI 2000, 460; NIBLETT 2001, 62, 64, Fig. 30. 412 RAMM 1976, 39; COOL 2002, 4. 413 FRERE 1972, 18. 414 See subchapter II.3.1.1. 415 CHARDRON-PICAULT 1997–1998, 171–181; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 176–178; PICON 2007, 10–11. 416 PICON ET ALII 1995, 207–215; PICON 2007, 10–11. 417 CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 176, 178. 418 PICON ET ALII 1995, 209. 419 PICON ET ALII 1995, 207, 209; PICON 2007, 10. 420 PICON 2007, 10. 421 REHREN 1999, 1083–1084. 422 BAYLEY 1990, 11, Pl. 2/a-d. 408 409 70 he establishment of a chronological evolution, as well as the identiication of the stamping characteristics of each producer, are largely owed to R. Petrovszky’s work dedicated to the Roman bronze vessels displaying production stamps423. After analysing approximately 750 stamped vessels, the author succeeded in isolating a set of peculiarities for each production centre. he data, correlated with the types of recipients manufactured, ofered for the irst time in the study of Roman bronze vessel a clearer image of the production of each centre, as well as of the way this production evolved, both formally and technologically. Moreover, it proved something very important, namely that there were workshops and craftsmen specialised in the production of certain types of vessels424. As a result, today it is possible to identify the production centre on the basis of the stamp characteristics and of the way the producer signed his name. Campanian producers always used the tria nomina in the genitive case, with the possibility of adding an F after the name, which might be an abbreviation of fabrica. he stamp is rectangular and in most cases it was emplaced parallel to the axis of the handle. he north Italian artisans used the tria nomina occasionally; most of the times only the cognomen in the genitive form appears. he shape of the stamp and the way of stamping are similar to the Campanian craftsmen’s. he products of Gaulish workshops display diferent peculiarities. Only the cognomen in the nominative case followed by the letter F (probably fecit) are featured, while the arch-shaped stamp was usually placed on the round end of the handle (in the case of handled vessels), perpendicular to its axis. he Germanic producers used the tria nomina in the nominative case, at least in the beginning, and the ield of the stamp is rectangular425. Rome is attested as a copper alloy vessels production centre by two wine strainers, one discovered in Moesia Inferior, at Dervent (Constanţa County, Romania)426, and the other in Noricum, at Mauer an der Url (Austria)427. he former is dated to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, while the latter to the middle of the 1st century AD. On both vessels the name of the producer appears dotted under the rim, as follows: at Dervent: M. VLPIVS EVFRATES FECIT IN CIRCO FLAMINIO, and at Mauer and der Url: L. CASSIVS AMBROSIVS FECIT IN CIRCO FLAMINIO. he inscriptions localise the workshops in the vicinity of the Circus Flaminius in Rome428. he aspects less clear for the moment refer to the identity of those who applied the stamps and the meaning of the stamps. It is uncertain whether the names appearing on vessels belong to the owners of oicinae, to those who took care of production, or to the actual manufacturers. Moreover, although the stamps predominantly appear only on certain types of vessels, the reason why not all of the specimens belonging to a type were stamped remains unknown429. he same is true for the extent to which this situation is related to the producer or to the distribution system of the inished products, possibly requiring a stamp only on one item from a lot of the same type or produced in the same workshop, in order to keep a register of the goods shipped of to markets430. e. he distribution area of the inished products: an indicator of the production centre or of the demand? he identiication of production centres for categories of copper alloy vessels which lack direct evidence of production (moulds, semi-inished products) or stamps remains for the moment more a hypothesis than a certainty. Assigning the status of production centre to an area just because of the inds concentration noticed there is not methodologically correct. his does not mean that the method cannot indeed relect an ancient reality; however, most of the times more criteria should be computed in order to reach the correct results. he question posed by this undertaking relates to the degree to which the PETROVSZKY 1993. PETROVSZKY 1992, 76; PETROVSZKY 1993, 182–183. 425 PETROVSZKY 1993, 182. 426 BUCOVALĂ 1972, 119–126. 427 NOLL 1980, 80–83, Taf. 28–29. 428 PETROVSZKY 1993, 107–109; GORECKI 2000, 448–449. 429 PETROVSZKY 1992, 80; PETROVSZKY 1993, 183. 430 he reasons why a certain category of goods was stamped cannot be generalised for all the stamped categories encountered in the Roman Empire. To this efect, see the discussion about the possible reasons that determined the way lead pipes were stamped: AUBERT 1993, 175–180. 423 424 71 regions with signiicant quantities of a certain type truly attest that it was produced there, or rather that there was a preference or need for the type in that area. An example, although a bit far-fetched, can be relevant for the discussion. If we analyse the distribution maps for certain types of Roman bronze vessels, we will notice that the largest number of inds is not inside the Empire, but in Barbaricum431. his fact indicates the preference of some neighbouring areas of the Empire for certain types of vessels and probably also a Roman production aimed at that market. However, in a similar situation, but within the Empire’s borders, it would be extremely diicult to discern between a production centre and an outlet. Very likely, the principle ubi multa, ibi domestica432 cannot really be applied for a world where the goods distribution mechanisms were extremely complex. Of course, the chronology of the discoveries is essential for the matter. Many times when attempting to establish production centres, the argument of the similarity of decorative elements has been put forward. Starting from the idea that pieces displaying an identical decoration originate from the same workshop, any divergences from the recognised canon were considered products of other centres. he items with a lower artistic value were labelled as inferior, thus representing the ofer of inferior workshops. However, this model is not completely reliable, at least not in the case of Roman copper alloy vessels. For instance, the studies concerned with the decoration of Pompeian vessels (which, in theory, best illustrate the production of Campanian workshops) showed that the decoration of amphora handles does not represent a typological criterion, because the same type of decoration is associated with diferent shapes of vessels433. Moreover, there are no specimens that bear identical decoration and small diferences are always encountered. he explanation resides in the fact that there were several hands working on the wax models and the hypothesis of the mould circulation no longer holds true. here was a common model the artisans drew their inspiration from, but it was not copied434. he best example from this point of view is represented by the appliques of Eggers 142 type casseroles, previously mentioned in this volume. he ifteen known pieces display major diferences, both from an artistic and a qualitative perspective. Nevertheless, the provenance of at least a part of them from the same workshop is certain because these were applied on vessels displaying the production stamp of a single person: Publius Cipius Polybius435. To conclude, there can be said that there is no unilateral answer to the question asked above and this is primarily due to the diversity of the phenomena connected to the distribution of goods in the Roman world. Each situation must be analysed separately. In some cases, the high concentrations displayed by distribution maps can point to a production centre, whilst in others the intensive presence of a certain type of piece can result from a diferent phenomenon. From the Egyptian papyri we know for sure that the upper stratum of the society did not recourse only to the local workshops for acquiring the needed metal items. Appolonios, strategos in Apollinopolis, sent one of his subordinates 250 km away to buy weapons, a bronze jug and a wooden chest for silver statuettes. he bronze vessel was not bought in the end, because the same type could also be found in their city, at a lower price436. Because of the exceptional survival conditions, Pompeii is the Roman site from where the largest and most diverse quantity of bronze vessels is known. Nevertheless, there is no direct proof to conirm its status as a production centre437. he only activities related to bronze vessels refer to the repairing and A very good example is illustrated by the Eggers 18–19 type situlae (for the distribution maps, see BOLLA ET ALII 1991, 14, 16, Fig. 7, 9) or by the Hemmoor type buckets (see NOTTE 1989, 30, Fig. 21). 432 CASTOLDI 1991, 142. 433 TASSINARI 1998a, 91. 434 TASSINARI 1998a, 93. 435 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 21–22, Abb. 3. 436 BURKHALTER 1998, 132. 437 B. Gralfs identiied at Pompeii workshops specialised in copper alloy metallurgy which theoretically would have also produced vessels (GRALFS 1988, 33–36, 64, 53, 100–101; GRALFS 1994, 129, no. 194/1–2), without having any direct evidence to conirm the existence of a local manufacture. For a critical analysis of the situation from Pompeii, see TASSINARI 1993, 223–225; TASSINARI 1998a, 87–88; SEDLMAYER 1999, 5; GORECKI 2000, 461–464. 431 72 piercing of some strainers which exhibit the dotted inscriptions: PERTVDIT POMPEIS FELICIO (on a specimen discovered at Boscoreale), or PERTVDIE EX OFFICINIA M BADI HERMAES (item from Pompeii). he verb pertundere is taken to mean only the piercing operation, not that the entire vessel was produced in Pompeii438. II.3.2.2. Workshop organisation An overview of the way a workshop producing copper alloy vessels functioned must touch the following points: its location with respect to the other structures of a settlement, its structure, its internal planning, the degree of specialisation and the workforce employed. he reconstruction attempt is impeded straight from the start by the absence of the elements needed in order to get a complete picture of the chain of operations. Most of the available direct evidence, discussed at length in this chapter, comprises singular inds and even if they can be connected to structures that functioned as metallurgic workshops, they cannot be correlated to the other elements discovered. he artisans’ quarter from Autun represents the only instance to indicate more details concerning the matter. he large industrial quarters yielding direct proof of a vessels production were never emplaced outside the settlements. Usually, they lie in town outskirts. From this point of view, the most relevant picture is ofered by the inds from Autun, where most of the structures related to metallurgic activities concentrate on the south-eastern and northern, and also north-western fringes of the ancient city439. A similar situation is encountered in the case of the workshops from Lyon440 and Augst441. he buildings housing the activities were usually simple and could be easily constructed from timber. Closed spaces that ofered protection from the elements were required, considering that the fuel (coal) and the moulds needed to stay dry. In addition, the chambers in which the casting operations took place had to be as dim as possible, because the temperature reached by metal was recognised by colour, and a thus a bright light could lead to misinterpretations. his is why these rooms are viewed as lacking windows442. he artisanal compound from Autun attests to the fact that the crafting activity was deployed to small units, specialised only on certain stages of the chain of operations. he model of true factories is not conirmed by the archaeological discoveries that surfaced from this site. Regarding the function of the unearthed buildings and chambers, these can be divided in two large categories: interiors in which casting activities were under way and interiors whose role is connected to post-casting stages, namely to the inishing of pieces. A workshop that sheltered both casting and inishing operations was organised as follows: the casting area with the furnaces was placed in the northern, darker part of the workshop, while the inishing activities were carried out in the southern, much better lit area. here are exceptions though, represented by the workshops displaying the entire range of technological stages. In turns, there are no spaces dedicated to a single production stage. Such a specialisation and division of labour is in agreement with a competitive economy443. A similar model, illustrated in Figure 13, must be taken into consideration for the bronze vessels production as well. he hypothesis according to which a single person executed all the technological steps, from preparing the alloy to inishing and assembly, is not feasible in a world conditioned by the speed of production and the quantity of products made available in a given time period. he workforce put to the task was specialised on certain types of activities implying only certain stages in the production of an item. here were persons who made the wax models, if this stage was 438 439 440 441 442 443 GORECKI 2000, 462, Abb. 6/1–3, 464–467. CHARDRON-PICAULT 1997–1998, 181, Fig. 4; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 267, Fig. 204. MUTZ 1972, 37. FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 142–144, Abb. 6–8. PERNOT 2004, 173. CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 195–201, Fig. 163; PERNOT 2004, 184–186. 73 74 Fig. 13. Possible reconstruction of a bronze vessels workshop (ater WILLER 2006, 180-181, Abb, 239). required, others who cast the pieces and others still who hammered the raw metal sheets. Other workers most likely handled the assembly, inishing and decoration444. Another thing worth mentioning at this point refers to the lexibility of the workspace. he discoveries from Autun proved that the model of a workshop which would retain the production speciicity over several phases is not necessarily applicable. In the two chambers in which bronze vessels were presumably manufactured (1–29 (phase 1) and 1–6 (phase 2) of building E, insula C), in the course of the three functioning phases spanning over a period of approximately a century, there were a series of succeeding activities: iron working, copper alloy working (brooch production) and ceramic production. hese replaced each other, they did not take place concomitantly. here were no spaces with a certain technological speciicity445, as we would be tempted to assume. Regarding the workshops dealing with the raw material, it is fairly clear that they functioned separately and the metals were most likely delivered to the centres which executed the objects446. However, after the analysis of the mould discoveries we must ask a question: in what degree can one speak of a hyper-specialisation of workshops in producing vessel components? Out of the eleven mould ind spots included in Annexe I of this volume, neither includes moulds for casting the body of the vessels found together with moulds used for casting components (handles, attachments etc.). Except for Autun, where we have limestone moulds for casting casseroles and platters, but also semi-inished products consisting in bucket attachments and amphora handles, there is no other site to present both types of discoveries. Moreover, the amplitude of the artisanal activities carried out at Autun cannot exclude the existence of several workshops specialised in the production of copper alloy vessels, each with a different particularity. Such a model would point to a much more elaborate chain of operations, requiring the existence of workshops specialised only in assembling the components, and this would very much complicate the identiication of a production centre starting from a inished product. A clear answer cannot be provided for this question, as the number of inds of this kind is much too low. Another problem concerns the bronze vessels production in the military environment. From the map that presents the distribution of elements indicating a copper alloy vessels production (Fig. 10), one can see that they overwhelmingly accumulate in the urban milieu, on civilian sites. he only discoveries from a military setting are the boxes for metal recycling from Caerleon and Exeter. hese indicate a possible presence of a lathe, but not necessarily a vessels production and until further data becomes available, one can only speak of an exclusively civilian Roman bronze vessels production. As recent research has shown, it is not possible to isolate a production of Roman bronze vessels exclusively destined for the need of the military and the soldiers very probably used the same distribution channels as the civilians did, for supplying themselves with Roman bronze vessels447. II.3.2.3. The status and title of the coppersmith Most of the information referring to the status and denomination of the craftsmen who produced copper alloy objects are to be found in literary sources. he informative potential of the data resulted from the investigation of workshops cannot contribute to a better insight into these issues. he recounts directly mentioning vessel manufacturers are exceptional and therefore the generic term “coppersmith” will be used. he papyri discovered in Egypt bring the most information. Speaking of status, the artisans lived in modest conditions and very few of them could aford a house in the city. hey were active in towns, as well as in the rural environment. Starting with the middle of the 3rd century AD, there are numerous mentions of artisans who are taken under the protection of an important landowner. hey did not receive a salary, but they were supported and supplied with raw material. Generally, they were paid in TASSINARI 1998a, 94; PERNOT 2004, 173–175. CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 113–126, 169–174. 446 TASSINARI 1998a, 87; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 155; PERNOT 2004, 171–172. 447 See a detailed discussion on the subject, taking into consideration the period between the Late Republic and the beginning of the 2nd century AD, at: GORECKI 2016. 444 445 75 products, and for the Late Antiquity we know their salary consisted of wheat and wine. At least in Egypt they were classiied in a special category and had to pay a professional tax whose value is unknown, and which forced them to organise in collegia or councils448. he same papyri prove that there was a clear diference between goldsmiths and coppersmiths. Goldsmiths are encountered exclusively in an urban setting and their income was higher. hey also had to pay a professional tax that in the year 128 AD was calculated at 264 drachmas annually449. he terms that appear in the literary sources for describing those who dealt with the metal vessels production mostly refer to silver vessels. here are general terms such as faber argentarius /aerarius, but these cannot ofer a concrete piece of information regarding the speciic type of activity they accomplished, nor if they mean the owners of the workshops or those who actually did the job. he person who handled the metal vessels production was called vascularius and he could be an argentarius or an aerarius450. hose who made metal strainers were known under the name of cibarius, while those making simpula, simpulariarius. Whether these terms designate the owner or the craftsman is not known in this case either451. heir social status need not be that of a free man, because in the Roman world slaves too were entitled to undertake crafting or commercial activities452. II.3.3. The technological steps II.3.3.1. Casting From the analysis of the production debris previously discussed, the main technological steps for producing a copper alloy vessel can be reconstituted: casting, hammering, potentially turning the metal sheets on the lathe, inishing and assembly. Casting, which consists of pouring the alloy in the imprint of a mould in order to take its shape once it solidiies453, represents the irst stage and can take place in three ways. he irst is illustrated by the permanent limestone moulds discovered at Autun, Lyon and Vichy. In this case, the alloy was most likely directly poured into the desired shape and the resulting products went directly to inishing, bypassing the mechanical deformation stage. he second way, frequently used for the production of spouted jugs and jugs consisted in casting a raw, probably conical form which later, by hammering and lathe inishing took on the intended shape (Fig. 14/1). From the Roman period cases are known in which the body of an amphora, jug or spouted jug was worked from a single piece of metal, either together with the base or with the base added subsequently454. Concerning the vessels executed in provincial workshops, the base and the body were commonly worked separately and later assembled, but there are many circumstances in which the vessel was made from three components: base, body, and neck with rim. A third possibility is illustrated by the raw forms from Alspach, Hettange-Grande and Reims, for which a single lat, circular piece of metal was cast (with base ring at Reims), later to be hammered or pressed on the lathe in order to work it into the desired shape. At the present state of research, the lost wax method can be presumed only for the small-sized components which were afterwards attached to the body of the vessels. However, it is not clear if the method was really employed or if we can rather speak of casting in moulds made with the help of an imprint model fashioned from another material. he elements that plead in favour of the use of wax models are represented by the minor decoration diferences, insigniicant but suggesting that the artisans were inspired by a shared model, although they did not copy it455. BURKHALTER 1998, 127–130. BURKHALTER 1998, 130–132. 450 CICERO, IN VERREM, 4, 54. 451 See GIUMLIA-MAIR 2000 and GORECKI 2000, 447–448 with the bibliography for a more thorough analysis of the epigraphic evidence; for a pertinent analysis of the ancient literary sources and the terminology employed to designate the owners or those who ran an oicina, see AUBER 1993, 171–175. 452 AUBERT 1993; PERNOT 2004, 188. 453 PERNOT 2004, 172. 454 See the technical observations made by A. Mutz with respect to the technological stages a jug with two Tassinari A1000 type handles went through (MUTZ 1977). 455 TASSINARI 1998a, 93. 448 449 76 Still, as seen above in this volume456, stone moulds for the diferent components of bronze vessels did exist and in this regard E. Poulsen’s hypothesis concerning their employment in the chaîne opératoire seems plausible. It is considered that the stone moulds were not directly used for casting the wax model for the future inal product, but for creating archetypes which, at their turn, would have been employed for developing new series of moulds for wax models. In this context, the small diferences which can be observed between objects belonging to the same series are determined by the inishing activities which were done by hand after the wax models were cast457. Still, for simpler components, like, e.g., the Eggers 36 bucket attachments from Milan, the carachteristics of the clay moulds, on which traces of copper alloys have been identiied, would rather indicate the use of an archetype for imprinting the mould458. here are many uncertain aspects related to the way the metal was cast into the mould. hus, taking into account that the cast raw shape had to be later hammered, the alloy could not contain lead459. In these conditions it is not clear how the Romans managed to cast blanks without voids. One of the proposed solutions is represented by a gradual, layer by layer, solidiication of the metal which could have been attained by maintaining a certain thermal variation in the mould after the metal was cast. he lower part of the mould had to be cold and the upper one needed to remain hot, with a constant intake of hot metal. None of the moulds discovered until now display these characteristics460. Fig. 14. 1. The technological stages taken in order to manufacture a metal vessel (ater DUBOS 1989, 434); 2. The types of hammers used during the mechanical deformation process (ater PERNOT 1991, 132, Fig. 2). Another suggested possibility, which could have been applied for producing blanks similar to the ones discovered at Reims, is the use of a monovalve mould, set on incandescent charcoal, which would have remained opened in the upper part and would have allowed a gradual solidiication of the object, without casting defects461. II.3.3.2. Mechanical deformation he process of forming or planishing implies the mechanical deformation of the metal sheet by means of repetitive hits applied with the help of a hammer. Two types of activities are employed: the shaping of the metal sheet and its successive reheating. he irst hammer blow will have the strongest impact on the metal. After consecutive strikes in the same point, the impact will diminish and it will 456 457 458 459 460 461 See subchapter II.3.2.1.a. See the discussion at POULSEN 2002. GRASSI 2011, 163. See subchapter II.3.1.1. WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 297, 298–299. HERMANS 1971, 316–317, Fig. 8. 77 gradually disappear, even if the same force is applied. his happens because the metal loses its initial ductility and in order to regain it, it has to be reheated462. Bronze, composed of 90% copper and 10% tin, becomes an extremely heterogeneous alloy after solidiication and it can easily crack during the process of mechanical deformation. For this reason, the Roman craftsmen applied a deformation in small steps, which did not exceed more than 10% in one phase463. Moreover, the separate solidiication of the copper and tin particles results in an alloy which is not impermeable. For leaded bronzes this does not occur because the lead ills the voids from the structure of the alloy. But since no lead can be added if the metal sheet is to be mechanically deformed, the structure will become homogenous during the hammering process which reduces the voids464. he measurements made on semi- and inal products discovered so far have showed that the medium values which could have been obtained by applying this technique range between a thickness of 5–6 mm of the original blanks to one of 0.2 – 0.7 mm on the inal products465. During the course of the mechanical deformation process, several tools were needed: anvils, tongs and hammers. For the moment, none of the discoveries of this sort can be exclusively connected to the production of copper alloy vessels. From a functional viewpoint, there were no utensils used only in this branch of Roman crafts. hey were generally utilised for metal working (precious metals, copper alloys, iron). he anvils used to deform the vessels had diverse shapes and were very likely made from diferent materials. he possibility of employing wooden anvils, especially to model some parts of the vessel such as the shoulder, should not be discarded as long as the archaeological discoveries do not illustrate the existence of such shapes made from metal466. If the deformation was expansive, performed from within the vessel, then the anvil had to be fashioned from a soft material, possibly wood or even a sandbag. If the blows were administered from the exterior, the surface of the anvil had to be sturdy467. he anvils used for making cauldrons needed to have a rounded upper part, not to bend the surface of the metal468, a characteristic seen in the K, L, M, and N types of W. Gaitzsch’s typology469. Among the items discovered on the occasion of the archaeological excavations at Autun470 and Vertault471, there were some pieces of hard rocks, such as granite, with a inished and rounded surface, identiied as anvils used during the hammering process. he tongs served to hold irmly the vessel on the anvil while it was struck with the hammer. he formal diferences observed between the various known types do not allow a classiication according to function. he only comment that can be made is that the types used by blacksmiths are larger than those used by coppersmiths472. he hammers employed for producing vessels were of three types: the ones for deforming by expansion (Fig. 14/2b), the ones for reducing the dimensions reached at a certain point (Fig. 14/2a) and hammers with lat edges (Fig. 14/2c) used at the end of the deformation process, for making less visible the traces left by the other tools. Moreover, they could also be made from hardwood473. he hammers equipped with a round and curved end have the most deformational power. he eiciency of the tool depends very much on the size of the handle and the best results are achieved when working with a cool implement on a hot metal474. 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 HERMANS 1971, 313; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 292–293. PERNOT 2004, 177–178. WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 293–297. PERNOT 2004, 172. GAITZSCH 1985, 192, Abb. 3. PERNOT 1991, 132. DUVAUCHELLE 2005, 18; for a series of such anvils found at Pompeii, see GAITZSCH 1980, Taf. 2/12–18. GAITZSCH 1985, 192, Abb. 3/K-N. SERNEELS 1999, 184–185, Fig. 149/d-e. CHAUDRON-PICAULT 2005, 146, Fig. 19. DUVAUCHELLE 2005, 22. PERNOT 1991, 132. HERMANS 1971, 312–313. 78 II.3.3.3. Turning the bronze sheets on the lathe he use of the lathe in the course of the technological processing of Roman copper alloy vessels is a controversial subject in the specialised literature. Apart from the issues related to the inishing of objects, which will be later discussed in the present volume, the problem raised is the degree to which the metal turning of a sheet was used in the Roman world for obtaining a vessel. Based on the marks visible on the inished products, a part of the specialists believe that some metal vessels were almost exclusively worked on the lathe in the mechanical deformation phase, pressing the raw shape by means of spinning on a model made from another material, very likely wood475. his method is considered speciic to the Gaulish -Germanic workshops producing brass vessels from the middle of the 2nd until the middle of the 3rd centuries AD. he types that could have been manufactured in this way consist of a series of buckets, among others Hemmoor type buckets, as well as basins with semi-circular lid or steep-walled basins476. In theory, the method consisted of the following steps (Fig. 15): a form made of wood (a) was ixed to the rotating head of the lathe (b). he metal sheet (c) needed to be held irmly against the form by a wooden block (d) which was ixed in place by the tailstock (e). he active part of the chisel (f ) was pressed against the metal sheet, while its lower part rested on a wooden support (g) provided with a peg (h) which had the purpose of controlling the intensity of the applied pressure477. By means of a constant rotation the metal sheet is deformed until it takes the form of the wooden model478. Fig. 15. The reconstruction of the process of pressing on the lathe a metal disk in order to produce a vessel (ater HERMANS 1971, 318, Fig. 10). MUTZ 1972, 40–42; CHRISTENSEN 2005. BÖCKING ET ALII 2004, 213–214. 477 HERMANS 1971, 318, Fig. 10. 478 An attempt to reconstruct the metal spinning process of a copper alloy sheet on a wooden model can be found at MUTZ 1975, 279, Taf. 61/4–6; for a detailed analysis of the production mode of the Westland type cauldrons, see DAHLIN HAUKEN 2005, 47–49: the author claims that only the class 2 cauldrons of the established typology display marks of lathe manufacture or inishing. 475 476 79 Fig. 16. Possible reconstruction of a Roman lathe used for producing and finishing metal vessels (ater BÖCKING ET ALII 2004, 212, Abb. 1). As seen before, the only direct proof of the existence of a lathe is the axis discovered at Augst. Because this apparatus was to a large extent constructed from perishable materials, the constituent components that would allow for a reconstruction (Fig. 16) did not survive in the archaeological record. As long as we are unaware of the exact way it looked like, as well as of the way the Roman lathe was operated, it is not possible to clearly determine the potential methods employed to turn a metal sheet in order to realise a vessel. A contemporary artisanal lathe operated electrically to produce vessels by rotation pressing requires a minimum of 300 rotations per minute in order to function correctly479, corresponding to a force of 2–3 horsepower480. Such a force can never be achieved manually, as the reconstruction from Figure 16 would imply. hus, for the Roman period, alternative sources of energy must be taken into account, such as operating based on water power or on a vertical capstan481. II.3.3.4. Finishing he removal of burr represents a technological stage succeeding the casting process and can be accomplished with the help of two types of implements: grindstones and metal iles (provided that the surface of the vessels was not deburred using the lathe). As the discoveries from Autun show, grindstones could come in two types: ixed and mobile. he ixed ones could be seated on the ground or mounted on a pedestal, whereas the mobile could be handheld. Both types display lat and curved surfaces as well as grooves and were used for correcting the shapes and polishing. Most of them were made from sandstone with medium or coarse granulation482. he inishing of copper alloy vessels on the lathe covers two diferent aspects: inishing the body of the vessels and inishing the base and the concentric circles appearing on it. he irst operation is done with the help of certain special types of chisels483, which remove very thin strips of metal from the surface (Fig. 17). he traces left by these chisels are characteristic to many types of recipients. his manner 479 480 481 482 483 UNTRACHT 1968, 301. HERMANS 1971, 318. BÖCKING ET ALII 2004, 218. SERNEELS 1999, 183–185. Concerning the discovery of chisels probably used for lathe inishing, see KÜNZL 1993, 350, Taf. 586/H 77–78. 80 of inishing represents the most common way of “decorating” bronze vessels. his was not applied only for the cast pieces. Examples are known of vessels produced by hammering and possibly pressing which were later inished in this way, and the explanation for this choice should be sought in aesthetic reasons484. Such a treatment could only be applied to vessels manufactured form bronze mixed with lead or from brass. Pure bronze was not suitable for the operation, because it was too strong and the tools would have worn of too quickly485. Regarding the concentric circles appearing on the exterior part of the vessel bases, for a long time the specialists’ opinions were divided. A part of them claimed that the recipients had been cast with a lat base and the presence of the circles must be exclusively due to lathe processing486. Against this opinion, the argument was set forth that such a situation would demand a much too greater force than the Roman artisans could produce, and thus the concentric circles must have been present right from the start, in the wax model of the casting mould. Moreover, the repeating patterns of concentric circles observed on the bases are considered the result of the activity of independent wax workers who could have served several bronze workshops487. he moulds discovered at Autun proved that indeed the circles, albeit in a raw form, were made at the moment when the vessel was cast (Fig. 11/1). After casting, these had a rectangular proile. he quasi-triangular form of proile which can be seen on the inished products is, however, a result of lathe-inishing their upper part, with the help of a chisel with oblique active part. he metallographic analyses conducted for a sample of copper alloy vessels from Pompeii showed that the dendritic structure of the metal from the circles and from the rest of the vessel were identical, excluding the possibility that the circles were made exclusively with the help of the lathe. However, this does not exclude Fig. 17. Finishing a casserole on the lathe (ater BÖCKING ET ALII 2004, 215, Abb. 5). the fact that the vessels were deburred on the lathe488. II.3.3.5. Surface treatment he only special treatment applied to the surface of bronze vessels which can be deduced from the analysis of the inished products and was used on quite a large scale is tinning. his choice was not necessarily based on aesthetic criteria, but rather on practical reasons. he recipients which received such a treatment are the ones that were to be used for diferent activities that would have brought them in contact with foodstuf, wine or water. By tinning, the “metallic taste” of the alloy was gotten rid of and the vessel could withstand corrosion much better. Tinning was generally applied only on the inner surface of the recipients, but in the case of casseroles it could also include the upper external half. Chemical analyses have shown that in some instances pure tin was not the only element used, but a quantity of lead was also added489. he procedure consisted in irst cleaning the vessel with oil, resin, sal ammoniac (ammonium chloride) or honey in order to remove any potential copper oxides, then heating the vessel and spreading a thin layer of tin which, in contact with the warm vessel wall, adhered to it490. 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 WILLER 2006, 177, 179, Abb. 227–228, 236–237. BÖCKING ET ALII 2004, 215; WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 299. MUTZ 1972. POULSEN 1995. WELTER, GUIBELLINI 2004, 299. DEN BOESTERD, HOEKSTRA 1966, 105. DRESCHER 1959, 69–70. 81 II.3.3.6. Assembling the components he assembly methods used for Roman copper alloy vessels can be classiied in two categories, depending on the operation they were used for: joining components and soldering auxiliary elements like attachments, handles and feet. he assembly of the vessel components was generally accomplished by folding and superimposing in the contact area the two metal parts which were then joined either through heating or by adding a soldering alloy. In many cases, the joint was made only by mechanical means that required the execution of some cuts into the two metal pieces, so that they would it one within the other491. Usually, these joints were followed by complex inishing methods and thus they are not always visible to the naked eye. Currently, our knowledge regarding this subject is limited because very few pieces are radiographed in order to see with precision the kind of join used. Furthermore, when the proile of the pieces is published most of the times there is no indication of the type of joint and not even of their location on the vessel. Concerning the assembly of the body from components, the solutions, although rather varied, raise no issues regarding the technical execution. However, attaching the constituent parts is a more delicate operation, since the Romans did not manage to focus heat in a single point and consequently they could not weld492. In order to coalesce two pieces of metal they either put them in the ire until they came close to fusion temperature and then they hammered them until they came together, or they used soldering hammers493. Neither of these methods was however applied to Roman bronze vessels. heir components were soldered together. During the Roman period, two types of soldering alloys were in use: soft, tin and lead-based alloy, traces of which are found on bronze vessels, and strong alloys combining copper with tin or silver494. As their names suggest, the strong alloys provided a much more solid attachment, and the use of the tin-lead combination is probably the reason why many constituent elements of bronze vessels were not preserved to date. Before joining them, the components had to be cleaned with oil, resin, sal ammoniac (ammonium chloride) or honey to ensure the contact area was clean. he simplest way of soldering consisted in placing alloy pieces between e.g. the attachment and the body of the vessel, later heated until the soldering alloy began to melt and thus the soldering was accomplished. he best way, and probably the one used by the Romans as pointed out by the traces left on the pieces, consisted in spreading a thin layer of soldering alloy on each of the two previously heated parts which were then joined and placed in the ire to heat and inally come together495. II.3.3.7. Stamping496 Although at the present moment a large quantity of Roman copper alloy vessels with production stamps is known, no stamping implement was found bearing the name of one of the persons attested on the inished products. he tools used for this purpose must have been shaped like a die, with the active part displaying the name of the producer. By striking the end with a hammer, the stamp could be imprinted on the vessel. Pieces exhibiting these characteristics were found within the Roman Empire, but they cannot be connected to the bronze vessels production. Two iron dies originating from Roman London can be mentioned here497. MUTZ 1972, 45–47. HERMANS 1971, 314. 493 DUVAUCHELLE 2005, 24, Fig. 11: from the entire Roman Empire, only nine soldering irons were discovered; these were made entirely from iron, including the handle, and the active part was very sharp; the tool was intensely heated and then placed under the area that had to be joined; by melting, a joint was created between the two pieces that had to be united. 494 LECHTMAN, STEINBERG 1970, 10. 495 DRESCHER 1959, 69. 496 For other issues referring to the stamping of Roman bronze vessels, see subchapter II.3.2.1. 497 HOFMANN 1959, 42–43, nos. 2–3, Pl. XLVI/2–3. 491 492 82 II.3.3.8. The issue of repairs Because of the nature of the raw material of manufacture, Roman copper alloy vessels represent a category of artefacts which remained in use for a long period of time. his is due to the fact that they could be mended, especially considering that they were probably not cheap. We can discern between two types of repairs endured by these items: the ones carried out in the workshop, caused by casting defects or accidents occurring during the technological process on the one hand, and the ones required by wear, on the other. Traces of repairs done in the producer’s workshop can be seen on a Westland-type cauldron included in the metal objects hoard discovered in an old arm of the Rhine, near Neupotz (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany)498. he casting defect, consisting of a hole in the body of the vessel, was mended by applying a liquid metal illing499. Analysing the repair methods of Roman bronze vessels, H. Drescher claims that those made following wear can be of two types: good quality, denoting the work of an artisan, probably in a workshop, and bad quality, that might have been executed by the owner of the vessel500. he repairs required by wear could not be connected to a certain type of workshop until the present moment. Most likely they could have been executed by any small-sized metallurgic workshop handling copper alloys, because they did not require advanced technical knowledge. he standard type of repairing consisted in applying some patches that were riveted to the body of the vessel501. More rarely, the patches were ixed with soldering alloy, especially in case of of the objects that did not come into contact with ire. Such a method would have been totally unsuitable for the vessels that had to be used on the ire, because the attached patch would have come of once the soldering melted. here are cases when the repair partially afected the initial shape of a recipient. Relevant from this point of view is the example of a Millingen type spouted jug, part of the handwashing service, found in the Neu-Ulm area (Germany). Because of the deterioration, the handle and the base were replaced, and the new handle is speciic to another type of Roman metal spouted jug502. Important in this discussion is the group of metal inds, most of them bronze vessels, discovered as part of the inventory of a bronze workshop from the militaty vicus at Heidenheim (Baden-Württemberg, Germany). Among other repaired pieces, one of the jugs503, which initially belonged to the type with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot504, was provided with a small bronze tripod base and the handle was replaced with one belonging to the jugs with relief-decorated handle505. A question arises, namely whether the multiple repairs seen on a piece indicate the fact that it was in use for a long period of time compared to other pieces that were not repaired, or they simply relect an intensive usage. he second variant seems much more plausible506. his answer is also suggested if we compare the degree of repair sufered by diferent functional categories of bronze vessels. he table sets, used for serving, display less repairs than, for instance, the kitchenware extensively used on a daily basis. Out of the 33 Westland type cauldrons from the Neupotz hoard, only 48.5% were not repaired, whilst 42.2% display more than three repairs per vessel507. KÜNZL 1993, Taf. 220–221/E 16. WILLER 2006, 176, Abb. 226. 500 DRESCHER 1963, 45. 501 See, e.g. the Östland type bucket (four diferent repairs made with riveted patches and a replaced base) and the Westland type cauldron (repaired in three diferent places; 160 rivets were used for mending the base) discovered in the Danube, near Großmehring (Germany) (FLÜGEL, HÜSSEN 1996); a cauldron discovered at Possendorf (Germany) was repaired with 43 patches attached with 242 rivets (DRESCHER 1963, 49); for the main types of rivets made from bronze sheet and used for ixing the bronze sheets intended for repairs, see DRESCHER 1963, 43, Abb. 1. 502 he original base, worked on the lathe, was replaced with another one made from thick sheet, while the newly attached handle was typical for a bronze sheet spouted jugs (FLÜGEL 1998). 503 RABOLD 1994, 14–16, Abb. 4. 504 See subchapter III.5.2. 505 See subchapter III.5.3. 506 DRESCHER 1963, 51. 507 KÜNZL 2000, 608, Abb. 1; PETROVSZKY, BERNHARD 2016, 250–252, Abb. 6, Tab. 1; from the group of bronze 498 499 83 II.3.4. The importance of the technological aspects for the study of Roman bronze vessels Knowing the diferent technical procedures executed by the Roman craftsmen in order to produce a metal vessel represents a irst step in understanding this category of inds. An analysis that disregards these aspects cannot possibly provide a picture as accurate as possible of the ancient realities, since much of the choices were determined by the available technical possibilities. A irst issue that needs to be underlined is the chronological evolution of the copper alloy vessels technology. Following the analysis of the vessels with production stamps, R. Petrovszky managed to isolate three “generations” in the evolution of these artefacts, generations that are diferently characterised from a technical viewpoint. he irst generation, dated between the beginning and the second decade of the 1st century BC is distinguished by a production of hammered bronze sheet vessels with several cast components508. he second vessels generation (the Augustan period – the middle of the 2nd century AD) was divided in three phases that mark the gradual shift from the old, late Republican production to the serial production carried out with the help of the lathe. Although used for decoration since the middle of the 1st century BC, this apparatus will be employed extensively in the bronze vessels production only starting from the middle of the 1st century AD. At the same time, the old technique of shaping by hammering will be abandoned and the direct passage from casting to lathe-inishing will be possible509. he last generation (middle of the 2nd – 3rd century AD) represents a regress from a technical perspective. With a few exceptions, represented by some spouted jug bases separately worked on the lathe, this machine will only be used for pressing the copper alloy sheet. he vessels produced now will be largesized and a focus of the production on kitchenware to the disadvantage of table services will become apparent510. Such a chronological evolution, viewed from a technical angle, is important because some peculiarities ensuing from the technological process can become dating elements for fragmentary pieces that cannot be classiied typologically. Observing the technical characteristics is highly relevant when trying to establish the function of the recipients because, from the moment of production, technological solutions were chosen for each shape so that they would correspond to the future usage. hus, for certain forms of vessels comprising several elements, some joined with soldering alloy, their use in contact with ire can be excluded because the components would come of. On the grounds of their technical characteristics, casseroles can be excluded from the kitchenware category. heir massively cast base is not suitable for a rapid heating of the content; most of the recipient serving this purpose were manufactured from thin metal sheet. Another relevant example is represented by the bronze sheet spouted jugs with the massive handle cast together with the rim511. hese were and are still seen as components of the table service, used for serving. he body made from very thin sheet, the massively cast handle and the traces of limescale on the inside indicate their function relates to heating water. he thin body facilitated the quick heating of the content, not allowing the handle to become hot. For these reasons, examining the technological characteristics of each vessel is an essential step of the analysis. Although direct evidence of production is scarce, it relects the great diversity of the models employed. It was not possible to isolate a standard course of the technological stages, which could be applied to the entire Roman Empire. here are regional peculiarities that most likely relate to the tradition of each workshop and to the market demands. vessels from Niedersachsen analysed by H. Drescher, dated to the A and B1 periods, more than 65% had missing components (attachments, handles) or sufered repairs (DRESCHER 1963, 49). 508 PETROVSZKY 1993, 21–22, 182. 509 PETROVSZKY 1993, 29 f., 182. 510 PETROVSZKY 1993, 123. 511 BOLLA 1979; GORECKI 2006. 84 III. The bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis. Typological and chronological analysis512 III. 1. Casseroles he term casserole or saucepan513, although contested by many of the specialists who study Roman bronze vessels514, represents an archaeological convention intended to describe a more or less deep vessel, usually with a diameter smaller than the height (depending on type), with slightly convex or concave sides, provided with a horizontal handle cast together with the body or executed separately. he handle can be decorated in relief515, while its terminal, also depending on the type, can end in swan heads516, in a disc with either crescent-shaped517 or circular perforation518, or can be marked by three circular perforations forming a trefoil519. he main argument against the use of the term refers to the fact that this is a modern one that designates a recipient employed for cooking over the ire, a circumstance completely unrelated with the ancient function of this form520. he reason T 512 For a better overview, the catalogue of the inds from Dacia Porolissensis was integrated in this chapter according to shape and type. he following headings were used: 1. Find spot; 2. Storage; 3. Dimensions (D: diameter; H: height; L: length; h: thicknes; W: width; Wh: weight); 4. Material; 5. State of preservation; 6. Technology; 7. Description; 8. Dating on the basis of the archaeological context; 9. References. 513 See Annexe III.1.1–1.4. 514 FEUGÈRE 1984–1985, 64; TASSINARI 1993, 21, 232; TASSINARI 1995, 19; TASSINARI 1996, 101; BENDER 2000, 470, note 21. 515 he casseroles of the Trau type and the casseroles with relief-decorated handles: EGGERS 1951, 174, type 151–153; PETROVSZKY 1993, 47 (type Trau), 89–91 (type VII, 1–3): the author points to the distinction to be made between the Eggers 151 type and 152–153 types; for a monographic presentation of the Trau type casseroles, see PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002; BENDER ET ALII 2013. 516 EGGERS 1951, 171–172 (type 131–133); PETROVSZKY 1993, 30–35 (type II). 517 EGGERS 1951, 172 (type 137–138); PETROVSZKY 1993, 49–51 (type IV, 1), 66–68 (type IV, 2). 518 EGGERS 1951, 172–173 (type 139–144); PETROVSZKY 1993, 52–54 (type V, 1), 69–84 (type V, 2–5). 519 EGGERS 1951, 173 (type 146–147); PETROVSZKY 1993, 85–88 (type VI, 1–3). 520 TASSINARI 1993, 21; BENDER 2000, 470, note 21: the author considers that, since the ancient name of the form remains unknown, specialists should opt for the use of another why this denomination still remains in use lies in its lack of ambiguity. Another one could have been chosen, which would better describe the form in question from a morphological point of view, but this would pointlessly complicate the analysis and would cause confusion for future generations, so long as “casserole” is used in the specialised literature with respect to a single form. Speaking of the possible names the form might have had in Antiquity, as already mentioned521, one must be cautious when employing the name trulla or trulleum, because this seems to refer to the vessels used in pairs in wine preparing sets522. III.1.1. Casseroles with thin, concave walls and handles ending in stylised swan heads 1. Cuzdrioara (Pl. XIII/1, LVI/1) 1. Unknown: lot of metal objects acquired by the museum in 1928 for 3000 lei, from a lawyer living in Cuzdrioara, Cluj County (together with nos. 16 and 49 from this volume); 2. MNITR I. 10438; 3. L: 133 mm; Wmax: 33.7 mm; h: 2 mm; Drim: 110 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, broken in two pieces, highly oxidized, the surface displays scratches, uneven, dark green patina with light green oxidized spots; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Casserole handle ending in a swan’s head; only the beginning of the terminal decoration is preserved; the end towards the rim is also decorated with multiple incised registers: two beaded bands lanking a row of doubled ovulos and a row of oblique lines; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. he casseroles with thin, concave walls and handle ending in stylised swan heads belong to a type of vessel known in the German language literature as “Blechkasserollen”523, corresponding to the Radnóti 5–10524 and Eggers 134–136525 types. Regarding the terminology, the translation of the German term “Blechkasserollen” was not preferred here because the name is rather contested by specialists, considering that these casseroles were not made from bronze sheet and their thin walls resulted from mechanical deformation of a shape that was cast and afterwards lightly lathe-inished526. For a long time, the specialised literature did not make a clear distinction between this type of casseroles and those with convex walls and handle ending in swan heads of the Eggers 131–132 type527 (“Kasserollen mit Schwanenkopfbügel”). In his study dedicated to the Roman bronze vessels from Pannonia, A. Radnóti identiied the convex-walled casseroles with handle ending in swan heads as cast recipients produced in the workshops from Capua. he “Blechkasserollen” though were considered bronze sheet copies of Campanian products, whose handles have a more stylised and primitive decoration when compared to the prototype, manufactured somewhere in northern Italy, probably at Aquileia528.he subsequent attempt to establish a typology for both types without making a clear distinction between them, based on the one hand on their body shape, and on the other on the type of decoration exhibited by the handles, showed that there is no correspondence between the two elements529. R. Petrovszky succeeded in discerning between the two types, which as a matter of fact were contemporary, and also clariied the technological stages each went through. Within the typology devised by the cited author, the casseroles with convex walls and handle ending in swan heads were ascribed to the type II (“Kasserollen mit Schwanenkopfbügel”) 530, whilst those with thin and concave walls and handle ending in stylised swan heads were assigned to type III, 1–4 (“Blechkasserollen”)531. term instead of “casserole”, which has a too strong functional bearing; the proposed variant is “Schale mit lachem horizontalen Grif”; for a neutral denomination, “Handled pan 2”, see LUNDOCK 2015, 14–15, Fig. 2.05. 521 See the discussion regarding the Latin terminology in subchapter I.3. 522 BENDER 2000. 523 See Annexe III.1.1. 524 RADNÓTI 1938, 25–39, Taf. II/5–9, III/10. 525 EGGERS 1951, 172, Beilage 58: “bronzene Blechkasserollen” (Typ 134–136), Taf. 12/134–136. 526 FLÜGEL 1993, 60, note 44; PETROVSZKY 1993, 30, 36. 527 EGGERS 1951, 171–172, Beilage 57: “Bronzekasserollen mit Schwanenkopfbügel” (Typ 131–133), Taf. 12/131–32. 528 RADNÓTI 1938, 19–39; KUNOW 1983, 62. 529 BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 196–207. 530 PETROVSZKY 1993, 30–35, Taf. 1/II, 1–3. 531 PETROVSZKY 1993, 36–39, Taf. 1/III, 1–4. 86 A single piece from the analysed material can be attributed to this type. his is a handle (no. 1, Pl. XIII/1, LVI/1) whose discovery circumstances remain unknown. It was acquired in the year 1930 by the National Museum of Transylvanian History from a lawyer from Cuzdrioara, Cluj County. In the area of contact with the rim, the handle is decorated with two incised beaded lines between which one can notice a row of ovulos and one of oblique strokes. Because it was not restored, it is not certain if the other end was also decorated, but, as it will be seen in what follows, the existing analogies argue in favour of such a decoration. he piece comes from a Petrovszky III, 1 type casserole532, characterised by a highly arched body with concave walls meant to assure the vessel’s stability, by a splayed rim and a base exhibiting traces of lathe inishing. he handle of the vessels included in this category is decorated with combined registers of beaded lines, ovulos and oblique strokes in the area nearing the rim, whereas the other end may be decorated with another row of ovulos and with two stylised swan heads that make up a ring used for hanging the recipient. Among the complete vessels which possess a handle similar to that from Cuzdrioara, a casserole discovered at Emona can be mentioned533, probably the same vessel as the one from Slovenia published with an unknown ind spot534, as well as the upper part and the handle from a casserole kept in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen535. In addition, there is a series of inds which present decoration only on the handle terminal: a fragmentary casserole discovered in grave no. 52 from the necropolis at Ornavasso-Pesona dated to the Augustan period536 and another one from the fort at Haltern537. According to the handle decoration, the pieces listed above were included in type IIIb of the classiication devised by M. Bolla, M. Castoldi and L. Terenziani538. In his analysis of the casseroles belonging to type III, 1–4, R. Petrovszky attributed the piece kept in the G. M. Kam Rijksmuseum, Nijmegen mentioned above to the Bolla-Castoldi-Terenziani IIId type539, together with another casserole stored in the same museum540. he diferences in classiication arise because in the irst case the degree of stylisation displayed by the swan heads was taken into account, whereas in the second case it was the number of decorative registers presented by the terminal. In fact, the pieces in question cannot be precisely itted in any of the categories established by the three authors cited above. A part of the handles belonging to casseroles with thin and concave walls displaying successive decorative registers with beaded lines, ovulos and oblique strokes in the area towards the rim and stylised swan heads seem to form a separate group, potentially a variant of type IIIb in M. Bolla, M. Castoldi and L. Terenziani’s typology. his, of course, if such a classiication based on decoration will prove itself viable for a more detailed analysis of the type. Casseroles with thin, concave walls and handle ending in stylised swan heads are frequently encountered in northern Italy, Slovenia, Bohemia, but also in Gaul and the Rhineland. On the grounds of their discovery contexts, R. Petrovszky presumes that their production took place between the last two decades of the 1st century BC and the third decade of the 1st century AD, most likely in the workshops active in north-eastern Italy and in Aquileia, as suggested by the names appearing on the production stamps541. A continuous production until the last quarter of the 1st century AD was suggested by PETROVSZKY 1993, 36–39, Taf. I/III, 1. RADNÓTI 1938, 30–31, Taf. II/7, XV/8; BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 203–204, note 25. 534 BREŠČAK 1982, 41, no. 6, T. 1/6, 17/6; BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 203–204, note 25; PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. I/ III,1. For vessel no. 6 D. Breščak indicated an unknown ind spot. he catalogue is lacking any reference to A. Radnóti’s study. However, from the illustration it results that we are dealing with two identical pieces, fact which is highly unlikely since the vessel published by Radnóti originates from Emona, while the second study analyses the bronze vessels from Slovenia. 535 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 2–3, no. 5, Pl. I/5, 5a, XVIII/5b; BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 203–204, note 25; PETROVSZKY 1993, 39, 264, no. H.04.01, Taf. 17/H.04.01. 536 GRAUE 1974, 38–39, 166, 254, Taf. 61/1; BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 203–204, note 25. 537 MÜLLER 1997, 10, 13, 36, no. 19, Abb. 7/19. 538 BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 200, Fig. 6/IIIb, 203–204. 539 BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 204; PETROVSZKY 1993, 39 (H.03. 01 – in fact H.04.01). 540 PETROVSZKY 1993, 39, X.21, 332, Taf. 35/X.21. 541 See the discussion in PETROVSZKY 1993, 36–39. 532 533 87 J. Kunow542 on the basis of a handful of specimens found at Pompeii, but this is very improbable and those vessels should be regarded as objects which remained in use for a longer period of time543. Considering the type’s production interval, it is hard to believe that the handle from Cuzdrioara belongs to a casserole originating from the territory of the Dacian province. Although not impossible, such a circumstance would assume that the piece remained in use for a minimum of 70–80 years. As long as the information regarding the discovery context is missing, from all we know the vessel could have been acquired from wherever by its modern owner. he function of the casseroles was much discussed, the specialists’ options ranging from kitchen vessels to multi-purpose recipients (cooking, drinking, eating) 544 and components of the wine preparing service. Starting from one of the scenes illustrated on Trajan’s column, where soldiers are seen marching while carrying their personal equipment, amongst which a casserole can be noticed545, it was surmised that the casseroles served multiple purposes in the military milieu as well, cooking being one of them546. As previously stated547, the hypothesis of their use as cooking vessels should be ruled out. he presence of feet on the bases of early types and the thickness of later, massively cast bases, as well as the fact that some types are tinned, all represent elements that render the casseroles inadequate for such a purpose. As a matter of fact, none of the 190 specimens discovered at Pompeii display burning or soot marks548. J. Kunow’s argument for their use as cooking vessels, namely that some were found in Pompeian kitchens549, does not appear suicient because not all of the vessels recovered from kitchens were actually used for cooking. here are forms used for serving or for the transport of various liquids stored in the kitchen, but not for preparing food. he hypothesis that they were not in direct contact with the ire, but only served as components of a system meant to keep foodstuf and drinks warm550 cannot be conirmed for the moment. Also, their role as drinking vessels, although it cannot be completely disregarded especially in the case of the small-sized recipients, seems unlikely since the shape is not suitable for that. he most plausible assumption is the use of these casseroles in drinking sets for mixing the wine with water and spices. R. Petrovszky points that the lines which appear sometimes on the inside of the walls should be interpreted as grading lines indicating the quantities of wine and water to be blended551. he same function, as vessels used in the process of wine preparing, can also be attributed to the Petrovszky III, 1 type to which the casserole from Cuzdrioara belongs552. III.1.2. Casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal 2. Buciumi (Pl. XIII/2, LVI/2a-b) 1. Fort 1973, Barracks no. 2, longitudinal baulk, meters: 10–15, depth: -0.60-0.80 m, the fort with earthen enclosure, phase 1b; 2. MIAZ CC 333/73; 3. L: 85.6 mm; W: 15.6–27.8 mm; h: 3.2 mm; Dterminal: 41 mm; Wh: 39 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, oxidized, uneven, light green patina, traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Casserole handle with crescent-shaped piercing on the terminal; the terminal is very oxidized, no other traces of decoration can be observed; along each edge it displays an incision decorated with a beaded band; the piece was repaired/reused as evidenced by the semi-circular chipping and the rivets visible on the left side of the circular terminal, as well as by the metallic sheet attached to the back; 8. AD 114/115 – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. KUNOW 1983, 25. PETROVSZKY 1993, 38; KOSTER 1997, 57. 544 See the analysis of the potential functions made by J. Kunow: KUNOW 1983, 85–93; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 47; KOSTER 1997, 56. 545 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985; 48, Abb. 1; JUNKELMANN 1997; 88–89, Abb. 37. 546 JUNKELMANN 1997, 98; BISHOP, COULSTON 1993, 104–105, Fig. 64. 547 See subchapter II.3.4. 548 TASSINARI 1993, 232. 549 KUNOW 1983, 74; see also LUND HANSEN 2016, 230–231. 550 BOLLA 1994, 34. 551 PETROVSZKY 1993, 34–35. 552 PETROVSZKY 1993, 38–39. 542 543 88 he casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal553 are usually attributed by specialists to the Eggers 137–138 types554 (138 being the shallow form). In Dacia Porolissensis they are represented by a single piece, a handle discovered in the fort at Buciumi (no. 2, Pl. XIII/2, XVI/2a-b) dated judging from the discovery context to the 2nd century AD. Such a fragmentary casserole whose handle exhibits marks of intense/prolonged use comes from the settlement at Cristești555. In his study concerning bonze vessels with production stamps from the Roman Empire, R. Petrovszky classiied the discovered casseroles with crescent perforation on the handle terminal in two diferent types which only partially correspond to Eggers’s typology. he IV, 1 type produced in Campania, possibly in Capua between AD 1/9 and 35/40 exhibits technical characteristics resembling those of the casseroles with handle ending in swan heads and, like these, it is not extensively worked on the lathe556. he IV, 2 type (with its two variants, the high form: IV, 2a, and the shallow one: IV, 2b) comprises later specimens that start to have a more massive appearance and thicker walls, while the base is no longer lat and presents deep concentric grooves pointing to a more intense lathe inishing. he type was produced between AD 35/40 and 80/85 in Campania, but there are examples that, based on their decoration, were related to an incipient Gaulish industry557. he extremely large number of pieces discovered in the Vesuvian towns represents an argument in favour of a production still active in AD 79558. From a functional point of view, the casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal are also part of the set for preparing drinks, the high form being used for wine mixing, while the shallow one most likely for extracting it from larger containers559. he pieces remained in use for a long period of time, being identiied even in 3rd century contexts560. Ascribing the handle from Buciumi to one of the types presented above is not possible, irst of all because an exact classiication cannot be made solely on the basis of a handle, without any other surviving part of the vessel. Another drawback is the fact that the piece has not been restored and, as such, it cannot be determined whether or not it was decorated, seeing that the decoration is an important marker of distinction between types. It can be safely assumed that we are dealing with an object manufactured in Campania or in Gaul in the irst eight decades of the 1st century AD561, probably not one of the latest products judging by the intense traces of use and by the repairs it exhibits. On one of the edges of the handle one can notice a semi-circular notch surrounded by a series of rivets, and, in the breaking area, on the back of the piece, a band appears to have been applied possibly in order to attach the handle after it was broken. he exact nature of these interventions might be elucidated only if the piece were to be restored. III.1.3. Casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal 3. Buciumi (Pl. XIII/3, LVI/3) 1. Fort 1966, Barracks no. 5: 2. MIAZ CC 96/66; 3. L: 60 mm; Wmax: 29 mm; Dterminal: 48.2 mm; Dperforation: 9 mm; h: 3 mm; Wh: 36 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, dark green patina; 6. Cast; 7. Casserole handle with circular piercing on the terminal; the end is round, has a circular perforation and displays two concentric grooves accompanied on both sides by deep incisions; both edges of the handle exhibit two deep parallel incisions decorated with a beaded band (the beading is more schematized on one of the edges); 8. -; 9. CHIRILĂ ET ALII 1972, 77, no. 8, Pl. CXV/24. See Annexe III.1.2. EGGERS 1951, 172, Beilage 59: “Bronzekasserollen mit halbrundem Loch” (Typ 137–138), Taf. 12/137–138. 555 MAN 2011, 195, no. 2, 422, Pl. CXLIV/2. 556 PETROVSZKY 1993, 49, 51, Taf. 1/IV, 1. 557 PETROVSZKY 1993, 66–68, Taf. 1/IV, 2a-b. 558 WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 208; PETROVSZKY 1993, 68; KOSTER 1997, 58. 559 PETROVSZKY 1993, 51, 68. 560 DEONNA 1933, 64–65, no. 13728, Fig. 4/1, Pl. V/13728; RADNÓTI 1938, 39; WERNER 1938, Taf. 119/11; KUNOW 1983, 25–26; FLÜGEL 1993, 63; KOSTER 1997, 57. 561 See also: KUNOW 1983, 25–26, 63; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 206–208; KOSTER 1997, 57–58. 553 554 89 4. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Pl. XIII/4, LVII/4) 1. Victor Deleu Street, Trench 4, in the irst upper layer, depth: -0.10 m; 2. MNITR v. 47729; 3. L: 26 mm; W: 40 mm; h: 5.3 mm; hwalls: 1.5 mm; Drim: 160 mm; Wh: 62 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven brownish green patina; 6. Cast, evidence of lathe inishing is visible on the backside; 7. Handle and part of the rim from a casserole with terminal bearing a circular perforation; each edge displays a pair of deep parallel incisions, less visible on one of the margins, decorated with a beaded band; on the preserved part of the vessel’s wall, under the rim, one can notice an incised line; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 5. Florești-Șapca Verde (Polus Center) (Pl. XIV/5, LXVII/5) 1. Sector A, Trench 31, on the mortar loor; depth: -0.10 m; 2. MNITR v. 59289; 3. L: 106 mm; W: 29.5 mm; h: 4.7 mm; Dterminal: 60.5 mm; Dperforation: 11 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, dark green with brown spots; 6. Cast; 7. Casserole handle with circular piercing on the terminal; a deep groove, obliquely made, can be observed along each edge; also, the edge of the round terminal displays a circular rib; 8. -; 9. ALICU 2008, 31, no. 94; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 224, Pl. II/2. 6. Gilău (Pl. XIV/6) 1. Fort, praetentura sinistra, barracks, emplacement of the future building A, eastwards from room a, depth: -1.25 m, layer subsequent to the burning, corresponding to the “small fort”; the same layer yielded a fragment of Lezoux terra sigillata dated to the late Antonine period: AD 160–190 (ISAC 2001c, 84, no. 6, 90, Pl. II/6) (Gilău II); 2. MNITR v. 44824; 3. L: 73 mm; Wmax: 19.4 mm; h: 2 mm; Dterminal: 43 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Fragmentary handle from a casserole with circular piercing on the terminal; each edge displays a pair of deep, parallel incisions, one vertically made, the other obliquely; it is decorated with three small incised circles arranged in two rows (respectively two, and one) which allude to the shape of a bunch of grapes; the margin of the round terminal is provided with a beaded rib, lanked on both sides by deep incisions; 8. AD 117/118 – the end of the 2nd century AD; 9. DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 53, no. 1, 54, Fig. 1/1; ISAC 1997, 42–43 (for the situation from the praetentura in Gilău II phase); ȘTEFĂNESCU 2004, 422, Pl. I/2, 425, no. 2. 7. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XIV/7, LVII/7) 1. Fort, praetentura sinistra, Barracks V; 2. CMBN 21904; 3. L: 29 mm; Wmax: 30.5 mm; h.: 3.5 mm; Wh: 19 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, green with brown spots, traces of deposits; 6. Cast; 7. Handle fragment from a casserole with circular piercing on the terminal; each edge displays a pair of deep, parallel grooves, one executed vertically, the other obliquely; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 58–60 (no. 1), 78, Pl. 1/1. 8. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XIV/8, LVII/8) 1. Unknown; Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 262/58: 3. L: 95.8 mm; W: 29.7 mm; h: 3.5 mm; Dterminal: 63.7 mm; Dperforation: 18.4 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, light brownish green patina, traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Handle from a casserole with circular piercing on the terminal; each edge displays a pair of deep, parallel incisions, one executed vertically, the other obliquely; the round terminal is bordered by a beaded circle lanked on both sides by deep incisions; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 9. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XIV/9, LVIII/9a-b) 1. Unknown; Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 262/58; 3. L: 45.5 mm; W: 20.7 mm; h: 3.3 mm; Drim: 130 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, light brownish green, traces of soil; 6. Cast, evidence of lathe inishing is visible on the backside; 7. Handle from a casserole with circular piercing on the terminal; only the part which continues the rim is preserved; each edge displays two deep, parallel incisions, one vertically executed, the other obliquely, the area in-between the pair of grooves bearing a beaded decoration; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 10. Orheiu Bistriței (Pl. XV/10, LVIII/10, LIX/10a-b, LX/10c-d) 1. Fort 1909, discovered in the course of the renovation works and enlargement of the Evangelic church, donated by the priest Johann Dienesch for the collection of the Evangelic Gymnasium from Bistrița; unearthed together with nos. 50 and 64 from this volume, as well as with a series of miscellaneous metal objects (agricultural and craft tools, weapons, domestic implements); 2. CMBN 4271; 3. H: 85 mm; Drim: 160 mm; hmax rim: 5 mm; Lhandle: 145 mm; hhandle: 3.1 mm; Dhandle terminal: 53 mm; hwall: 0.5–2 mm; Wh: 490 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, repaired, patina removed during the restoration process, current colour: reddish brown; 6. Cast in one piece; 7. Casserole with circular piercing on the round terminal; only the rim and the upper part 90 of the bowl are preserved; the handle was broken of and is now attached to the body of the vessel with the help of two plastic rods placed on the back of the handle, in the contact area between it and the rim of the vessel; the rim is slightly splayed, with rounded upper part and sharpened inferior part; there are four parallel incisions under the rim, paired in two registers; the handle is almost lat, the parallel marginal incisions are hardly visible, and the circular terminal displays only faint traces of two incised concentric circles; the piece was repaired in Antiquity: at the limit of the preserved part of the vessel’s body one can notice an irregular line consisting of piercings made by 15 rivets (some of which are still preserved) and above it traces of soldering; the metallic piece used for mending is not preserved; 8. -; 9. GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971; GLODARIU 1974, 237, no. 15, Pl. XXXII/B 15a; GLODARIU 1976, 31, table 3/15, 197, no. 15, Pl. 38/B 15a; MILES ROMANVS 1997, 32, no. 189; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 147, no. 219 (C. Gaiu); GAIU 2005; PROTASE 2007, 108, 128, 147, Fig. 21/1; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 224, Pl. II/3. Most of the casserole fragments identiied from Dacia Porolissensis are assigned to the category of casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal562. From a typological point of view, they generally correspond to the 139–143 types deined by H. J. Eggers563, widespread both within the territory of the Roman Empire, and in Barbaricum. Because of their speciic shape, the identiication of casseroles belonging to the Gödåker type (Eggers 144), which will be dealt with later in this volume, does not pose speciic problems. However, in the course of time the typology proposed by Eggers for the 139–143 types proved insuicient, since it lacked a precise demarcation between types, a correct illustration, and, most importantly, a proper chronological framing. he uncritical reference made by specialists to the typology proposed by Eggers caused and still determines erroneous assignments564. Based on a rigorous analysis of the material, on technical elements and on the production stamps, R. Petrovszky was the irst to succeed in tracking a deinite evolution of the types from a technical, morphological and chronological perspective. he author classiied the casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal in four distinctive types, excepting the Gödåker type565. he earliest specimens (type V, 1: Eggers 140), manufactured in southern Italy between AD 5/10 and 30/35, contemporary with the casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal (type IV, 1), are still worked on the lathe to a lesser extent and the grooves on the handle are barely marked566. At the end of the second phase and beginning with the third phase of the second generation, characterised by the conclusion of the previously started technological process567, three new types appear: V, 2, V, 3 and V, 4a-c. he type V, 2 (Eggers 142) still illustrates an Italic shape produced between AD 35/40 and 90/100. he casseroles in question are high, their base is narrower than of those belonging to the V, 1 type and displays deep concentric circles, while the grooves on the handle are vividly marked568. he shallow variant of type V, 2 is represented by the V, 3 type (Eggers 143) whose production begins a little later (AD 50/60 – 90/100), also in Italy, although there is a possibility that a part of the vessels was produced in some Gaulish workshops569. he last type, V, 4a-c (Eggers 139/142) comprises the casseroles formally similar to those of the type V, 2 but, unlike these, their base is slightly heightened and their handles are decorated. he three identiied versions are all executed in Gaulish workshops between AD 55/60 and 80/100 (with a shorter production interval, ending around AD 70, for variant c)570. his complex classiication of the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal can hardly be applied to a group of fragmentary material, because a correct attribution must take into account more elements than the handles’ characteristics. For this reason, in the attempt to sort out the material from Dacia Porolissensis, the following elements were considered: the depth of the grooves on the handle, 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 See Annexe III.1.3. EGGERS 1951, 172, Beilage 60: “Bronzekasserollen mit rundem Loch” (Typ 139–144), Taf. 12/139–143. KUNOW 1983, 26; PETROVSZKY 1993, 65. PETROVSZKY 1993, 79–84, Typ V, 5, Taf. 2/V, 5a-c. PETROVSZKY 1993, 52–54, Typ V, 1, Taf. 2/V, 1. PETROVSZKY 1993, 64–65. PETROVSZKY 1993, 69–71, Typ V, 2, Taf. 2/V, 2. PETROVSZKY 1993, 72–73, Typ V, 3, Taf. 2/V, 3. PETROVSZKY 1993, 74–78, Typ V, 4(a-c), Taf. 2/V, 4a-b. 91 the decoration (if present), and, for those handle fragments coming from the contact area with the rim, the extent to which they were worked on the lathe571. Furthermore, the handles by themselves deny the possibility of distinguishing between the high and the shallow variants because, with few exceptions, the shallow form did not require the manufacture of a smaller-sized handle. hus, based on the depth of the grooves seen on the handle, the pieces from Buciumi (no. 3, Pl. XIII/3, LVI/3a-b), Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (no. 4, Pl. XIV/4, LVII/4a-b), Florești-Șapca Verde (Polus Center) (no. 5, Pl. XIV/5, LVII/5), Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 7, Pl. XIV/7, LVII/7) and the two from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 8, Pl. XIV/8, LVII/8; no. 9, Pl. XIV/9, LVIII/9a-b) were deinitely produced in the second half of the 1st century AD and can be generally attributed to the Petrovszky V, 2–3 (Eggers 142–143) types and, potentially, to the Petrovszky V, 4c, although the last variant is represented by a very low number of pieces. he fact that the handle fragments from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (no. 4) and Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 9) exhibit marked traces of lathe working on their backsides conirms this attribution. he decoration composed of three circles, seen on the casserole handle from Gilău (no. 6, Pl. XIV/6) allows the classiication of the piece as a variant of the Petrovszky V, 4 type, namely the variant b, undoubtedly a Gaulish product made in the second half of the 1st century AD. Bearing in mind that the discovery context cannot be chronologically placed prior to the end of the 2nd century AD572, the casserole found in the hoard from Orheiu Bistriței (no. 10, Pl. XV/10, LVIII/10, LIX/10a-b, LX/10c-d) must be deinitely considered a piece which remained in use for a very long period of time. he thin, slightly dished wall, the handle which does not seem to have had deeply marked grooves, as well as the fact that it was not intensely lathe-inished, all allow the inclusion into the Petrovszky V, 1 (Eggers 140) type573. he piece displays serious signs of ware, the inferior part together with the base are missing, while the grooves on the handle have disappeared almost completely, conirming the assignment, since, had they been deep, then most likely they would have still been visible. Consequently, we are dealing with a piece produced in southern Italy during the irst half of the 1st century AD. Traces of repairs are still noticeable on the body but it cannot be established whether they were all made at the same time, or the object was repaired several times. Traces of 15 rivets (some of which are preserved) are visible and they were riveted starting from the inner side of the wall (Pl. LX/10c). In some areas on the inside of the wall bits of bronze sheet can be seen in-between the rivet and the vessel’s wall (Pl. LX/10d) indicating that a irst sheet was ixed on the inside. On the other hand, on the outside, in the area where the rivets were applied, one can see solder remains, fact which would point to the existence of a second bronze sheet overlapping the surface of the wall. As such, a irst possibility might be that the vessel was repaired only once, but using two metal sheets attached by means of two diferent techniques. At the same time, the possibility that the vessel was irstly repaired by soldering, and, once this part became detached, a second bronze sheet was riveted (or vice-versa) cannot be excluded. In Roman Dacia, casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal were also discovered at Cristești574, Târgu Secuiesc (with the stamp TALIO·F575), Tibiscum-Iaz576, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (two examples)577 and in the earthen fort at Vărădia578. From the territory of the locality of RăzboieniFor such an approach of the fragmentary material, see BOLLA 1994, 36; SEDLMAYER 1999, 83. See the discussion regarding the discovery context in subchapter IV.5. For casseroles found in 3rd century contexts displaying traces of intense use, see the two examples from the Neupotz hoard (KÜNZL 1993a, 193–195, Taf. 132–135; PETROVSZKY 2006). 573 PETROVSZKY 1993, 52–54, Typ V, 1, Taf. 2/V, 1. 574 MILES ROMANVS 1997, 32, no. 190; MAN 2011, 195, no. 1, 422, Pl. CXLIV/1 (Petrovszky V, 2 type). 575 FLORESCU, MICLE 1979, 39, no. 83, Fig. 61; PETROVSZKY 1993, 303, T.01.02, Taf. 27/T.01.03 (with bibliography); ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 217. 576 ARDEȚ 2003; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 215, 224, Pl. II/1. Only part of the vessel’s rim and the beginning of the handle are preserved. Although L. C. Ardeț attempts to assign it to the Eggers 142–144 types, the graphical reconstruction provided illustrates a casserole with a semi-perforated handle terminal, typical for Eggers 137, without explaining this choice. 577 BOZU 2008, 100, 211 no. 312 (a part of the handle); ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216, 224, Pl. II/5. 578 ALICU ET ALII 1994, 56, 113, no. 774, Pl. 51/774 (handle); MILES ROMANVS 1997, 32, no. 191; ÉTIENNE ET 571 572 92 Cetate comes a casserole handle with circular piercing on the terminal579 whose small dimensions allow it to be assigned to the Petrovszky V, 3 type. From a functional point of view, the casseroles belonging to the Petrovszky V, 1–4 types are also part of the drinking set. he high forms are used for wine mixing, while the shallow ones for extracting it and, potentially, measuring diferent quantities580. III.1.4. Casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal, Gödåker type 11. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XVI/11, LXI/11a-c) 1. Fort 1994, praetentura sinistra, irst phase of barracks V, meters: 1–2, depth: -1.20 m, small earthen fort; 2. CMBN 22076; 3. L: 135 mm; Wmax: 40 mm; h: 4.4 mm; Dterminal: 58.2 mm; Dperforation: 12.3 mm; Drim: 160 mm; Wh: 178 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, highly oxidized handle terminal, patina removed during the restoration process; 6. Cast, incised; visible on the backside of the piece, in the contact area between the handle and the rim of the vessel, there are deep chisel marks resulted from the process of lathe inishing; 7. Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal; along each edge there is a deep groove; it is decorated with ten small circles (D: 3.4 mm) created by incision, which are arranged in four rows (of four, three, two and inally one) forming a bunch of grapes; the round terminal is bordered by a beaded circle, lanked on both sides by deep incisions; the piece was stamped with a cartouche placed on the circular terminal; because of the severe oxidation and following the restoration process, only the rounded shape of the cartouche and a part of the letters can be distinguished: ACCAFE?; 8. Trajan – Hadrian; 9. PROTASE ET ALII 1997, 41, Pl. XXII; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 58–60 (no. 2), 78, 85, Pl. 1/2, Pl. 8/2a-c. 12. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XVI/12, LXII/12a-b) 1. Fort, praetentura dextra, in the area of barracks I, small earthen fort; 2. CMBN 21940; 3. L: 67.4 mm; W: 85.8 mm; h.: 0.7–1 mm; Wh: 35 g; 4. Copper alloy, tin; 5. Fragmentary, restored, oxidized on the interior, green-grey patina; 6. Cast, tinned on the inside, incised; 7. Wall fragment from a Gödåker type casserole; the upper part displays a thick rib with a breadth of 3.5 mm and above it there is a register decorated with incised vegetal elements; 8. Trajan – Hadrian; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 58–60 (no. 3), 78, Pl. 1/3. he Gödåker type casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal correspond to the Eggers 144581 and Petrovszky V, 5a-c582 types and represent the latest variant of the casseroles with circular perforation on the handle. heir production period continued most probably right until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. hey are characterised by a bulging body with a seriously splayed rim and a high, splayed, massively cast base worked on the lathe, with a diameter measuring less than the maximum diameter of the body. he manner of decoration, the names of the craftsmen and the arched production stamps point to their manufacture in Gaulish workshops583. Based on the formal and decorative elements, R. Petrovszky deined three distinctive variants of the Gödåker type: the irst two (a and b) were made between AD 55/60 and 90/120, while the production of the third seems to have started later (AD 60/70 – 100/120). Casseroles of this type do not show up at Pompeii584 and neither on the territory of the Italian peninsula. here is a relatively small number of such inds in Barbaricum, while the bulk of the pieces were identiied in Roman Britain, Gaul and in the Germanic provinces of the Empire585. Functionally speaking, we are again dealing with vessels used for wine mixing586. ALII 2002–2003, 75, 77, Pl. X/Br.60; PISO 2006, 70 (handle terminal); ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 422, 423, Pl. I/1, 425, no. 1. 579 POPOVICI, VARGA 2010, 92, no. 8, DVD annexe, Materiale romane/Desene piese/Piese metalice/Scan110004, Materiale romane/Piese metalice/DSCN0330, DSCN0345. 580 PETROVSZKY 1993, 54, 71, 73, 78. 581 EGGERS 1951, 172, Beilage 60: “Bronzekasserollen mit rundem Loch” (Typ 139–144), Taf. 12/144. 582 PETROVSZKY 1993, 79–84, Typ V, 5, Taf. 2/V, 5a-c. 583 PETROVSZKY 1993, 82–84. 584 See TASSINARI 1993. 585 PETROVSZKY 1993, 79–82; KOSTER 1997, 58. 586 PETROVSZKY 1993, 84. 93 he only two fragments of bronze vessels belonging to the Gödåker type casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal discovered in Dacia Porolissensis come from Ilișua/Arcobadara, namely a handle (no. 11, Pl. XVI/11, LXI/11a-c) and a fragment from a vessel wall (no. 12, Pl. XVI/12, LXII/12a-b) dated on the basis of the discovery context to the period between Trajan and Hadrian (the levels belonging to the small earthen fort). From the rest of Roman Dacia, a base belonging to such a casserole is known at Cristești587. he fact that the handle from Ilișua/Arcobadara belongs to the Gödåker type, tough it is not possible to work out the variant, is conirmed by several elements: irst, the deep grooves which are not obliquely executed and are parallel to the edges, but also the grape bunch decoration made with incised circles. he piece was found in a highly advanced stage of oxidisation and was subjected to a rather aggressive restoration process, making the production stamp very diicult to read. With all the due caution, the variant ACCAFE? (Acca fe(cit)?)588 can be put forward. he only partial analogy in this direction is represented by another stamp identiied on a Gödåker casserole discovered at Rickenbach (Zürich, Switzerland)589, read as ACA, without the certainty that this is a complete stamp; the manufacturer was active in Gaul in the interval AD 60/70 – 80590. It is not certain that he is one and the same craftsman. Neither Acca nor Aca are attested as proper cognomina, but only as incomplete versions of these591. On the grounds of the register decorated with Lesbian kymation, piece no. 12 can be ascribed to the c variant of the Petrovszky V, 5 type which, as previously mentioned, begins to be produced a little later than the other variants. Both fragments come from the small earhen fort at Ilișua, from the area of the barracks from the praetentura. here is no ground to presume that they could have belonged to the same vessel, but, in general, the decoration displayed by the two fragments from Ilișua is typical for variant c of the Petrovszky V casseroles592. III.1.5. Casserole fragments 13. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XVII/3) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 175/58; 3. H: 15.6 mm; W: 43 mm; h: 1.8 mm; D: 160 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, light green patina; 6. Cast; 7. Rim and part of the wall from a casserole; the rim is slightly splayed, thickened and rounded; under the rim, two parallel incisions are visible; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 14. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XVII/14) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 233/58; 3. H: 12.4 mm; W: 34 mm; h: 1.6 mm; D: 160 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, light green patina; 6. Cast; 7. Rim and part of the wall from a casserole; the rim is relatively horizontal, slightly sharpened at the end; under the rim an incision is visible; on the inner side, also underneath the rim, a second incision appears; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 15. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XVII/15, LXII/15) 1. he fort on Pomet hill 1980, Trench 37/4, meters: 4–5/3, depth: -0.26 m, in the area of the principia, the fort with stone wall; 2. MIAZ CC 7/1981; 3. H: 35.5 mm; W: 35 mm; hwall: 1 mm; hrim: 3.4 mm; Drim: 200 mm; Wh: 13 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed in the course of the restoration process; 6. Cast, lathe-inished; 7. Casserole fragment; only the rim and a small portion of the wall are preserved; the rim is horizontal, slightly rounded towards the end; two pairs of parallel incisions can be seen beneath the rim; on the inner side, just under the rim, another group of two parallel incisions can be observed; 8. Probably after the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 587 588 589 590 591 592 MAN 2011, 195, no. 6, 423, Pl. CXLV/6. I wish to thank Dr. R. Petrovszky for his advice in reading the stamp. PETROVSZKY 1993, 188, no. A.02.01. PETROVSZKY 1993, 141. OPEL I, 6–7. PETROVSZKY 1993, 79–84. 94 he three vessel rims from Moigrad/Porolissum originate most likely from casseroles, but an exact ascription is diicult to make because of their very fragmentary state. Piece no. 13 (Pl. XVII/3) is very similar to the rim presented by a series of complete casseroles belonging to Petrovszky V, 2 and V, 3 types593; no. 14 (Pl. XVII/14) might come from a Petrovszky IV, 1 casserole594, while no. 15 either from Petrovszky V, 2, or V, 4 casseroles595. III.2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) he terms used in the specialised literature to refer to the two components making up the set used for straining wine596 are quite unitary. First, there is the strainer with long, horizontal handle, and then the dipper which presents the same morphological characteristics as the former, but it is not pierced. he body of the two vessels is rounded (in the case of the early forms), but subsequently the form evolves towards an almost lat base with straight walls (the later types)597. III.2.1. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with volute-decorated handles598 16. Cuzdrioara (Pl. XVIII/16, LXII/16a-b) 1. Unknown; lot of metal objects acquired by the museum in 1928 for 3000 lei, from a lawyer living in Cuzdrioara, Cluj County (together with nos. 1 and 49 from this volume); 2. MNITR I. 10437a; 3. L: 80 mm; Wmax: 33 mm; hmax: 2.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, dark greenish brown patina; 6. Cast, incised; 7. End of a handle from a strainer or dipper; richly decorated by incision; the end displays a doubled row of ovulos, while the area near the breaking line displays another register of doubled ovulos followed by one of horizontal lines; on the surface of the piece four circles with dotted centres were marked, also by means of incision; in the medial area of the preserved piece, the cartouche with the production stamp was applied: STAGLI·APROD; the cartouche is parallel to the handle and its margins are slightly worn; 8. -; 9. PETROVSZKY 1993, 167, S.14, 302, 437, Taf. 26/S.14.01, 453, Taf. 42/S.14.01. he handle fragment from Cuzdrioara599 (no. 16, Pl. XVIII/16, LXII/16a-b) was assigned by R. Petrovszky to the type X, 2600 (Eggers 159a601) which represents an earlier variant of the type X, 3602 (Eggers 159), the main way of diferentiating between them being the decoration603. he X, 2 type comprises sets consisting of a strainer and a dipper, both with rounded bodies raised from a bronze sheet, with a horizontal and wide rim and a long handle with rounded terminal and arched edges ending in two volutes; it displays a decoration similar to the one seen on casseroles with thin and concave walls and handle ending in stylised swan heads (Petrovszky III, 1–4)604. hey appear in discovery contexts dated to the Augustan period605 and those found in Barbaricum cluster in Bohemia606. Among the pieces that display a similar decoration on the handle as the one from Cuzdrioara, a series of products made by Staglius Philoca(lus?)607 can be recalled: PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 9/C.01.01, 21/N.02.14. PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 11/C.21.02. 595 PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 11/C.21.02. 596 See Annexe III.2.1–2.2. 597 he terms proposed by J. Lundock for deining the straining sets – “Handed pan 3” for the earlier types and “Strainer” for the later ones – were not used in this volume because they are not relevant for denominating the two components of the sets (LUNDOCK 2015, 15, 17). 598 See Annexe III.2.1. 599 PETROVSZKY 1993, 167, S.14, 302, 437, Taf. 26/S.14.01, 453, Taf. 42/S.14.01. 600 PETROVSZKY 1993, 40–41, Typ X, 2, Taf. 3/X, 2. 601 EGGERS 1951, 174–175, Beilage 68: “Bronzekelle mit Sieb, mit runderförmigem Grif und halbrundem Becken” (Typ 159–160), Taf. 13/159a. 602 PETROVSZKY 1993, Typ X, 3, Taf. 3/X, 3a-b. 603 PETROVSZKY 1993, 40, 55. 604 See type 1.1. 605 For the discovery contexts see PETROVSZKY 1993, 40–41 with the bibliography. 606 PETROVSZKY 1993, 40–41; DROBERJAR 1998, 35, Fig. 2 (the list and map of the main discoveries). 607 PETROVSZKY 1993, 167, 299–302. 593 594 95 two sets discovered in the fort at Haltern608, a dipper found in the Saône River in France609, and two handle fragments from grave III from the cemetery at Dobřichov-Pičhora (Kolín, he Czech Republic)610. All these are dated to the Augustan age and their volutes are marked in a similar fashion, by incised points and circles. Based on the comparable decoration with the abovementioned casseroles, of their distribution areas and shared technological details, the Petrovszky X, 2 straining sets and the Petrovszky III, 1–4 casseroles are considered the products of the same workshop active in northern Italy611. Judging from the discovery contexts, the production period spanned between the third decade of the 1st century BC and the beginning of the second decade of the 1st century AD612. Returning to the handle from Cuzdrioara, the production stamp present on it represents the only attestation of Staglius Aprod(). Because only a fragment of it was preserved, it cannot be determined with certainty if it comes from a strainer or from a dipper. As already mentioned when discussing the handle from the casserole with thin and concave walls also from Cuzdrioara (no. 2), it is not certain that the piece was discovered on the territory of Roman Dacia. From a functional viewpoint, the straining sets were most likely part of the services for preparing the wine613 and they were used for sifting the wine mixed with spices inside the casseroles. he strainers have a smaller diameter than the dippers and so they could be easily placed one within the other. After the wine mixed with spices was poured into the set, the strainer was lifted, leaving the sieved liquid inside the dipper, ready for serving614. III.2.2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with lat handles615 17. Buciumi: E 160 (Pl. XVIII/17) 1. Fort 1970, Barracks 4, southern half, depth: – 0.80 m; the fort with earthen enclosure, phase 1b; 2. MIAZ CC 235/70; 3. First part: L: 26 mm; Wmax: 44 mm; Whandle: 16.5 mm; h.: 1.8 mm; Wh: 6 g; Second part: L: 53 mm; Wmax: 27 mm; h.: 1.7 mm; Wh: 11 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, light green-grey, severe state of oxidation, deformed; 6. Cast, followed by pressing; 7. Two unmatching fragments are preserved: the beginning of the handle with a portion of the rim and the middle part with the two volutes, out of which one is fragmentary; the rim has a triangular proile and the handle has a trapezoidal proile, which points to the fact that this was a strainer, and not a dipper; 8. AD 114/115 – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 18. Gilău: E 160 (Pl. XVIII/18, LXIII/18) 1 Fort 1951, trench C, meters: 28–33, depth: -0.80 m, inside a curtain tower located on the southern side, in a demolition layer also containing a military diploma issued on the 21st of July, AD 164, the stone fort (Gilău III); 2. MNITR IN 7650; 3. L: 108 mm; Wmax: 27.3 mm; h: 1.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, partially preserved and uneven patina with green and brown spots; it exhibits reddish brown areas caused by the formation processes of the archaeological context (burnt layer); 6. Cast; 7. Handle from a strainer or dipper with rounded end; in the medial area, on the margins, one of the two stylized volutes is still preserved; 8. he end of the 2nd century AD – the irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD; 9. RUSU 1956, 696–697, no. 7, Fig. 5/7, 701. 19. Ilișua/Arcobadara: E 160 (Pl. XVIII/19, LXIII/19a-b) 1. Cristeștii Ciceului (Csicsókeresztúr), donated by Károly Torma; 2. MNITR 5793; MNITR v. 18972; 3. L: 87 mm; Wmax: 33 mm; h: 2 mm; Lbronze plate: 15 mm; Wbronze plate: 16 mm; hbronze plate: 0.5 mm; Dapprox. rivet head: 7 mm; PETROVSZKY 1993, 41, 300–301, S.13.06-S.13.09; MÜLLER 1997, 20–23, Abb. 13/49–50, 14/53, 15/54, 37–38, no. 49–50, 53–54. 609 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 76–77, no. 102, Pl. XXXVI/102; PETROVSZKY 1993, 300, S.13.05, Taf. 26/S.13.05. 610 PETROVSZKY 1993, 40–41, 301–302, S.13.11-S.13.12, Taf. 26/S.13.11-S.13.12 (with the old bibliography); DROBERJAR 1998, 35, no. 2, 37, Fig. 4/1a-b; DROBERJAR 1999, 128, 136, 311, Taf. 9/6–7. 611 RADNÓTI 1938, 71; KUNOW 1983, 27, 64; PETROVSZKY 1993, 40. 612 PETROVSZKY 1993, 40–41. 613 PETROVSZKY 1993, 41. 614 For a more detailed discussion regarding the function of the set see type 2.2. 615 See Annexe III.2.2. 608 96 Dattachment hole: 3 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, repaired, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots; 6. Cast; 7. Medial part of a handle from a strainer or dipper; it displays on the edges two stylized volutes; the piece was repaired by drilling holes at each end in order to attach the other part of the handle with the help of rivets and metal sheets; at one of the ends, on the backside, a rivet together with a piece of metal sheet are still preserved; the holes were drilled starting from the upper, visible side; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 60–62 (no. 4), 79, 86, Pl. 2/4, 9/4a-b. 20. Ilișua/Arcobadara: E 161 (Pl. XIX/20, LXIII/20a-b) 1. Fort 2009, retentura dextra, surface A, square 4, depth: -1.10 m, large earthen fort; 2. CMBN n. i.; 3. L: 53.5 mm; Wend: 38.5 mm; h: 2 mm; hrim: 5.6 mm; Wh: 45 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process; 6. Cast, pressed; 7. Strainer/dipper handle; a part of the handle continuing the rim, as well as a part of the rim are preserved; traces of pressing can be observed on the backside of the piece; the rim has a triangular proile; 8. Hadrian – the last decades of the 2nd century AD?; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 60–62 (no. 5), 79, 86, Pl. 2/5, 9/5a-b. 21. Moigrad/Porolissum: E 160 (Pl. XIX/21, LXIII/21a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 209/58; 3. L: 73.3 mm; Wmax: 37.4 mm; h: 2.1 mm; Wh: 25 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. he splayed end of a handle from a strainer or dipper, with trapezoidal cross-section; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 9, Pl. CCXXIX/10; ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423–424, Pl. II/3, 425–426, no. 5. 22. Moigrad/Porolissum: E 160 (Pl. XIX/22) 1. he fort on Pomet hill 1978, trench 12, meters: 12–18, depth: -1.40–1.60 m, in the area next to via principalis, in front of the porta principalis dextra, fort with earthen enclosure; 2. MIAZ CC 454/78; 3. L: 35.2 mm; Wmax: 33.3 mm; h: 1.2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Medial part of a handle from a strainer or dipper; on the edges it displays the two stylized volutes, marked with the help of two incisions; 8. he beginning of the 2nd century AD – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 23. Moigrad/Porolissum: E 160/161 (Pl. XIX/23, LXIV/23) 1. Military vicus, 4th of June – 10th of July 1908, OL sector, building OL 1; 2. MNITR I 9793; 3. Lmax: 201 mm; Lhandle: 166 mm; Wmax. handle: 45 mm; h: 3 mm; Dapprox. rim: 120 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, light green patina with brown spots; 6. Cast; 7. Handle and part of the rim from a dipper; the rim is triangular in cross-section; the handle is lat, with arched terminal, and its medial area displays two stylized volutes; the incisions which mark the two volutes appear on the backside of the handle and this detail proves that this is a dipper, and not a strainer; 8. -; 9. BUDAY 1909, 32, Fig. 3; GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 10, Pl. CCXXIX/11; ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423–424, Pl. II/4, 426, no. 6. 24. Moigrad/Porolissum: E 161 (Pl. XX/24, LXIV/24) 1. he fort on Pomet hill, via principalis, stray ind; 2. MIAZ CC 77/1980; 3. H: 27.6 mm; W: 44 mm; h: 0.7 mm; Wh: 3 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, deformed, uniform dark green patina; 6. Raised/ pressed, followed by perforation; 7. Fragment from the body of a strainer; it is lattened, the original curvature is no longer preserved; the lines formed by the perforations are randomly arranged and do not appear to be part of a decorative register; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 25. Moigrad/Porolissum: E 161 (Pl. XX/25, LXV/25) 1. Military vicus, stray ind near building N11, discovered by Claudiu Iov; 2. MIAZ, n. i.; 3. Lmax: 128 mm; Wmax: 109.4 mm; h: 0.6 mm; Wh: 20 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, deformed, uneven patina, green with brown spots, traces of soil; 6. Raised/pressed, pierced; 7. he base of a strainer; the piece is deformed, lattened, so its original shape is no longer preserved; the perforations, carelessly executed, form slightly irregular lines arranged in a radial fashion starting from the centre of the base which is marked by a single hole surrounded by a circle; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 26. Turda/Potaissa: E 160/161? (Pl. XXI/26) 1. Fort 1903, “Várhegy” (“Dealul Cetății”); 2. -; 3. L: 108 mm; Wterminals: 37–40 mm; Wmiddle: 17 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Fragmentary handle from a strainer or dipper with arched terminal; in the 97 middle part, on the edges, the two highly stylized volutes can be observed; 8. -; 9. BAJUSZ 2005, 498, 28/119/1. ábra; MUSTAȚĂ 2015b, 208–210, Fig. 2/5. 27. Turda/Potaissa: E 160/161 (Pl. XXI/27) 1. Unknown, Imre Botár Collection; 2. -; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast, raised/pressed; 7. Handle and upper part from a strainer or dipper; only the beginning of the wall together with the rim are preserved; Imre Botár’s lists mention that it is a strainer which is missing the perforated part; 8. -; 9. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, 393, 398, 404, no. 16, Fig. 8/42. Typologically, the straining sets with lat handles are framed in two distinct groups, known in the specialised literature as the Eggers 160 and 161616. he decision to treat them together was determined by the degree of fragmentation of the pieces and by the existence of some examples that represent an intermediate variant between the two types. A separate discussion would have only hindered their classiication and would have repeated some information. he strainers and dippers Eggers 160 (Petrovszky X, 6617) are direct descendants of the Eggers 159 type and are characterised by a rounded body, a splayed and slightly thickened rim, and a lat handle with lared terminal and arched margins that displays on the medial area a pair of highly stylised volutes, each marked by an incised line. From a technical point of view, we are dealing with vessels which were at irst cast in a raw form, then were raised or pressed on a possibly wooden model, and afterwards inished on the lathe618, and, in the case of the strainers, also pierced. Starting from the analysis of a considerable number of pieces found both within the Empire and in Barbaricum, R. Petrovszky determined the production period of the type as spanning between AD 35/40 – 140/160619. he type was generally distributed inside the Roman Empire, but also in Barbaricum620. Concerning the production centres, the hypothesis that this took place exclusively in workshops active in Gaul621 does not appear viable. Although all the names attested by production stamps are of Gaulish origin622 and the known examples from Vesuvian cities623 are also stamped with Gaulish names and in a provincial manner624 (reason for which some specialists took them for imports625), a production started in northern Italy and later continued in northern Gaul and in Lower Germany626 is much more probable, at least at the present state of research627. Beginning with the middle of the 2nd century AD the type will go through a formal change. he new sets belonging to the Eggers 161 type difer from the Eggers 160 by having a larger, cylindrical body, a horizontal rim with triangular section and a base which is no longer rounded, but lat. If for the specimens belonging to the Eggers 160 type a ratio of 2 to 1 between the length of the handle and the diameter of the vessel could be observed628, the new type is characterised by a smaller-sized handle which grows considerably wider and is shortened in the area of contact with the vessel’s body, has a much more splayed terminal, while the two stylised volutes from the medial area are more outward and their ends are not rounded anymore, but slightly rectangular. Generally, these vessels were worked in a much cruder manner, and the piercing method of the strainers also changed: the holes are larger and they are EGGERS 1951, 174–175, Beilage 68: “Bronzekelle mit Sieb, mit runderförmigem Grif und halbrundem Becken” (Typ 159–160), Beilage 69: “Bronzekelle mit Sieb, mit runderförmigem Grif und lachbodigem Becken” (Typ 161), Taf. 13/160–161. 617 PETROVSZKY 1993, 98–102, Taf. 3/X, 6. 618 PETROVSZKY 1993, 98; KOSTER 1997, 46. 619 PETROVSZKY 1993, 98–101. 620 In the year 1985, more than 220 specimens discovered in the central and northern European Barbaricum were known (WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 217, note 416). 621 KUNOW 1983, 64; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 218. 622 PETROVSZKY 1993, 98. 623 CARANDINI 1977, 167; TASSINARI 1993, II: 159, K2240. 624 PETROVSZKY 1993, 101. 625 CARANDINI 1977, 167; KUNOW 1983, 64. 626 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 20; FLÜGEL 1993, 67; KOSTER 1997, 48. 627 PETROVSZKY 1993, 101. 628 PETROVSZKY 1993, 98. 616 98 no longer grouped in the complex decorative registers seen on those belonging to the Petrovszky X, 2–6 types629. he sets start to make an appearance in archaeological contexts dated from the second half of the 2nd century AD and are very numerous in the metal hoards of the 3rd century AD, where they are usually associated with kitchen ware630. Based on these elements, their production is considered to have unfolded between the middle of the 2nd century and the middle of the 3rd century AD in workshops located in northern Gaul and in Lower Germany 631. From the middle of the 3rd century a new change can be noticed regarding the shape, mainly characterised by the transformation of the stylised volutes from the medial area into a wider, rhombic-shaped area, a feature characteristic for the late production of straining sets, which most probably continued throughout the 4th century as well632. he evolution of the shape from the Eggers 160 type to the Eggers 161633 is witnessed on a series of discoveries which mark this transitional phase and are known in the specialised literature as “the transitional type from Eggers 160 to Eggers 161” (“Übergangstyp zwischen Eggers 160 und 161”634). his type was irst deined by A. Radnóti and illustrated, among others, by the two dippers from the Ászár (Komárom-Esztergom, Hungary) hoard found together with a Petrovszky V, 4b casserole and a military diploma issued in AD 148635. he components of the set belonging to this type already exhibit a cylindrical body and a lat base, but the formal evolution of the handle is not yet completed: this starts to become shorter, but does not reach the dimensions of the Eggers 161 type, the part towards the rim is still not very wide and is longer, the stylised volutes are not totally separated from the handle, and the terminal is not extremely lared. his change undoubtedly took place in the provincial environment, most likely sometime between the ifth and sixth decades of the 2nd century AD. From Dacia Porolissensis, eleven pieces which can be assigned to the types Eggers 160–161 were identiied. Out of these, the fragments from Buciumi (no. 17, Pl. XVIII/17), Gilău (no. 18, Pl. XVIII/18, LXIII/18), Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 19, Pl. XVIII/19, LXIII/19a-b) and two from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 21, Pl. XIX/21, LXIII/21a-b; no. 22, Pl. XIX/22) belong to the Eggers 160 (Petrovszky X, 6) type. Only three of these pieces can be dated on the basis of their archaeological context: the one from Buciumi (2nd century AD), that from Gilău (terminus post quem: July 21st, AD 164), and one of the fragments from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 22: the beginning of the 2nd century AD). According to their formal features, the fragmentary dipper discovered in building OL 1 from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 23, Pl. XIX/23, LXIV/23), possibly the handle fragment from the fortress at Turda/Potaissa636 (no. 26, Pl. XXI/26) and the strainer/dipper from the Imre Botár Collection (no. 27, Pl. XXI/27) can be attributed to the intermediary type 160/161. he Eggers 161 comprises the handle fragment from Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 20, Pl. XIX/20, LXIII/20a-b) and, judging by the way the perforations were made, the two strainer fragments from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 24, Pl. XX/24, LXIV/24; no. 25, Pl. XX/25, LXV/25). he discoveries from Dacia Porolissensis are supplemented by a number of pieces found on various sites from the rest of Roman Dacia, namely a couple of dippers belonging to the Eggers 160 type found in the settlement at Cristești637 and in the metal hoard from Mărculeni638, an Eggers 160 strainer from See PETROVSZKY 1993, 101, Taf. 2/X, 2-X, 6, 3/X, 4a-c. RADNÓTI 1938, 78; WERNER 1938, 263; BERKE 1990, 26–27; BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 38; FLÜGEL 1993, 67; KÜNZL 1993a, 195–197; PETROVSZKY 1993, 101. 631 RADNÓTI 1938, 78–79; DEN BOESTERD 1956, 21–22, no. 58–59, Pl. III/58–59; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 218; FLÜGEL 1993, 67; KOSTER 1997, 48, no. 44; BIENERT 2007, 98. 632 RADNÓTI 1938, 80; DEN BOESTERD 1956, 22–23, no. 60–61, Pl. III/60; BIENERT 2007, 98. 633 For a synthetic overview of the main caractheristics displayed by Eggers 160 and 161 types see also: ŠPEHAR 2010, 428–433, Fig. 3–6. 634 FLÜGEL 1993, 67; SEDLMAYER 1999, 93. 635 RADNÓTI 1938, 54, 77, 79, Taf. XXII/5, XXV/1, 1a, 2; KUNOW 1983, 27; PETROVSZKY 1993, 75, 100, 215 (C. 06. 04). 636 he piece is hard to classify since it is known only from a drawing. he characteristics of the handle, provided they are drawn correctly, would also allow an assignment to the Eggers 161 type. 637 MAN 2011, 195, no. 3, Pl. CXLIV/3. 638 GLODARIU ET ALII 1970, 217–218, no. 93, 228–229, Fig. 32/7; BENEA 2008, 84, Fig. 8/2; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216, 225, Pl. III/1. 629 630 99 Tălișoara639, a handle terminal of the same type from Mehadia640, and a dipper/strainer discovered in the fort at Inlăceni641. he problems regarding the function of the straining sets were discussed at length in the specialised literature. On the basis of funerary discoveries that contain wine services from Barbaricum, but not exclusively642, it is generally considered that the Eggers 160 type together with the early variants (Eggers 159 and Eggers 159a) were part of the drinking set and were used, as mentioned before643, with the purpose of sieving the wine mixed with spices, or perhaps some other infused drinks644. his function is altered once the change towards the Eggers 161 type occurs; this is no longer part of the drinking set, but migrates towards kitchen vessels, being used either similarly to a modern frying pan, or for sifting the soup from the meat, or for diferent sauces645. he main points pleading for the use of the Eggers 161 type in the kitchen are raised by the lat base and short handle, the large diameter of the perforations on the strainers, which render them inappropriate for iltering drinks, and by the association of the type with kitchen ware in 3rd century AD metal deposits646. According to some of the scholars, there is much too little evidence for the use of the straining sets in the wine preparing process, opinions supported by the small number of sets discovered at Pompeii and by their absence from the silver drinking service featured in the tomb of Caius Vestorius Priscus647. Starting from these arguments and from the relatively low number of inds from Roman Britain, just as the evidence regarding wine consumption, H. E. M. Cool considers that the straining sets are typical for areas outside the Empire and were used for diferent kinds of infused beverages, maybe beer648. he poor illustration of the set at Pompeii can be linked to other factors as well, amongst which the most relevant appears the fact that the Eggers 159 and 159a were not produced in Campania. Concerning the Eggers 160, as previously stated, except for a potential start of production in northern Italy, we are dealing with provincial products poorly represented at Pompeii mainly because of the chronological interval. In the 6th–8th decades of the 1st century AD the provincial workshops were in their infancy and their products probably had diiculties in reaching the markets from the Italian Peninsula. he hypothesis that the components making up the set do not appear in large numbers in the provinces, although seemingly conirmed in Britain649, is not completely in agreement with the situation observed in the rest of the Empire650. he kitchen use was argued by B. Bienert651, who considers that starting with the Flavian period the set was no longer utilised for sieving drinks, but became a kitchen implement used for a wide range of ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 147, no. 220; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216, 225, Pl. III/2. ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 215, 224, Pl. II/4. 641 GUDEA 1979, 173, Pl. XXI-XXII; ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423–425, Pl. II/1, no. 3. 642 KUNOW 1983, 76–77, 79–80; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 217–218; KOSTER 1997, 46. 643 See type 2.1. 644 PETROVSZKY 1993, 101; SEDLMAYER 1999, 93; PETROVSZKY, BERNHARD 2016, 252. 645 BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 38; KOSTER 1997, 46; SEDLMAYER 1999, 93. 646 BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 38; FLÜGEL 1993, 67; PETROVSZKY 1993, 101. 647 COOL 2006, 143–144: the author considers that D. E. Strong’s reasoning according to which the wine would have been previously strained in the kitchen, employing bronze vessels (STRONG 1979, 144) does not hold true because too few sets were discovered at Pompeii. 648 COOL 2006, 144. 649 he Eggers 160 strainer and dipper sets are present in Britain (see EGGERS 1968). heir numbers are not as great compared with the casseroles, but the attempt to establish complete sets, as long as the material does not come from graves or hoards, based only on fragmentary inds from settlements, is bound to fail from the start, because their composition was inluenced by a wide range of factors in the course of time. A strainer/dipper will wear down much faster than a massively cast casserole. 650 See, for instance, the specimens found in Noricum: SEDLMAYER 1999, Taf. 35–40. H. E. M. Cool’s arguments are based on the information presented by A. Koster who does not claim, however, that the strainer and dipper sets appear mostly in Barbaricum, but only that they were discovered in wine sets that mainly originate from Germania Magna or from graves within the Empire that are related to certain indigenous traditions (KOSTER 1997, 46). As long as it was not customary for the Romans to use a sumptuous funerary inventory, the argument does not seem valid for claiming the limited use of the set inside the Empire. 651 BIENERT 2007. 639 640 100 purposes, such as mashing, straining sauces and miscellaneous foodstuf, sieving etc. 652. he case made by J. Kunow653 against the use of the Eggers 159–160 types in the kitchen seems to me relevant for this discussion. he rounded shape of the vessels’ body makes them inadequate for placing over the ire since they are unstable654. Furthermore, some were tinned on the inside655. he same instability rules out the use of the 1st century set for anything other than momentary operations; more complex operations which require the use of both hands would also need a second person to hold the vessels in a more vertical position, an unlikely circumstance considering its lack of practicality. he irst stable examples which will make their way into the Roman kitchens appear only after the middle of the 2nd century AD and belong to the Eggers 161 type. III.3. Spouted jugs he distinction between spouted jugs and jugs is a problem for all the specialists embarking on the study of recipients, no matter the era and the material of manufacture, because of the various criteria used in the specialised literature to discern between the two forms. With respect to the Roman metal vessels, especially in the German language archaeological literature, a convention for distinguishing them was reached: the vessels provided with a spout and potentially a stand are called spouted jugs (DE: “Kanne”)656, whereas those with rounded mouth are jugs (DE: “Krug”), irrespective of the possible roles the various types could have played. his solution seems reasonable and so it was applied in this volume. his distinction is based on clear morphological criteria, and not on presumed functions. With respect to the type of rim, two variants can be distinguished in the case of Roman bronze spouted jugs: trefoil (or sometimes bi-lobed) mouths and mouths provided with a narrow or prolonged spout. he bronze sheet spouted jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth are part of a separate type, and the terminology used to refer to them is tightly connected to technical characteristics that determine their function. Concerning the Latin terms employed to designate the form or the diferent types, as mentioned before in the subchapter regarding the Latin terminology657, a correct assignment is not possible. here are certain terms that exclusively relate to the function of speciic types of spouted jugs and these will be discussed when analysing those types. III.3.1. Spouted jugs with narrow mouth 28. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXI/28, LXV/28) 1. From the excavations of Károly Torma, somewhere between Ilișua de Jos and Cristeștii Ciceului (Csicsókeresztúr); discovered together with pottery, pieces of iron, bone and glass; 2. MNITR 3212; MNITR v. 18989; 3. H: 80 mm; Dneck: 44 mm; hrim: 6 mm; hwall: 2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, green with brown spots; 6. Cast; 7. he upper part of a jug with narrow mouth and spout; preserved are only the mouth with the spout, together with the narrow and long neck which lares towards the bottom; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 62–63 (no. 6), 79, 86, Pl. 2/6, 9/6. 29. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XXII/29, LXVI/29a, LXVII/29b-c) 1. Unknown; discovered in 1893, acquired from V. Nesserfeld in 1900; 2. MNITR I 476, MNITR v. 783; 3. Hmax.: 205 mm; Lspout 88 mm; Dneck: 40 mm; Dmax. body: 119 mm; hrim: 3.2–5.7 mm; Wh: 770 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, golden brown patina; 6. Cast in one piece; 7. Spouted jug with narrow mouth; the base and the handle are missing; the mouth is narrow and continues with a spout in the shape of a beak, which has a thickened edge and arches towards the neck; the neck is long, narrow and separated from the ovoid body by a moulded area delineated by parallel incisions; the maximum diameter is reached in the upper part of the body and the trace left by the lower end of the handle is still visible; in the inferior part, in the contact 652 653 654 655 656 657 BIENERT 2007, 98. KUNOW 1983. KUNOW 1983, 76. DEN BOESTERD 1956, 19–20, no. 53, Pl. III/53. See Annexe III.3.1–3.5. See subchapter I.3. 101 area with the base, traces of soldering can be seen, and also the middle mark left by the axis of the lathe; 8. -; 9. BĂRBULESCU 1994, 141–142, Pl. X/5; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 144, no. 207 (V. Rusu-Bolindeț); ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 218, 227, Pl. V/3. In Dacia Porolissensis, the spouted jugs with narrow mouth658 are represented by two pieces discovered at Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 28, Pl. XXI/28, LXV/28) and Turda/Potaissa (no. 29, Pl. XXII/29, LXVI/29a, LXVII/29b-c). he type is characterised by a narrow mouth which is continued by an arched, outwards projecting spout, a narrow neck, a signiicantly marked shoulder and an ovoid body with its maximum diameter located in the upper part. he vessel is provided with a stand and a high handle whose upper part is decorated with an animal resting its paws on the mouth of the vessel (horse, seahorse, panther, lion, sphinx etc.), while the lower part ends with a head or an anthropomorphic bust659. Both of the abovementioned pieces are assigned to the G type set (Canterbury) of the typology established by H. U. Nuber for the Roman handwashing sets, comprising a spouted jug and a bowl with tubular handle ending with a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome660. he author devises several variants for the spouted jug, which difer both from a technical, and from a formal point of view. he beginning of the production is placed in the middle of the 1st century AD, in Italian workshops. he spouted jugs produced here have their bodies cast together with the neck and rim, while the stand and handle were subsequently soldered661. Starting with the Flavian period and until the 2nd century AD, the type is also manufactured in Gaulish workshops. heir products are made either by later joining two separately cast pieces (the neck with the mouth and the body with the stand), or by casting the body in one piece, in both cases with the handle attached afterwards. he Gaulish variants can display a rounded shoulder and a bell-shaped stand or a pointed shoulder and a single step stand662. he sets executed from bronze sheet decorated by engraving are characteristic for a workshop active in the Danubian area of the Empire, most probably in Pannonia, which conducted its business between the end of the 2nd century AD and the beginning of the 3rd century663. he earliest set of this kind was discovered in tumulus I from Monreal (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany), dating from the early Flavian period664. he technical and formal features of the spouted jug from Turda/Potaissa allow its identiication as an Italic product. his is argued by the rounded shoulder (almost vertical in the contact area with the neck), the shape of the body and the fact that it was cast in one piece. he fragmentary jug from Ilișua/ Arcobadara cannot be speciically assigned to one of the mentioned variants because the preserved fragment is too small to allow any technical observation. Any details regarding the discovery context are missing for both pieces. Taking a look at the rest of Roman Dacia, the spouted jug discovered in the settlement at Cristești665 can also be regarded as an Italic product. A handle originating from a Canterbury type spouted jug was identiied in an inhumation grave already robbed in Antiquity from the Roman necropolis at Ciocadia (Bengești-Ciocadia, Gorj County)666. he upper part of the vessel is decorated with a panther resting its paws on the rim, while the inferior one presents a female head. he incised circle and point decoration enables its recognition as a Gaulish product. Another handle of the same type was found in the settlement at Gornea667. Most of the spouted jugs with narrow mouth produced by the Italic workshops were found in graves clustering in the Rhine area, in Pannonia, Moesia Inferior and in hrace668. As analogies for the spouted See Annexe III.3.1. NUBER 1973, 62. 660 NUBER 1973, 60–73; KUNOW 1983, 24, 62; HEYL 1996, 123–124, Abb. 5. 661 NUBER 1973, 60–61, Abb. 11/2, 72, 203–204, Liste G/VI. a; HEYL 1996, 134, 140. 662 NUBER 1973, 61, Abb. 12/1–2, 72, 204, Liste G/VI. b-c; HEYL 1996, 131–134, Abb. 13, 140; KOSTER 1997, 79, no. 105. 663 NUBER 1973, 69–70, Abb. 17, 204, Liste G/VI. d; RAEV 1978, 614. 664 NUBER 1973, 69, note 375, 214, no. 77; HEYL 1996, 134; KOSTER 1997, 79. 665 MAN 2011, 195, no. 5, 423, Pl. CXLV/5. 666 MARINOIU 2009, 80–81, 92. 667 BOZU 2008, 99–100, no. 310; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218. 668 See NUBER 1973, 203–204, Liste G/VI. a: the list of all the discoveries up to the year 1972. 658 659 102 jug from Turda/Potaissa, the complete specimens discovered in grave no.2 from Čatalka (Stara Zagora, Bulgaria)669, in the grave from Brezovo (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)670, at Kasâmovo (today Čintulovo, Sliven, Bulgaria)671, and at Malka Vereja (Stara Zagora, Bulgaria)672 can be recalled. In addition to these, there are also the funerary discoveries from Moesia Inferior, from Balčik (Dobrici, Bulgaria)673, Constanța (Constanța, Romania)674 and Mangalia (Constanța, Romania)675, as well as those from the territory of Pannonia, from Dunaújváros/Intercisa (Fejér, Hungary)676 and Vajta (Fejér, Hungary)677. he Canterbury type spouted jugs together with the bowls of the same type provided with tubular handle ending in zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protomes compose the handwashing set used in the profane milieu during meal time, but also in the sacred, prior to performing the sacriice678. III.3.2. Spouted jugs with trefoil mouth 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Pl. XXIII/30, LXVIII/30a-b, LXIX/30c-f, LXX/30g-h) 1. Victor Deleu Street, building C2, chamber b, second stone phase, under phase 1 (discovered together with nos. 34 and 85 from this volume); 2. MNITR v. 41315; 3. H: 114 mm; Hwith handle: 156 mm; Hhandle: 115 mm; Lrim: 106 mm; Wrim: 93.6 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; restored: the piece was discovered seriously damaged, the body being broken into small bits of metal; only the handle was integral; for its restoration, a wire mesh was made and covered with resin, onto which the pieces from the body of the vessel were ixed; the dark green patina which was removed during the restoration process is only partially visible on the handle; current colour: dark brown, bright green spots can be seen on the body, caused by the oxidation process which continued after the restoration; 6. Cast, probably in multiple pieces (the mouth with the neck, the body, the base, the handle – the technical details are no longer visible); 7. Jug with trefoil mouth, short, wide neck, bulbous body and lat base; the handle is curved and raised and its upper part ends in a lion’s head with open mouth, resting its front paws, highly stylized and ending in volutes, on the mouth of the vessel; the handle ends below in an attachment shaped like a lion’s paw; 8. he irst half of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. Roman bronze spouted jugs with trefoil mouth679 are part of the standard service of the Roman Imperial period, assigned by H. U. Nuber to the E type (Millingen)680. In the specialised literature, the discoveries belonging to this type were grouped as the Radnóti 72–73681, Eggers 125–126682, Den Boesterd 232–239683 and Petrovszky XIII, 1 types684. he pieces are characterised by a trefoil, highly splayed rim, a short neck and a usually spherical body. hey possess a high handle, often provided with a central groove, whose upper part is ending in a lion protome resting its front paws (most of the times extremely stylised, with their ends shaped like volutes) on the vessel’s rim. he inferior part of the handle NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 8, 217, no. 135; RAEV 1978, 632, 636, no. 16, Taf. 36/5. he grave is dated to the second half of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd century AD. 670 NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 9, 219, no. 160; RAEV 1978, 635, no. 9, Taf. 13/5. 671 RAEV 1978, 614, 637, no. 39, Taf. 25/1. 672 RAEV 1978, 614, 638, no. 47, Taf. 26/2. 673 NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 11, 219, no. 171; RAEV 1978, 633, 635, no. 4, Taf. 32/8. he grave is dated to the end of the 2nd – beginning of the 3rd century AD. 674 BUCOVALĂ 1968, 295–298, Fig. 19/a-b–21; NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 13, 220, no. 173. 675 NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 12, 220, no. 172; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 145, no. 212 (Z. Covacef ). 676 RADNÓTI 1938, 140, Taf. XLVIII/1; RADNÓTI 1957, 198–200, 222, no. 59; NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 6, 217, no. 128. 677 RADNÓTI 1938, 139–140, Taf. XLVII/2; FÜLEP 1949, 42, 28. tábla/2; NUBER 1973, 204, Liste G/VI. a. 7, 217, no. 135; BÁNKI 1972, 48–50, no. 33. 678 For a lengthier discussion regarding the function of the set in the context of the analysis of representations on votive monuments, see II. 2.2.2. 679 See Annexe III.3.2. 680 NUBER 1973, 45–54. 681 RADNÓTI 1938, 145–151, Taf. XIII/72–73. 682 EGGERS 1951, 171, Beilge 53: “Bronzekanne mit Kleeblattmündung und nach oben geschwungenem Henkel” (Typ 125–126), Taf. 11/125–126. 683 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 67–69, no. 232–239, Pl. X/233, 236. 684 PETROVSZKY 1993, 112–113, Taf. 4/XIII, 1. 669 103 can take the shape of a lion paw or can end in an anthropomorphic or zoomorphic representation, or a theatre mask685. From a formal point of view, the spouted jugs attributed to this type make up a rather heterogeneous group686. Considering the set was in use by the Claudian period687, it is highly probable for the production to have started already in the time of Tiberius and to have continued until the end of the 2nd century688 or the beginning/middle of the 3rd century AD689. If for the initial phase an early, taller variant illustrated by the jug from the grave at Hoby (Lolland, Denmark690) can be isolated, a more detailed classiication of the pieces produced after the middle of the 1st century AD is not possible at the moment because of the way most known examples were published691. he Millingen type jugs were probably manufactured at irst in Italic workshops, most likely from Campania, and the production was later continued in Gaul and possibly in other provincial milieus692. hroughout the 1st and the 2nd centuries AD the type was widely distributed inside the Empire as well as in Barbaricum693. In 3rd century discovery contexts they usually appear separately, and not paired inside the handwashing sets694. he only piece of this type known from Dacia Porolissensis is a spouted jug discovered at ClujNapoca/Napoca (no. 30, Pl. XXIII/30, LXVIII/30a-b, LXIX/30c-f, LXX/30g-h), dated based on its discovery context to the irst half of the 3rd century AD. he spouted jug surfaced in a fragmentary state, with the body broken in small bits. For its restoration, the body was completely reconstructed over a wire framework. his is why the formal characteristics currently displayed by the piece can slightly difer from its original shape. he same advanced state of degradation does not permit certain observations regarding the technological stages the jug went through. he only integrally preserved part is the handle, which exhibits signs of intensive/lengthy use. As to the rest of Roman Dacia, the Millingen type jug discovered during urbanistic works carried out at Zlatna/Ampelum695 and a handle terminal decorated with an anthropomorphic representation (maenad or young satyr) kept in a private collection from Alba Iulia/Apulum696 can be mentioned here. From a functional viewpoint, we are dealing again with components of the handwashing set697. It was presumed that the specimens found in isolation (and not paired in sets with bowls with tubular handle ending with zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome) also had an individual function, being employed as serving vessels; this refers especially to the inds from Free Germany, where the separately found spouted jugs outnumber the bowls698. A recent survey of the bronze vessels used for washing (hemispherical basins, bowls with tubular handle, spouted jugs of Millingen type), discovered in contexts outside of the Roman provinces Dacia and Moesia Inferior pleads for the same function of these NUBER 1973, 48–52; PETROVSZKY 1993, 112. PETROVSZKY 1993, 112. 687 For an overview of the main discovery contexts dated to the irst half of the 1st century AD, see NUBER 1973, 53; KUNOW 1983, 24. 688 PETROVSZKY 1993, 113; KOSTER 1997, 80–81, no. 107. 689 NUBER 1973, 54; KUNOW 1983, 24; HEYL 1996, 133–13; KOSTER 1997, 80–81, no. 107. 690 LUND HANSEN 1987, 51, 193, Fig. 129, 195–196. 691 PETROVSZKY 1993, 112; KOSTER 1997, 80–81, no. 107. 692 PETROVSZKY 1993, 113. he deinite establishment of the production centres is not possible for the same reasons recalled above when discussing the possibility of a more detailed classiication. See also: KUNOW 1983, 61–62. 693 NUBER 1973, 52–53, 195–199, Liste E/X-XI; PETROVSZKY 1993, 113; HEYL 1996, 129; KOSTER 1997, 80–81, no. 107. 694 NUBER 1973, 54; HEYL 1996, 134. 695 MOGA 1978; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 145, no. 213; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218, 228, Pl. VI/5. 696 NOVÁK 1944, 85, no. 11, 3/6. kép. he same kind of representation is seen on the handle terminals of the Millingen type spouted jugs discovered in grave no. 3 from Környe (Komárom-Esztergom, Hungary) (BÓNIS 1982, 121–124, no. 1, Abb. 3, 4/1–4) and in grave no. 3 from Wehringen (Bayern, Germany) (NUBER, RADNÓTI 1971, 46–47, Abb. 12). he handle terminal from Reșca/Romula, kept in the collections of the Museum of Romanați, Caracal, most likely originates from a spouted jug of the same type. (BONDOC, DINCĂ 2003, 30, no. 20). 697 See type 3.1. 698 PETROVSZKY 1993, 113; for the spouted jugs of the type discovered in Central European Barbaricum see KASPRZAK 2016, 326–328, Abb. 5. 685 686 104 types in barbarian contexts699. Concerning the realities from the Empire, an individual, diferent use is hard to conirm. At least at Pompeii, where their spatial distribution and the possible associations can be observed, the bronze spouted jugs with bi-lobed or trefoil mouth (grouped by S. Tassinari in the D1110-D2400 types) mostly appear as part of the handwashing service700. he discovery of such examples in Pompeian kitchens701 does not constitute a direct evidence for their use as serving recipients because, similar to the casseroles, they could have been stored in the kitchen or used there in a preliminary stage. III.3.3. Spouted jugs with elongated spout702 31. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXIV/31, LXXI/31a-c, LXXII/31d-g) 1. Unknown; stray ind made by Teodor Goron from Jac village; 2. MIAZ CC 163/67; 3. L: 106 mm; W: 17.5 mm; hmax: 17 mm; Lattachment: 30 mm; Wattachment: 31.4 mm; Wh: 98 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, golden dark brown patina with green spots, traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Fragmentary handle from a spouted jug; the part that would have enabled the attachment to the mouth of the vessel is missing; the handle is shaped like an animal and, based on the facial features, the slender body and the paws, it can be determined that this is a panther; it is represented in action, while hunting; with its front paws it holds the prey, most likely a stag, while biting it; its rear paws are resting on an attachment representing a human igure lanked by two volutes; beneath this representation, a small, partially broken palmetto can be distinguished; the lack of clear-cut outlines, caused by the poor quality of the mould in which it was cast rather than by an extensive use, hinders the identiication of the anthropomorphic igure, although, judging from the hairstyle, this is probably a female representation; the same poor quality mould is responsible for the supericial rendering of the panther’s features: its mouth and eyes were marked by incisions, its ears, front legs and muscles with supericial lines; despite this situation, the tail of the animal is represented in detail; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2011b. he panther-shaped handle from Moigrad/Porolissum703 (no. 31, Pl. XXIV/31, LXXI/31a-c, LXXII/31d-g) belongs to a type of Roman bronze spouted jug represented only by a small number of inds. It is deined by a globular or oval body, a narrow neck and a likewise narrow base, and the mouth is provided with a large-sized spout. he closest analogy for this vessel is a spouted jug with a nearly identical handle discovered in 1952 at Nijmegen-Grote Mark, he Netherlands, inside a funerary cist made from limestone or volcanic tuf 704. he inventory of the grave also included a hemispherical bronze basin705, a bronze lamp, an iron strigil, a bronze spatula, two ceramic vessels and a Mosel ware beaker, a cosmetic slate plate and glass toiletry vessels706. On the basis of the presence of Mosel pottery, the grave was dated to around AD 200707 or to the end of the 2nd – beginning of the 3rd century AD708. he spouted jug to which the panther-shaped handle was attached has a height of 156 mm (164 mm together with the handle), a large-sized, elongated and open spout, a narrow neck marked at the base with a moulding (a detail that might indicate the contact area between the metal part from which the body was made and the one comprising the neck and rim709), and a slightly concave base, marked with concentric circles. POPA 2016. TASSINARI 1993, I: 232, II: 63–69, D1110-D2400. 701 KUNOW 1983, 73. 702 See Annexe III.3.3. 703 For an individual publication of this analysis, see MUSTAȚĂ 2011b. 704 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 71–72, nro 259, Pl. XI/259: mentions that the cist is fashioned from limestone; GERHARTL-WITTEVEEN, KOSTER 1992, 15–19, 41, no 86: the same cist is considered to be made from tuf. 705 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 54, no. 185, Pl. VIII/185. 706 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 72. 707 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 72. 708 GERHARTL-WITTEVEEN, KOSTER 1992, 41, no. 86. 709 he two above mentioned publications do not specify if the vessel was executed from a single piece of metal or from several (DEN BOESTERD 1956; GERHARTL-WITTEVEEN, KOSTER 1992). Without personally analysing the vessel, no conclusion can be reached on this matter judging by the presence of the moulding alone. 699 700 105 he discovery and publication of the Nijmegen spouted jug shed some light on a subject that has caused a series of controversies in the specialised literature, namely the typological and chronological framing of two bronze spouted jugs discovered at Lenzburg (Aargau, Switzerland)710. he vessels surfaced in 1870 in the course of some construction works carried out in an area where traces of Roman habitation had been identiied711. hey present relatively many resemblances to the Nijmegen vessel, but some diferences can also be observed: the spouts are rounded and nearly closed, the vessels’ body is more elongated and the shoulder is more marked, while the panthers forming the handles are high quality representations. he anatomical details are rendered in detail, the panthers stand with their front paws on the vessel’s mouth and there is no attachment on the inferior part; the handle is connected to the vessel body through the rear paws of the animal. Furthermore, they are not represented while hunting712. After the discovery, the Roman nature of the pieces was questioned by a number of specialists. he irst who disregarded the vessels as Roman was P. Jacobsthal. Considering the customary deposition of pairs of objects in La Tène period graves, the similarities between the Lenzburg jugs and the metal jugs speciic for this period, termed “Schnabelkannen” or “Röhrenkannen” in the specialised literature, together with the identiication of the panthers as products of a Greek workshop chronologically placed in the 4th century BC, the author concluded that the Lenzburg vessels represent one of the irst types of purely Celtic metal vessels which were produced by Greek craftsmen for the Celts, sometime during the 4th century BC713. P. Jacobsthal’s study determined the recognition of another piece, discovered at Naix-aux-Forges (Lorraine, France) without further information regarding the discovery context and kept in the Museum from Metz, as a type of Celtic product realised by Greek craftsmen714. he vessel from Naix-aux-Forges is missing its handle, its body is more globular then the two Lenzburg jugs, while its spout is open, similar to that displayed by the Nijmegen jug715. Once the vessel from Nijmegen-Grote Markt was brought into discussion and published716, it radically changed the specialists’ view on this type of recipient. he Nijmegen vessel was discovered in a Roman context and it exhibits elements that are typical for Roman bronze vessels. hese issues determined W. Dehn to reconsider the entire case of the type. He reached the conclusion that, despite the slight diferences between the pieces, the four jugs in question (Lenzburg, Naix-aux-Forges and Nijmegen) belong to the same type of Roman bronze vessels which was in production for a relatively brief interval, most probably during the Middle Imperial period, in a Gaulish workshop717. he identiication of the vessels as Roman products is conirmed by other aspects as well. Firstly, the type also makes an appearance at Pompeii. he monograph dedicated to the analysis of the bronze vessels from this site includes two such spouted jugs with handles decorated with vegetal elements718. Another group of spouted jugs provided with long spout, this time with handles taking the shape of anthropomorphic representations, is again attested at Pompeii and in the Vesuvian area by two objects, both provided with handles shaped like a satyr: one of the vessels has a globular body and is mentioned in the publications of the Real Museo Borbonico719, while the other, with a more elongated body, is kept in the collections of the National Archaeological Museum in Naples and was published from a replica made for the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago720. For the latter, there is a good analogy coming from the auxI wish to express my gratitude towards Dr. phil. Joachim Gorecki from the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, who acquainted me with the case of the spouted jugs associated with the Lenzburg type. 711 JACOBSTHAL 1935, 130. 712 JACOBSTHAL 1935, Taf. 10/1–3; DEHN 1964, Pl. X/1–2. 713 JACOBSTHAL 1935, 130–131; DEHN 1964, 73. 714 DRACK 1955. 715 DRACK 1955, Abb. 1/a-b; DEHN 1964, Taf. 11/1. 716 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 71–72, no. 259, Pl. XI/259. 717 DEHN 1964 with the complete reasoning: the author focuses on the similarity between the four vessels, on the technical aspects, and on the fact that the large-sized spouts are not only typical for the “Schnabelkannen” and the “Röhrenkannen”, but also for certain types of Roman vessels. 718 TASSINARI 1993, 43, 185, no. 21, 39, Tav. CLVIII/1–2, E/E1000: “brocche con becco a canale”, no.: 13369 and 13422. 719 See MICHELI 1990, 106, Fig. 54. 720 TARBELL 1909, 128, no.: 171, Pl. LXXXVII/171. 710 106 iliary fort at Niederberg (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany), where a spouted jug of this type surfaced and was dated to the 1st century AD721. Even though the Niederberg spouted jug has a more elongated body, both pieces present the same handle in the form of a satyr leaning his hands against the mouth of the recipient. Grave no. 1 from Smočan (Loveč, Bulgaria), dated by B. Raev722 to the middle of the 2nd century AD based on the presence of a bronze sheet jug with the handle cast in one with the mouth and of a grooved, bell-shaped bucket, yielded a spouted jug morphologically similar to the Nijmegen specimen. However, the former has a high handle with decorated surface whose inferior part is ending in an attachment representing a human face723. Another spouted jug of this type, with ovoid body made from a single piece of metal and a high handle decorated in relief and ending in an attachment with a female representation, was discovered in a well from the municipal forum of Tarragona/Tarraco (Tarragona, Spain)724. A spouted jug with large-sized spout and globular body from Cristian (Brașov, Romania) lacking any information regarding its discovery context can also be added to this list. he piece was regarded as a Roman import into the Dacian environment, prior to the Roman conquest. According to the information disclosed at the moment of publication, the anthropomorphic handle had been lost sometime after the discovery, but its characteristics were preserved thanks to a gypsum copy made before725. he considerable number of such pieces, the large area over which they are encountered, their variety, the common features and good parallels established between them are all factors that rule out the possibility that examples belonging to a much older type still remained in use. he spout and the panther-shaped or zoomorphic handle are typical elements for several types of Roman bronze vessels. From this point of view, the most relevant example is represented by the spouted jugs included in the Canterbury type handwashing sets726 which display a small-sized spout and a panther-shaped handle. In this instance, the features of the animal are stylised and only the head and the front paws display some details. he same type of representation, illustrating a lion leaning its head and front paws against the vessel’s rim, while its rear legs compose the attachment from the inferior part of the handle, is common to the trefoil mouth jugs of the Millingen type727. A panther-shaped jug handle, undoubtedly a Roman product, can be seen in the collections of the Museum in Wiesbaden (Hessen, Germany)728, while a jug with a handle similar to the Wiesbaden piece was published in the catalogue of Roman bronzes from Bayern and is part of the collection of the Städtischen Kunstsammlungen Augsburg, Römisches Museum729. Returning to the pieces from Moigrad/Porolissum and Nijmegen, the resemblance between them is obvious, as well as the diferences between them and the Lenzburg spouted jugs. he most important DOPPELFELD 1967, 234, no.: 154, Taf. 82; JOST 2007, 50, Abb. 2. RAEV 1978, 633, 639, no. 68/1, Taf. 36/1–6, 37/1–2. he grave contained a series of shapes typical for the irst half of the 1st century AD. For this reason, B. A. Raev believes that, unless some mistakes were made at the moment of the excavation, the possibility of a later reburial in the same spot (“Nachbestattung”) can also be taken into account, besides the prospect of some older vessel shapes still remaining in use (RAEV 1978, 633, note 160). 723 RAEV 1978, Taf. 36/5–5a. 724 AZNAR ET ALII 1990, 290, no. 240; ROIG 2003, 98–100, Fig. 13a-d: the well contained another similar vessel without handle (ROIG 2003, 100, Fig. 14a-b). 725 See GLODARIU 1974, 237, no.: 13, Pl. XLV/B13. he author claims that the original piece is kept in the Museum in Brașov, registered under the inventory no. 2969, while the copy is found at the Museum in Sibiu (inventory no. A 6128); GLODARIU 1976, 197, no.: 13, Pl. 52/B13: for the piece from the Museum in Brașov the following inventory number is given: 1969; COSTEA 1995, 105, Fig./Abb. 29; COSTEA 2004, 104: mentions that the original piece is found in the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu, without indicating any inventory number. Cataloguing this vessel as a Roman import into the Dacian environment prior to the conquest should be made with reservations, as long as the circumstances of discovery remain unknown. As noted, such spouted jugs existed in Pompeii and this indicates their use during the last quarter of the 1st century AD. Furthermore, Cristian lies very close to the limes and to the Roman fort at Râșnov. hus, the possibility that the vessel reached Dacia after the conquest should not be dismissed. 726 NUBER 1973, 60–73; see also, e.g.: DEN BOESTERD 1956, 65, no.: 225, 226, Pl. X/225–226. 727 NUBER 1973, 45–54. 728 Information kindly provided by dr. Joachim Gorecki. he handle is registered under the inventory number 135 6682 and its place of discovery is unknown. 729 MENZEL 1969, 40, no. 77, Taf. 20/1. 721 722 107 distinguishing elements are represented by their composition and production technology. he Nijmegen and Moigrad panthers were illustrated while hunting, at the moment when they are killing their prey. Both were cast in poor quality moulds, fact which allows some comments. he muscles of the Moigrad panther are better marked and this could point to a higher quality mould than that used for the Nijmegen handle. Another characteristic of these pieces is the presence of the attachment from the inferior part of the handle. Except for this pair of objects, only another somewhat similar case was identiied: a bronze vessel handle shaped like a ram, with a leaf-shaped attachment in the inferior part, was discovered at Rheinzabern, in an area located westwards from the Roman road, in which the settlement expanded in the course of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD730. Without more detailed information concerning the discovery contexts and lacking the possibility of directly examining the pieces, it is hard to determine whether or not all of the discussed spouted jugs belong to a compact group. Nevertheless, some observations, which remain to be conirmed or disproved by future discoveries, can be made. he couple of spouted jugs from Lenzburg (height: 16.5 cm) and the one from Naix-aux-Forges (height: 13.5 cm) could make up a distinct group, individualised by a globular body with marked shoulder and a closed spout. In the contact area between the neck and the body of the vessel one can note a groove which could theoretically signal the area where the components were joined731. he jugs from Pompeii and the specimen from Tarragona have an ovoid body, most probably made from a single piece of metal, which does not exhibit a moulding at the base of the neck. he example form Tarragona is larger in size and possesses a relief-decorated handle. However, considering the way this was attached to the body of the vessel, the possibility that the original was replaced since Antiquity with a handle taken from another type of bronze vessel cannot be excluded. he jugs from Nijmegen, Niederberg, Smočan, and possibly also the one from Cristian732, as well as the ones from the publications of the Real Museo Borbonico and from the National Museum of Archaeology in Naples all have in common the presence of the moulding at the base of the neck and the open spout. Except for the Niederberg piece, which presents an oval body and a base with small diameter, the others have a globular body, similar in outline. he spouted jugs from Pompeii and the one from the fort at Niederberg prove that this type was produced and used during the 1st century AD. he vessel from Smočan does not disclose clear information regarding the production interval of the type, but rather the period in which it was used, because the grave also contained pieces of a later date. he same statement is also valid in the case of the spouted jug from the Nijmegen grave. However, considering the handle from Rheinzabern as well, four of the specimens were in use during the 2nd century AD (Moigrad/Porolissum, Nijmegen, Rheinzabern and Smočan). An initial production of the type, started in the 1st century AD in Campania, and afterwards continued in the western provinces, possibly in Gaul, until the middle of the 2nd century at the latest can be presumed in this case. A clue for this might be the alteration, at a certain point, of the handles’ morphology: compared to the zoomorphic and anthropomorphic representations of very high artistic execution (Lenzburg, Niederberg, Pompeii, the Vesuvian area), the handles from Moigrad, Nijmegen and Rheinzabern are shaped like animals whose features are schematically rendered, and, as distinctive element, an attachment appears at its inferior part. he spouted jug from Nijmegen and the one to which the handle from Moigrad/Porolissum belonged were certainly produced by the same workshop, using very likely the same series of moulds. If in the case of the handle from Moigrad it can be presumed that responsible for the poor rendering of some anatomic details can also be the extensive use that determined an uneven wear (e.g. the tail is executed in detail, in contrast with the features of the human face from the lower attachment), the poor quality of the Nijmegen handle can hardly also be justiied by the use, because otherwise the vessel would have been sustained more damage in the irst place. his is why the hypothesis that this type of handles was produced employing a common series of moulds, namely archetypes, which became deteriorated over time cannot be dismissed. STUPPERICH, THOMAS 2003, 65, no. 121, Taf. 17/121. Without directly examining the pieces it is not possible to state whether they were executed from multiple parts, or just from one. 732 he illustration of the vessel is of poor quality and does not allow a detailed examination. 730 731 108 Still, when overlapping the outlines of the two handles (Fig. 18), one can notice diferences that do not support the hypothesis that the same mould was used. If the weak quality of the Nijmegen handle can be indeed blamed on the poor quality of the mould, then we are dealing with a less ordinary circumstance with respect to the technological process. he customary method, namely the use of a prototype or a wax model, could have been replaced by imprinting the mould with a inished product, process which, employed over and over again, would explain the lack of details exhibited by the Nijmegen handle. he only archaeological circumstances that can ofer an indication regarding the function of the type are the graves from Nijmegen and Smočan. At Nijmegen, the funerary inventory points to the presence of a toilet set. Considering the similarity between the jugs in question and those which comprise the previously discussed Moigrad/Porolissum handwashing sets, it can be presumed that they were used, at least Nijmegen in the beginning, for handwashing during meal time or as part of Fig. 18. The superimposition of the toilet sets. he association of the jug from the Nijmegen grave with outlines of the handles from Moigrad/ a small-sized hemispherical basin conirms this function, the two Porolissum and Nijmegen-Grote Markt. pieces making up a washing set. For the Smočan spouted jug very likely the same function can be assumed, supported by the presence of a large number of bronze vessels in the grave, vessels used for washing during the meal or as toiletry. III.3.4. Bronze sheet spouted jugs with separately cast handle 32. Buciumi (Pl. XXIV/32, LXXIII/32) 1. Fort 1970, Barracks 5, depth: -1.20 m; fort with earthen enclosure, phase 1a; 2. MIAZ CC 489/73; 3. L: 50 mm; W: 48.1 mm; h: 3 mm; H: 22 mm; Ldolphin: 26 mm; Wdolphin: 8 mm; Wh: 39 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Unrestored, fragmentary, uneven patina; the piece is in a heavily oxidized state; 6. Cast in two pieces subsequently attached by piercing the base plate and inserting a rod placed on the inferior part of the zoomorphic representation; 7. Leaf-shaped, lat lid; the oriice for holding the hinge is partially broken; the rod used for lifting the lid is in the form of a dolphin with the rear part of the body upwards; 8. AD 106/107–114/115; 9. Unpublished. 33. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXIV/33, LXXIII/33) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 193/58; 3. L: 80.6 mm; h: 4.8 mm; Wattachment: 44 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed at the moment of restoration, when the piece was covered with a green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. he inferior part of handle belonging to a spouted jug; it displays a medial rib and its inferior part terminates with an attachment which enabled its binding to the vessel’s body; the attachment is shaped like a palmetto consisting of nine lobes; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the attachment; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 2, Pl. CCXXX/2. he lid discovered in the fort at Buciumi (no. 32, Pl. XXIV/32, LXXIII/32), dated on the basis of the archaeological context to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, as well as the handle fragment found at Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 33, Pl. XXIV/33, LXXIII/33), originate from a type of vessel known in the specialised literature as the bronze sheet spouted jug with separately cast handle733, ascribed by some specialists to the so-called “Pompeji”/“Pompeii” type734. his is a vessel made from bronze sheet by See Annexe III.3.4. FLÜGEL 1993, 76–79; KOSTER 1997, 30. he recipients generally assigned by specialists to the “Pompeji”/“Pompeii” type can be grouped in two categories distinguished by the presence or absence of a lid and by the degree of curvature exhibited by the upper part of the handle. For a irst clear distinction between the discoveries at Pompeii and the “Pompeji”/“Pompeii” type which, in fact, represent an imitation “du prototype italique”, or “prototype gaulois”, deined by K. Szabó (SZABÓ 1994) and which will lie at the base of the evolution of the provincial variants classiied by M. Bolla in types I and II (BOLLA 1979; BOLLA 1989), see SEDLAMYER 1999, 29–30. See also: RAEV 1977 who argues for the 733 734 109 “raising” and cold hammering735, has a trefoil mouth, a narrow and cylindrical neck, a strongly dished, lattened, or in some cases biconical body and a base with a diameter much smaller than the maximum diameter of the body. he body and neck exhibit traces of the lathe inishing process. he body is joined by a high handle, massively cast, strongly curved in the upper part and decorated with vegetal motifs on the lower attachment. he elevated part of the handle is provided with a small thumb support and, in some cases, with a hinge which enabled the lid to be fastened. On some of the preserved examples one can observe that wire or a few pieces of bronze sheet were employed in order to better attach the handle to the mouth of the vessel, the latter being pierced for this purpose736. he lids take the shape of stylised leaves with rounded edges and have a dolphin-shaped lifting rod ixed to the lat part of the lid with the help of a rivet, or, in rare cases, by soldering. here are numerous analogies for the lid from Buciumi737. Spouted jugs with handle ending in a palmetto, similar to the one from Moigrad/Porolissum, are known from Pompeii738. To these a handle discovered in grave no. 81 from the Nijmegen necropolis, dated before the end of the 1st century AD739 can be added, as well as the end of a handle found in a villa rustica located on the territory of the city of Aquincum, the building of this structure taking place after the Marcommanic wars740. Spouted jugs of this type are spread in northern Italy, in Upper and Lower Germany, in Raetia and in hrace741. heir distribution in the provincial environment was connected to the troop movements of the 1st century AD. his hypothesis is supported by the large number of discoveries coming from forts and the actual type, similar to later provincial variants, is thought of as a military type742. Most of the discoveries originate from Pompeii and were grouped by S. Tassinari in the E5000 type, in turns divided into several sub-variants743. he production of these spouted jugs started in the Claudian period and went on during the second half of the 1st century AD, reaching its height during the early Flavian period744. he large number of inds from Pompeii proves that they were still in production at the moment of the catastrophe. he type was manufactured in Italy and the workshops were most likely located in Campania. he idea that the type was made in the workshop at Porta Vesuvio, Pompeii745, identiied as such by B. Gralfs746, is hardly probable because, even if such a workshop existed at that spot, there is no direct indication for the production of bronze vessels. he group of vessels discovered here is not necessarily a coherent one from a typological point of view747 and from the data preserved to date it does not result without doubt that Tassinari E5000 jugs were uncovered748. evolution of the provincial Bolla I and II types from the Italic prototype, locating the irst provincial workshops in hrace. M. Bolla considers that such a model can only be viable for type II (BOLLA 1979, 40–41). 735 CASSANI 2002, 511. 736 See the examples from Pompeii: TASSINARI 1993, II: 77, no. 6518, 80, no. 2742, 18783, 81, no. 7168, 82, no. 2655, 84, no. 2513, 13216, 85, no. 14124, 11170, 86, no. 12977, 7183. 737 Listing all the known lids of this type would not serve the purpose of this paper. For complete vessels with such lids see the examples from Pompeii (TASSINARI 1993, II: 79, no. 18782, 80, no. 18786, 88, no. 3227). Concerning isolated lid inds, those from Nijmegen can be mentioned (KOSTER 1997, 36, no. 14–18), Vindonissa (HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, 17–19, Taf. 12/96–103), Kempten/Cambodunum (FLÜGEL 1993, 78–79, no. 68, 74–80, Taf. 29/68, 74–80), Ptuj (BREŠČAK 1982, 57, nos. 129–139, T. 14/129–139). See SEDLMAYER 1999, 27–28, note 152, Karte 5 for a list of the main discoveries and the bibliography. 738 TASSINARI 1993, II: 80, no. 8405, 84, no. 14061, 86, no. 12944, 88, no. 3151. 739 KOSTER 1997, 37–38, no. 22. 740 ZSIDI 1991, 150, no. 82.10.192, 159, 175, 20. kép/99; HÁRSHEGYI, VÁMOS 2009, 160, no. 978. 741 SEDLMAYER 1999, 27–28, note 152, Karte 5 (distribution map of the Tassinari E5000 type with the main discoveries known up to 1999). 742 BOLLA 1979, 39–40, note 46; FLÜGEL 1993, 78; KOSTER 1997, 30. See, for instance, the situation from the legionary fortress at Vindonissa (HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, 17–19, Taf. 12/96–103). 743 TASSINARI 1993, I: 45–46, II: 77–88, E5110-E5400. 744 FLÜGEL 1993, 78; KOSTER 1997, 30. 745 KOSTER 1997, 30. 746 GRALFS 1988, 12–48; TASSINARI 1993, I: 223, II: 510–511. 747 For a critical analysis of the situation at Porta Vesuvio, see GORECKI 2000, 463. 748 A. Koster assumes that the Tassinari E5000 spouted jugs were made in this workshop on the basis of the information ofered by B. Gralfs. In the inventory from Porta Vesuvio, B. Gralfs includes, judging from the data available at the moment 110 he bronze sheet spouted jugs were used for heating water. his function is argued by the technical characteristics of the items (the thin body made from bronze sheet which enables the rapid heating of the contained liquid, contrary to the massively cast handle that allows the vessel to be taken of the ire, while the presence of the lid also contributes to the quick heating), as well as by the traces of limescale seen on the inside and of sooting on the outside749. Another point that pleads for the use of the Italic version over the ire is the fact that the handle is ixed to the mouth with wire, since the alloy used for soldering could not have endured high temperatures and would have caused it to become detached750. Precisely because of this function, these jugs were not used in a single context. Warm water was needed both for wine preparing, and for toiletry purposes, whereas in the military environment the vessels were most frequently used for boiling the water needed to prepare food. he 94 specimens identiied at Pompeii751 appeared in association with kitchen ware, with washing sets or with table ware, depending on the way the boiled water was utilised752. Also based on discoveries from Pompeii, this time found near wells, it was presumed that they also served for storing or transporting water753; this hypothesis cannot be ruled out completely because many of the jugs belonging to the early type were not equipped with the hinge intended for ixing a lid754. III.3.5. Bronze sheet spouted jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth 34. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Pl. XXV/34, LXXIII/34a-b) 1. Victor Deleu Street, building C2, Trench b, second stone phase, under phase 1 (discovered together with nos. 30 and 85 from this volume); 2. MNITR v. 47737; 3. Happrox: 75 mm; hhandle: 8 mm; Wattachment: 47.4 mm; hmax. : 9 mm; Wh: 102 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, dark brown patina; 6. Cast; 7. he end attachment of a handle belonging to a spouted jug, round in cross-section; the attachment is leaf-shaped and displays two circular perforations; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. he irst half of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 35. Gherla (Pl. XXV/35, LXXIV/35) 1. Unknown, in the area of the fort; 2. MNITR v. 44976; 3. L: 153 mm; Dhandle: 7.6 mm; Wattachment: 41.6 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, broken in two parts subsequently pieced together, patina removed during the restoration process; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Spouted jug handle arched in the shape of an S; the upper part and the mouth of the vessel are no longer preserved; the highest point exhibits a thumb support; the inferior part ends with an leaf-shaped attachment with incised decoration which displays three circular perforations; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. GĂZDAC 1995, 401–402, 410, no. 1, 418, Fig. 1/1. 36. Gherla (Pl. XXV/36, LXXVI/36) 1. Unknown, in the area of the fort; 2. MNITR v. 44980; 3. L: 33 mm; W: 22 mm; h: 5.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed in the course of the restoration process; 6. Cast, incised; 7. he inferior part of a spouted jug handle shaped like a leaf decorated by incision; 8. -; 9. GĂZDAC 1995, 402, 410, no. 2, 419, Fig. 2/2. 37. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXVI/37, LXXIV/37a-b) 1. Discovered together with other 19 bronze objects in Moigrad, on Pomet hill, by the local Gheorghe Tamba of publication, six vessels named lagene (GRALFS 1988, 162, no. 51–56), but states that she was not able to identify them. In her monograph dedicated to the Roman bronze vessels from Pompeii, S. Tassinari includes a number of 27 from the total of 44 bronze vessels discovered at Porta Vesuvio, with the note that the rest could not be identiied (in Notizie degli Scavi the six lagene are mentioned, but lack any kind of description) (TASSINARI 1993, I: 192–193). Of the 27 vessels, none belongs to the E5000 type and there is no argument in favour of identifying the six lagene with spouted jugs belonging to the type. 749 GORECKI 1994, 181–182; KOSTER 1997, 30; GORECKI 2006, 112. 750 SEDLMAYER 1999, 30. 751 TASSINARI 1996, 113. 752 TASSINARI 1993, I: 232. 753 SEDLMAYER 1999, 30. 754 TASSINARI 1993, I: 45–46, II: 77–88, E5120-E5400; SEDLMAYER 1999, 29, note 164. 111 during agricultural works; 2. MIAZ CC 16, 18/1957; 3. H: 84.2 mm; Wmax: 63 mm; h: 9.2–11.3 mm; Lhinge: 13.6 mm; Whinge: 11.3 mm; Wh: 95 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. Upper part of a spouted jug handle, oval in cross-section; at the end it displays the thumb support; part of the mouth cast together with the handle is still preserved, as well as the ixed part of the hinge and the rod for securing the lid; under the rim, the piece continues with a perforated rod used for inserting a metal wire which allowed a supplementary joining of the vessel’s body to the handle; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 692, no. 9, PL. CCXXX/9. 38. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXVI/38, LXXIV/38a-b) 1. Unknown, donated by Nicolae Pătru Popescu; 2. MNITR IN 21515; MNITR v. 19676; 3. L: 55 mm; Wmax: 33 mm; Dhandle: 6 mm; hattachment: 3 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, dark grey patina with green spots; 6. Cast, incised; 7. he inferior part of a spouted jug handle, round in cross-section; the attachment is leafshaped and decorated with oblique and wavy incisions; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 730, no. 7, Pl. CCL/7. he bronze sheet jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth755 represent a later version, developed in the Roman provincial milieu, of the previously discussed Italic type756 and they correspond to the Eggers 128 type757. In her analysis dedicated to the provincial bronze sheet spouted jugs, M. Bolla758 distributed the known pieces in two large groups, each comprising multiple variants. he main criterion of separation between the two categories consists in the way the handle was executed. hus, group I759 includes those spouted jugs whose handle was cast in one with the rim, whereas group II760 those with bronze sheet mouth and separately cast handle. he variants within each of the groups are diferentiated by the shape of the body. he material under analysis from Dacia Porolissensis includes a number of ive handle fragments which come from bronze sheet spouted jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth (Bolla I). he pieces were found at Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (no. 34, Pl. XXV/34, LXXIII/34a-b), Gherla (no. 35, Pl. XXV/35, LXXIV/35; no. 36, Pl. XXV/36, LXXVI/36) and Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 37, Pl. XXVI/37, LXXIV/37a-b; no. 38, Pl. XXVI/38, LXXIV/38a-b). From these, only the fragment from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca can be dated on the basis of its discovery context to the irst half of the 3rd century AD. he high degree of fragmentation does not allow the pieces to be classiied according to the variants of group I established by M. Bolla because, as mentioned before, for such identiication the shape of the body is required. he attempt to classify the handles from these spouted jugs according to the decoration presented by the attachment located at the inferior part of the handle761 proved to be invalid due to the fact that the same manner of decoration is exhibited by diferent variants of the type762. Leaf-shaped attachments with incised vegetal decoration, presenting two or three holes, are characteristic both for the Bolla Ib type763 and for the Bolla Ie764. he handles See Annexe III.3.5. See note 734. 757 EGGERS 1951, 171, Beilage 54: “Gallo-römische Bronzekannen vom Typus Överbo” (Typ 128), Taf. 11/128–128a. 758 BOLLA 1979; BOLLA 1989. 759 BOLLA 1979, 25–33, Tav. V/Gruppo I. 760 BOLLA 1979, 33–39, Tav. V/Gruppo II. 761 SZABÓ 1979. 762 KÜNZL 1993a, 118–122: the author considers that the lack of a direct link between the shape of the vessel and the decoration of the handle is due to the fact that the actual thin-walled vessel deteriorated more rapidly, while the handles could be reused on a new body. Such a premise makes her believe that the handle seen on the Bolla Ie spouted jug from the Neupotz hoard is older than the body. However, at the present state of research there is no direct argument in favour of this hypothesis. A counterargument might be the fact that, generally, the handles of the Bolla I spouted jugs are not perfectly ixed to the body, speciically to prevent them from heating; KOSTER 1997, 31; SEDLMAYER 1999, 33, note 191. 763 See, e.g., the two bronze sheet Bolla Ib spouted jugs from the bronze vessel hoard from Zlatna/Ampelum (TÉGLÁS 1902, 7–8, no. 1, 4, Fig. 1/1, 4; NOVÁK 1942, 235–236, Fig. 5; BOLLA 1979, 27–28; WOLLMAN 1996, 211, Pl. 12/1, 24/1, 96; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 142, no. 200, 201; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218, Pl. V/1–2). Two holes also appear on the handle terminal of a bronze sheet spouted jug from the Roman bronze vessel deposit discovered at Apt (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, France) (CAVALIER 1988, 57, 60, no. 14). 764 CAVALIER 1988, 54–55, 58, no. 6; SEDLMAYER 1999, 30, 33, Taf. 11/2. 755 756 112 with a similarly decorated terminal as the one from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 38) are known from the fort at Newsteads, Scotland765 and from Chalon-sur-Saône (Burgogne, France)766. K. Szabó considers them intermediate variants between the Italic prototype and the provincial type767. Amongst the complete examples with such handles, belonging to the Bolla Ib type, one of the spouted jugs discovered in the hoard from Apt768 can be mentioned, probably hidden sometime during the irst half of the 4th century AD769, as well as a spouted jug from Brigetio used at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century AD770. he closest parallels for the handle from Gherla (no. 36) are represented by a series of handles from Bolla Ia spouted jugs with closed spout, or from Bolla IIb771. he bronze sheet spouted jugs with handle cast in one with the mouth are seen in Dacia also in sites outside Dacia Porolissensis. he bronze vessel hoard from Zlatna/Ampelum includes two bronze sheet spouted jugs of diferent sizes belonging to the Bolla Ib type772, while another one found in the metal hoard from Mărculeni773 could possibly be attributed to the Bolla Ie type774. Furthermore, the handle fragments from the Mărculeni775 hoard, from Mehadia776, from the earthen fort at Vărădia777 and from Tibiscum778, as well as a handle terminal form Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa779 can be generally ascribed to the Bolla I group. he Bolla I jugs went into production starting with the end of the 1st century AD780, as proved by a specimen belonging to the group found at Pompeii781. he production continued throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries, while for some locally manufactured variants a production which continued until the irst half of the 4th century was taken into account782. he Bolla Ib type is the dominant variant during the 2nd century AD in Gallia Belgica and along the Rhone valley and beginning with middle of the 2nd century AD it will be imported into Pannonia, where a local production will subsequently develop. At the beginning of the 3rd century AD we can already speak of a generalised distribution of these recipients in the Roman provincial environment, but they are not absent from Barbaricum either783. Most of the items were discovered in the forts from the Rhine region and in the Danubian provinces784. he provincial workshops that managed the production of the Bolla I type were located in the Rhine area, in Gallia Belgica, along the Rhone valley and, as previously mentioned, in Pannonia785. A hracian production was claimed by B. A. Raev786. CURLE 1911, 274, Pl. LIV/6; SZABÓ 1979, 257, Fig. 4; SZABÓ 1994, 401–402, Fig. 5. he handle surfaced in the ditch corresponding to the early fort, dated towards the end of the 1st century AD. 766 BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976, 153, no. 194; SZABÓ 1994, 401–402. 767 SZABÓ 1994, 401. 768 CAVALIER 1988, 57, 61, no. 16. 769 CAVALIER 1988, 102. 770 BÓNIS 1968, 26–27, Fig. 7/1, 8/1; BOLLA 1979, 27; SZABÓ 1979, 258, Fig. 5; SZABÓ 1994, 402. 771 See one of the jugs from the Apt hoard (CAVALIER 1988, 62, 68–68, no. 18) and another one from Limes (RhôneAlpes, France) (WERNER 1938, 262, Taf. 107/9; BOLLA 1979, 26). For the Bolla IIb jugs, see BOLLA 1979, 33–34; LAVAZZA 1979, Tav. XI-XII; NOLL 1980, 88–89, no. 44, Taf. 34; BOLLA 1989, 97–99, Tav. L/15–16; FLÜGEL 1993, 82, no. 85–86, Tav. 30/85–86. 772 See note 763. 773 GLODARIU ET ALII 1970, 217, no. 91, 228–230, Fig. 30, 31, 32/1; BENEA 2008, 84, Fig. 8/1A-B; ŞTEFĂNESCUONIŢIU 2008b, 218, 228, Pl. VI/2. 774 BOLLA 1979, 31. 775 GLODARIU ET ALII 1970, 217, no. 92, 230, Fig, 32/2; MILES ROMANVS 1997, 31, no. 188, Pl. IX/188; BENEA 2008, 84, Fig. 8/2. 776 BOZU 2001, 153, no. 78, 162, Pl. V/78; BOZU 2008, 99, no. 307; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218. 777 BOZU 2008, 101, no. 315; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218. 778 ARDEȚ, ARDEȚ 2004, 115, no. 60, 189, Pl. XXXV/60. 779 ALICU ET ALII 1994, 56, 116, no. 811, Pl. 53/811. 780 KOSTER 1997, 31. 781 TASSINARI 1993, II: 88, E6000, no. 2202. 782 BOLLA 1979, 42. 783 BOLLA 1979, 41–42; FLÜGEL 1993, 80–81. 784 CAVALIER 1988, 53. 785 BOLLA 1979, 41–42; KOSTER 1997, 31. 786 RAEV 1977; FLÜGEL 1993, 80. 765 113 he limescale seen on the inside prove that the Bolla I spouted jugs were used for boiling water787. From a technical viewpoint, casting the mouth together with the handle solved the attachment problem. he construction of the vessel makes it ideal for this operation. Apart from the elements recalled before788, all the Bolla I spouted jugs had a lid. he upper part of the handle exhibits a vertical rod with a hole pierced in it which allowed the handle to be fastened under the rim with the help of a wire in order to make it more stable. he holes presented by the leaf-shaped attachments were never used for riveting the handle to the vessel’s body. None of the complete vessels is pierced in the contact area with the handle, while there is no single handle to display still preserved rivets. Moreover, most of the times, the inferior attachment was not soldered to the body. A certain distance is maintained between the two in order to prevent heating, and traces of soldering alloy were never seen on the back of the attachments. J. Gorecki believes that the role of these holes was precisely to delect heat789. he association in graves of bronze sheet spouted jugs with jugs, as well as the illustration of a Bolla Ib spouted jug on the sarcophagus from Simpleveld (Fig. 6) together with an Eich type jug and Hemmoor type buckets conirms that it was employed during the 2nd–3rd centuries AD as part of the wine preparing set, speciically for heating the water needed for the preparation of wine mixed with warm water (calda)790. Considering the large number of such inds, perhaps it should not be assumed that they were used exclusively for this purpose. he bronze sheet spouted jugs represent the cheap variant of the authepsae791 and this is the reason why they were so popular, as shown before, being useful for heating water subsequently used in a range of diferent activities792. III.3.6. Lids from bronze sheet spouted jugs 39. Buciumi (Pl. XXVI/39, LXXV/39) 1. he bath-house 1966, chamber F, depth: -0.50 m; 2. MIAZ CC 272/1970; 3. L: 82 mm; W: 54.3 mm; h: 3 mm; H: 25.8 mm; Wh: 79 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, greyish light green patina; 6. Cast in one piece, hammered (on the backside, in the area of the raised end, traces of hammering can be observed; this probably took place after casting, in order to bend this part); 7. Lid with slightly raised end, the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is broken of; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 40. Gherla (Pl. XXVI/40) 1. Unknown, in the area of the fort; 2. MNITR n. i; 3. L: 63 mm; W: 46 mm; H: 25 mm; h: 3 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is fragmentary; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 41. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXVII/41, LXXV/41) 1. From the excavations of Károly Torma, somewhere between Ilișua de Jos and Cristeștii Ciceului (Csicsókeresztúr); discovered together with pottery, pieces of iron, bone and glass; 2. MNITR 3269; MNITR v. 18847; 3. L: 76 mm; W: 54 mm; H: 18 mm; h: 2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, greenish light grey, traces of soil; 6. Cast; at the base of the lifting rod, towards the mobile component of the hinge, ile marks can be seen; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is fragmentary; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 63–66 (no. 7), 80, 87, Pl. 3/7, 10/7. 42. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXVII/42, LXXV/42) 1. Unknown; private collection; 2. CMBN 20391; 3. L: 68.4 mm; Wmax: 47 mm; H: 25.1 mm; h: 3.3 mm; Wh: 62 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots, traces of soil; 6. Cast; at the base of the lifting rod, towards the mobile component of the hinge as well as around it, ile BÓNIS 1968, 27; BÓNIS 1981, 118, 120; FLÜGEL 1993, 81–82; KÜNZL 1993a, 121; GORECKI 1994, 181–182; KOSTER 1997, 30; SEDLMAYER 1999, 33; GORECKI 2006, 112. 788 See type 3.4. 789 GORECKI 2006, 112. 790 CAVALIER 1988, 20; GORECKI 1994, 181–182; KOSTER 1997, 30. See subchapter II. 2.2.2. 791 See subchapters II.2.1.2. and II. 2.2.2. 792 For the use of the simple authepsa form for heating the water needed during the toilet, see the mosaic uncovered in the baths from Sidi Ghrib (Tunis) (subchapter II.2.2.2). 787 114 marks can be seen; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is fragmentary; 8. -; 9. NEMETI 2001, 98, no. 31, 102, Pl. III/3; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 63–66 (no. 8), 80, 87, Pl. 3/8, 10/8. 43. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXVII/43, LXXV/43) 1. Fort 2003, praetentura dextra, barracks, depth: -70 cm, large earthen fort; 2. CMBN 21515; 3. L: 95.1 mm; Wmax: 62.6 mm; H: 28.7 mm; h: 3.6 mm; Wh: 138 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, patina removed during the restoration process; 6. Cast; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting, hexagonal in cross-section; the hinge is complete and is circularly perforated; 8. Hadrian – the last decades of the 2nd century AD?; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 63–66 (no. 9), 80, 87, Pl. 3/9, 10/9. 44. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXVIII/44, LXXV/44) 1. Fort, surface ind; 2. CMBN 18242; 3. L: 76 mm; Wmax: 50.5 mm; Hmax: 18 mm; h: 2.2 mm; Wh: 58 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, light green patina, traces of soil; 6. Cast; at the base of the lifting rod, towards the mobile component of the hinge, ile marks can be seen; 7. Flat lid, one of its edges is bent; the lifting rod consists of a hook; the hinge is rounded, circularly perforated and placed perpendicularly onto the body of the piece; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 63–66 (no. 10), 81, 87, Pl. 4/10, 10/10. 45. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXVIII/45) 1. Fort; 2. CMBN n. i.; 3. L: 80 mm; Wmax: 55 mm; H: 16.4 mm; h: 2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; 6. Cast; 7. Flat lid; the lifting rod consists of a hook; the hinge is rounded, circularly perforated and placed perpendicularly onto the body of the piece; 8. -; 9. PROTASE ET ALII 1997, Pl. LXXVI/8; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 63–66 (no. 11), 81, Pl. 4/11. 46. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXVIII/46, LXXVI/46) 1. he fort on Pomet hill, C37a/3, metres: 1–2/1–2.5, depth: -0.95 m, in the area of the principia, the fort with earthen enclosure; 2. MIAZ CC 46/1981; 3. L: 57.8 mm; Wmax: 54.4 mm; h: 2.5–3.6 mm; H: 19 mm; Wh: 62 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, green with grey and brown spots; 6. Cast; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, almost entirely broken; the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is partially broken; 8. he beginning of the 2nd – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 47. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXVIII/47, LXXVI/47) 1. Military vicus 1959, sector N (the sanctuary terrace), building N2; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 73.3 mm; Wmax: 50.5 mm; H: 28 mm; h: 2.2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary (broken in two), restored, dark green patina; 6. Cast; 7. Lid with slightly raised end, partially broken; the part towards the handle displays a rod used for lifting; the hinge is broken of; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 674, no. 10, Pl. CCXXI/10. Nine lids originally attached to bronze sheet spouted jugs were identiied in Dacia Porolissensis: one at Buciumi (no. 39, Pl. XXVI/39, LXXV/39), one at Gherla (no. 40, Pl. XXVI/40), ive at Ilișua/ Arcobadara (no. 41, Pl. XXVII/41, LXXV/41; no. 42, Pl. XXVII/42, LXXV/42; no. 43, Pl. XXVII/43, LXXV/43; no. 44, Pl. XXVIII/44, LXXV/44; no. 45, Pl. XXVIII/45793) and two at Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 46, Pl. XXVIII/46, LXXVI/46; no. 47, Pl. XXVIII/47, LXXVI/47). Based on the formal characteristics, seeing that they are lat and have a raised end, most of them (nos. 39–43, 46–47) likely come from spouted jugs with the handle cast together with the mouth(Bolla I)794. he lifted end was necessary to assure that it itted over the spout, which was also raised. No clear parallels are known for the two Piece no. 45 could not be recognised in the storages of the Museum Complex in Bistrița-Năsăud. he drawing included in the present volume is the one from the original publication and therefore it was not possible to illustrate the front side of the piece with the lifting rod. 794 he identiication of piece no. 87 from Kemplten/Cambodunum as a lid from a Bolla IIb jug (FLÜGEL 1993, 81–82, no. 87, Taf. 30/87) does not appear justiied, because the piece has a raised end, whereas the analogy indicated from Vindonissa (HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, 18–19, n. 104, Taf. 12/104) is lat. he shape of the Bolla IIb spouted jug lids, speciically the IIb1 variant, is diferent, and the engraved decoration usually seen on them is of a diferent kind than the one observed on the two previously mentioned items. See LAVAZZA 1979, Tav. XI-XII; BOLLA 1989, 112–113, no. 3–8, Tav. XLVIII, L; CASSANI 2002, 517, Fig. 5. 793 115 lat lids from Ilișua/Acobadara (nos.: 44, 45), but because they are lat it can be assumed that they come from bronze sheet spouted jugs with separately cast handle (Bolla II). From the rest of the territory of Roman Dacia, there are isolated lids belonging to the Bolla I type known from Alburnus Maior (Hăbad, the area around buildings L2 and L3)795 and from the Roman fort at Răcari796. A lid from a Bolla IIb797 bronze sheet spouted jug, with incised decoration, is kept in a private collection from Alba Iulia/Apulum798. III.4. Amphorae he Roman recipients designated as amphorae have as distinctive element the presence of two handles799. From a morphological point of view, the actual shape corresponds to a two-handled jug and therefore certain types are referred to as just that by some specialists800. he term “amphora” was preferred because this is commonly employed in the specialised environment, however, with the comment that the bronze form has nothing to do (neither formally, nor functionally) with the ceramic recipients known under the same name, except for the presence of two handles. he form is characterised by a round, wide mouth without spout, a wide neck and a globular or ovoid body, depending on type. In this case too the Latin denomination remains unknown. III.4.1. Amphorae with globular body 48. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXIX/48, LXXVI/48a-c) 1. Fort 1982, praetentura sinistra, Trench IX, meter: 64, depth: -0.35 m, the agger of the large earthen fort; 2. CMBN 21720; 3. L: 65.8 mm; Dmax: 11.6 mm; Lattachment: 21 mm; Wmax. attachment: 20 mm; hmax. attachment: 3.3 mm; Wh: 53 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, dark grey patina with light green spots; 6. Cast; 7. Handle from a globular amphora, round in cross-section; the inferior part inishes with an almost rectangular attachment with concave margins; traces of soldering can be observed on the backside of the attachment; 8. Terminus post quem – Hadrian; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 66–67 (no. 12), 81, 87, Pl. 4/12, 10/12a-c. he handle which came to light from the fort at Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 48, Pl. XXIX/48, LXXVI/48a-c) originates from a globular amphora801 of the Raev 18 type, variant 1b802 and Tassinari A1000 type803 that is rooted in the Hellenistic period804. Apart from the globular body characteristic for the type, the vessels display a wide, round mouth and a cylindrical and vertical neck. he mouth, neck and body are usually worked from a single piece of metal to which the base is added805. he handles are not decorated, and the inferior attachment has a rectangular shape with concave sides806. Except for the one from Ilișua/Arcobadara, as far as I know, there is only one published piece from Roman Dacia that can be ascribed to the same type: a fragmentary body of a globular amphora discovered at Alba Iulia/Apulum in the Palace of the Governor of the three Dacian provinces807. ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216; PESCARU ET ALII 2010, 129, 146, Fig. 16/5. TUDOR 1978, 296, Fig. 84/2; BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, 228, no. 673, 409, Pl. CXIII/673. 797 BOLLA 1979, 33–34; BOLLA 1989, 112–113, no. 3–8, Tav. XLVIII, L. 798 NOVÁK 1944, 84–85, no. 10, 3/4. kép. 799 See Annexe III.4.1. 800 See BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007 for the case of the amphorae with globular body. 801 See Annexe III.4.1. 802 RAEV 1978, 622–624. 803 TASSINARI 1993, I: 28, II: 1, A1000. 804 For an analysis of the Hellenistic types until to the 1st century AD, see BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007; for the late Republican variants, see FEUGÈRE 1991a. 805 For reconstructing the manufacturing process of an amphora with globular body, see MUTZ 1977; BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007, 124, note 21. 806 RAEV 1978, 622; KALČEV 1994, 229–230; KOSTER 1997, 43, no. 32; BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007, 146. 807 MOGA 1985, 71, no. 3, 73, Fig. 3; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216, 226, Pl. IV/2. An amphora with globular body, unpublished for the moment, was found in the auxiliary fort at Gilău (information kindly provided by S. Cociș). 795 796 116 he type frequently appears in graves from harce and Moesia and for this reason B. A. Raev considered that it was produced on a local level, especially since the author did not know of the specimens from Italy or from the Roman provincial environment808. he same opinion was expressed by K. Kalčev809. he examples found at Pompeii and in the western provinces of the Empire810 determined A. Koster to rightfully presume an Italic production811. he two uninished handles discovered at Autun/Augustodunum (Fig. 11/8–9) might indicate a manufacture taking place also in the provincial environment812. Chronologically speaking, the type appears in graves from harce and Moesia dated to the second half of the 1st century AD813 and the beginning/half of the 2nd century AD814, while in the western provinces the discovery contexts are dated to the last quarter of the 1st century AD and in the irst half of the 2nd century AD815. he most frequent opinion among specialists is that the amphorae belonged to drinking services, used to serve wine or water816. However, the fact that the amphorae from Pompeii and those included in graves from hrace and Moesia were associated with a series of toilet recipients determined some authors to consider that they were rather used as part of toilet sets, intended to store the water required for washing817. According to J. Gorecki, attributing all of the known types of amphorae (from Pompeii) to toilet sets is a much too simplistic view and a distinction should be made between the large-sized vessels indeed used for this purpose and the small-sized recipients with globular body that belonged to drinking sets818. he evidence put forward by the author is compelling, but I believe that at the present state of research the idea that the amphorae with globular body might have been used in toiled sets cannot be completely excluded. he major issue concerning not only this form is the fact that the vessels were not tinned on the inside, unlike other categories used in contact with food or drinks. Amphorae with globular body appear in the necropolis from Čatalka (Stara Zagora, Bulgaria) in association with a range of recipients that belong to toilet sets (“Rošava dragan” tumulus – grave 2819, tumulus 6820). III.5. Jugs As mentioned before, in the case of the spouted jugs, the term jug821 was used to designate those recipients equipped with a handle that have a round, narrow or wide mouth without spout, and lack a stand. hey usually present an S-shaped proile, and the upper part of the handle may be horizontal or elevated above the rim. he handle can display decoration on the lower end, on the upper area of contact with the rim, or on its entire surface. From a typological point of view, the Roman bronze jugs RAEV 1978, 624. KALČEV 1994, 229–230. 810 To the vessels from Pompeii (TASSINARI 1993, I: 28, II: 1, A1000), those discovered in graves and settlements across the present territory of he Netherlands (Nijmegen, Nieuwenhagen), Belgium (Vervoz, Blehen) and Switzerland (Baden/Aquae Helveticae) should be added (HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 72, no. 46, 73, Taf. 5/46; KOSTER 1997, 43). 811 KOSTER 1997, 43. 812 See Annexe II.b.3. he two handles were not trimmed of and one of them exhibits a casting defect. he fact that they were not made from bronze, but from white metal (having a contents of 30% Sn and 70% Pb, respectively 36% Sn and 64% Pb) could indicate that they were possibly used as imprinting models for fashioning the moulds for the bronze handles. At the present state of research, white metal amphorae with globular body remain unknown. 813 RAEV 1978, 624. 814 KALČEV 1994, 230. 815 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 72; KOSTER 1997, 43. 816 KOSTER 1997, 76; BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007, 199. 817 TASSINARI 1993, I: 232: the two-handled vessels from the A category frequently appear in association with S basins used for washing during the toilet; the presence of amphorae in kitchens is explained by the fact that they were brought there to be cleaned; SEDLMAYER 1999, 39; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002a, 201. 818 BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007, 199. 819 RAEV 1978, 632, 636, no. 16, Taf. 36. 820 RAEV 1978, 636, no. 19, Taf. 39. 821 See Annexe III.5.1–5.3. 808 809 117 display a wide variety and trying to apply a Latin denomination to the general form or to the diferent types is not possible822. III.5.1. Jugs with lid823 49. Cuzdrioara (Pl. XXIX/49, LXXVII/49a, LXXVIII/49b) 1. Unknown: lot of metal objects acquired by the museum in 1928 for 3000 lei, from a lawyer living in Cuzdrioara, Cluj County (together with nos. 1 and 16 from this volume); 2. MNITR I 10437; 3. 148 mm; H: 12 mm; h: 1.8 mm; Hrivet: 9 mm; Lattachment sheet: 29.6 mm; Wattachment sheet: 15 mm; Hletters: 12–15 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, brownish dark green; 6. Cast, evidence of lathe inishing can be seen on the upper side; 7. Circular lid from a vessel; part of the attachment mechanism is still preserved and it consists of a rivet fastening a piece of bronze band; in the middle, the lid displays a dent with sharpened end into which the metal piece used for lifting the lid was most likely ixed; on the exterior side, along the edge, the piece exhibits a pierced inscription: MARTI CORNELIA*L*F*OSSA*V*S*; 8. -; 9. CIVILTÀ 1970, 199, E335; REP. ARH.CLUJ 1992, 172, Cuzdrioara, no. 1. In the Romanian archaeological literature, the piece from Cuzdrioara (no. 49, Pl. XXIX/49, LXXVII/49a, LXXVIII/49b) was regarded as a patera, identiied on the basis of the votive inscription present on it824. Such an attribution is completely unjustiied and all of the analogies, as well as the formal characteristics of the object (the central notch displaying the trace of the lifting rod, the riveted bronze sheet fragments that were part of the hinge attachment system) plead for a lid from a Tassinari C1210 jug825. he Tassinari C1210 jugs with hinged lid are known in Pompeii and in the western provinces of the Empire, most of the inds building up in Raetia, Upper and Lower Germany 826. he earliest examples surfaced in discovery contexts dated to the Augustan period, and the fact that they were present at Pompeii proves that they were still in use during the last quarter of the 1st century AD827. Considering the formal resemblance with the Tassinari C1221 jugs828 which were found in signiicant numbers at Pompeii, a Campanian production can be presumed. Based on the associations seen at Pompeii, both with kitchen ware and with toiletry, this type of jug must have been used as a multifunctional recipient for various liquids. Its use over the ire must be disregarded because the base was provided with soldered feet829. Returning to the lid from Cuzdrioara, I once more express my reluctance regarding its origin from the territory of Roman Dacia, as with the rest of the bronze vessels included in the same lot. In this instance the chronology is a less powerful argument because we are dealing with a piece that was still used during the last quarter of the 1st century AD and could have reached Dacia together with the irst colonists. Nevertheless, the absence of any information regarding the discovery context does not allow such a conclusion. he votive inscription seen on the lid was dotted and consists of the following dedication: Marti Cornelia L(ucii) f(ilia) Ossa v(otum) s(olvit). he letters are marked with a single row of dots, whereas the name of the god was written with two rows of dots in order to highlight it. he cognomen Ossa has not been attested so far in the Empire. he only attested form is Osa, which appears only once, in Pannonia Inferior, at Dunaújváros/Intercisa on a funerary monument set up by Osa Demunici lib(erta)830. he fact that Ossa is a cognomen in this instance is evident and we are probably seeing a hapax. See the discussion from subchapter I.3. regarding the diferent Latin terms employed in the specialised literature to name the form. 823 See Annexe III.5.1. 824 CIVILTÀ 1970, 199, E335; REP.ARH.CLUJ 1992, 172, Cuzdrioara, no. 1. 825 TASSINARI 1993, I: 38, II: 52, C1210. 826 For a list of the main discoveries, see SEDLMAYER 1999, 24–25, Karte 4 (the type’s distribution map). 827 SEDLMAYER 1999, 25–26. 828 TASSINARI 1993, I: 38, II: 53–57, C1221. 829 TASSINARI 1993, 231; SEDLMAYER 1999, 26. 830 RIU 5 1224; OPEL III, 117. 822 118 he existence of the inscription indicates that at some point the vessel to which the lid was attached was taken out of daily use and was dedicated in a cult ediice of Mars, either empty, or together with certain content. he custom of dedicating bronze vessels in cult places is relatively frequently noted. he bronze vessels dedicated to Apollo from the sanctuary at Lagole di Calalzo (Veneto, Italy)831 can be recalled here, or those dedicated to Epona from the metal hoard at Weißenburg i. Bay. (Bayern, Germany), thought of as the result of plundering several lararia, the inventory of a temple and of certain areas within the fort832. In addition, there is a series of dedications to Mercury833, Apollo Grannus834, to Apollo and Sirona835, Apollo Anextiomarus836 and to Devs Alisanus837. What makes the piece from Cuzdrioara stand out is the fact that the person who dedicates it to Mars is a woman. Dedications like this are generally rare in the Empire and no another inscribed on a metal recipient had been identiied. he only dedications to Mars made by women on another medium than stone or bronze statue bases are those inscribed on the votive silver plates from the metal deposit at Hagenbach (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany). he hoard is regarded as the result of a looting raid committed by Franks and Allamans around AD 275 in southern Aquitania, raid which included amongst other objectives a temple of Mars838. Out of the 34 plates, four are dedicated by women to Dominus Mars839. Regarding stone inscriptions, twenty dedications are known to us: one from Roman Britain840, four from Upper Germany841, two from Gallia Narbonensis842, six from Aquitania843, four from Hispania Citerior844, one from Lusitania845, one from Baetica846, and one from Numidia847. If the Aquitanian origin of the plates from Hagenbach is taken into account, then a considerable number of dedications are grouped in the Pyrenees region, while the others are found in areas with a Celtic background. he high GAMBACURTA, BRUSTIA 2001; MARINETTI 2001, 368–369. At the moment of publication, the deposit was interpreted as the inventory of a temple (KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993, 139–146). Later, E. Künzl drew attention to the fact that a part of the pieces rather come from a lararium or from a series of private lararia (KÜNZL 1997, 73). he heterogeneous composition of the deposit renders more credibility to the interpretation put forward by A. Kaufmann-Heinimann (KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 190–191, 276–277, GF66), according to whom the deposit resulted from looting: the statuettes come from several lararia, a part of the vessels and the votive plates from a sanctuary, while the rest of the vessels together with some pieces of military equipment from the fort. For the two steep-walled basins dedicated to Epona, see KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993, 98, no. 46–47, Taf. 84–86. 833 BRONZES ROMAINS LAUSANNE 1978, 37, no. 41; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 64–65, no. 10, Taf. 1/10 (casserole handle from Baden/Aquae Helveticae); KÜNZL 1993d, 97, Abb. 10; KÜNZL 1997, 62, Abb. 3c, 65; BAUCHHENSS 2006, 151–152, 154, Abb. 180 (Westland type cauldron from the hoard at Otterstadt-Angelhof (Rheinland-Plaz, Germany) and basin with semi-circular lid from Römerberg-Mechtersheim (Rheinland-Plaz, Germany); PETROVSZKY 2015, 230–231, Abb. 11 (Basin with semi-circular lid from the hoard at Lingenfeld (Rheinland-Plaz, Germany). 834 WILLERS 1901, 96, Abb. 55; EGGERS 1951, 165, Beilage 23: “Vorläufer der Bronzeeimer vom Hemmoorer Typ” (Typ 53), Taf. 7/53; LUND HANSEN 1987, 90, 451; KÜNZL 1997, 61, Abb. 2b, 63 (Eggers 53 type bucket discovered in a grave from Fycklinge (Västmanland, Sweden), probably arriving here after it was robbed from a temple/sanctuary inside the Empire). 835 BRONZES ROMAINS LAUSANNE 1978, 44, no. 54; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 64 (casserole handle from Augst). 836 ALLASON-JONES, MIKET 1984, 146, no. 357 (bowl with tubular handle from South Shields). 837 TASSINARI 1975a, 31–32, no. 18, Pl. V/18a-c (Gödåker type casserole). 838 BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990b. 839 ENGELS 1991, 18. 840 CIL VII 93a = RIB 213 (bronze statue base from Martlesham, Sufolk, England). 841 AE 1913, 133 (votive altar from Gingen an der Fils, Baden-Württemberg, Germany); CIL XIII 6736, 7241, 07252 (Mainz/Mogontiacum). 842 CIL XII 166 (Antibes/Antipolis, Provence-Alpes-Côte d‘Azur, France); AE 1990, 700 (Nîmes/Nemausus, Languedoc-Roussillon, France). 843 CIL XIII, 1353 (Levroux/Bituriges Cubi, Centre, France); CIL XIII 114, 115, 116, 118 (Ardiège/Lugdunum Convenarum, Midi-Pyrénées, France); CIL XIII 210 (Montsérié, Midi-Pyrénées, France). 844 HEp 2, 1990, 514 (Bande, Galicia, Spain); CIL II 2418 (Braga/Bracara, Norte, Portugal); AE 2002, 788 (Reznos, Soria, Spain); CIL II2/14, 2, 838 (Tarragona/Taracco, Tarragona, Spain). 845 CIL II 5026 (Tomar/homar, Santarém, Portugal). 846 CIL II 2013 (Cerro del Castillon, Málaga, Spain). 847 ILAlg II 3, 7765 (Djémila/Cuicul, Algeria). 831 832 119 number of women dedicators from these areas can be explained by the character of tribe divinity that Mars acquires here following the phenomenon of interpretatio romana with diferent local divinities848. In most of the cases we are not witnessing an oicial manifestation of religious feeling, but acts of private devotion towards a local divinity849, as conirmed by the epithets that accompany the name of the god: Corotiacus (a single time)850, Cososus (only once)851, Leherennus852, Loucetius853, Olloudius854 or by formulae such as: Mars suus855, dominus Mars856. Of course, the attempt to decipher the act of the dedicator mentioned in the inscription on the vessel from Cuzdrioara in the context of the trend of women dedicators seen in the Celtic environment must be treated with caution. Aside from this preference, no other argument to support such a hypothesis can be brought forward. Nevertheless, at least a theoretical possibility of a Celtic origin or background cannot be excluded completely. III.5.2. Jugs with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot 50. Orheiu Bistriței (Pl. XXX/50, LXXIX/50a-c) 1. Fort 1909, discovered in the course of the renovation work and enlargement of the Evangelic church, donated by the priest Johann Dienesch for the collection of the Evangelic Gymnasium from Bistrița; unearthed together with nos. 10 and 64 from this volume, as well as with a series of miscellaneous metal objects (agricultural and craft tools, weapons, domestic implements); 2. CMBN 1778; 3. H: 304 mm; Drim: 64 mm; hrim: 3.5 mm; Dmax. : 108 mm; Dbase: 75 mm; Wh: 717 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, brownish dark body green, especially preserved on the upper part of the vessel; 6. Cast in multiple pieces (the base, the body together with the rim); 7. Jug with biconical body; the rim is splayed, almost vertical on the exterior side, executed by folding outwards the edge of the metal sheet; inside the vessel, under the rim, a circular incision was marked; the long, narrow neck lares towards the inferior part; the maximum diameter is achieved approximately around the middle of the vessel, while the inferior part of the body is cylindrical; the concave base, manufactured separately, displays on the outer side, in the middle, the mark left by the axis of the lathe, three ribs forming concentric circles, as well as three grooves of the same shape laid out on the margin; the contact line between the base and the body of the vessel is visible; the handle is missing, but one can see the remains of the white metal soldering applied on the lower part of the attachment, still holding the shape of a human foot (L: 45; W: 15), namely the left foot; in the upper part, where the mouth came into contact with the handle, it is slightly deformed; some small sized and irregular-shaped holes, most likely caused by the oxidation process, can be observed on the upper part of the neck; the body of the vessel is mildly misshapen in the area where it reaches its maximum diameter, while leftwards from the inferior terminal of the handle an area somewhat thicker than the wall of the vessel can be observed, possibly connected to a highly precise repair of the container; 8. -; 9. GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971; GLODARIU 1974, 237, no. 15, Pl. XXXIII/B 15b; GLODARIU 1976, 31, table 3/15, 197, no. 15, Pl. 39/B 15b; GRAMATOPOL 1982, 197, Pl. XII/2; MILES ROMANVS 1997, 32, no. 192; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 141, no. 198 (C. Gaiu); GAIU 2005; PROTASE 2007, 108, 128, 147, Fig. 21/2; ȘTEFĂNESCUONIȚIU 2008b, 218, 228, Pl. VI/1. he jugs with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot857 have beneited from a series of individual studies leading to the establishment of the main typological and chronological features858. Two variants were discerned for this type. he western variant, extensively distributed in Britain, Upper and Lower Germany, Gaul and Pannonia is characterised by a body which has a cylindrical lower part, 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 See NEMETI 2005, 132–133. NEMETI 2005, 136–137. CIL VII 93a = RIB 213. CIL XIII 1353, 2418 (the two inscriptions are dedicated by the same person). CIL XIII 114, 118. CIL XIII 7241, 7252. CIL XII 166. AE 1990,700. ENGELS 1991, 18. See Annexe III.5.2. TASSINARI 1973; SZABÓ 1981; SZABÓ 1982–1983; SEDLMAYER 1999, 18–21. 120 a marked and rounded shoulder continued by a long and narrow neck and a slightly splayed rim. he Oriental version, represented by discoveries clustering in Gaul, along the Danube (in Pannonia), in hrace, Moesia and Syria, has an oval body and a shorter neck859. From a chronological point of view, the beginning of the production of the western variant was set to the second half of the 1st century AD, the hypothesis being supported by the jug from Millingen, discovered in a grave together with bronze items dated to the 1st century AD860. hey were certainly manufactured throughout the 2nd century AD in workshops located in Gaul and the Rhine area and remained in use until the 3rd century861. he Oriental variant is thought to have been produced at a later date, since most of the inds are dated based on context to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD862. A Radnóti presumed that small workshops were active in Pannonia and on the present-day territory of Bulgaria863, but at the current state of research there is no proof of them. he funerary stela from Autun depicting a craftsman manufacturing such a jug represents an indirect proof for the production of the type on the site864. he mould for a handle ending below in a human foot found amongst the group of moulds from Tartous865 pleads in favour of the existence of a workshop on the territory of Syria as well866. here is a possibility that the Oriental version developed from the western one following the relocation of troops in the eastern provinces of the Empire867. he scholars’ opinions on the function of the type are not unanimous. Several theories regarding a ritual role were expressed868, or the use as a container for the water also destined for ritual purposes, the last hypothesis being based on the discovery contexts placed in sanctuaries, baths, wells, rivers etc.869. R. Nenova-Merdjanova links the function of the vessel with the iconography of the handle, considering that they were part of the feet washing set, idea partially supported by their association in some grave inventories with basins used for this purpose870. Such an interpretation can only be partially taken into account, as long as there are handles which are not shaped like a human foot but present a vegetal decoration, the handle can end in anthropomorphic attachments, and this is especially true for the Oriental variant871. he examples found in Noricum were registered in the category of serving vessels872, a more cautious solution with respect to the present state of research and therefore I adhere to it. he jug from Orheiu Bistriței (no. 50, Pl. XXX/50, LXXIX/50a-c) is the only piece from Dacia Porolissensis that belongs to the type and it was rightfully categorised by H. Sedlmayer as variant I, comprising the jugs of western provenance873. he jug’s handle is no longer preserved, but based on the trace it left on the body, imprinted in the soldering alloy, it can deinitely be airmed that its lower part ended in an attachment shaped like a human left foot. Besides the discoveries included by the cited author in the western variant, two items from the present-day territory of Bulgaria, from Assenovtsi (Pleven) and Sadina (Targovishte)874 can also be mentioned. From the territory of Roman Dacia another such handle was found at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, the piece in question ending with an attachment in the shape SZABÓ 1982–1983, 91; SEDLMAYER 1999, 18–19. DEN BOESTERD 1956, 82, no. 289, Pl. XVII/289, 289a. 861 TASSINARI 1973, 137–138; SZABÓ 1982–1983, 91–92, 94; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998, 72; SEDLMAYER 1999, 19. 862 TASSINARI 1973, 138; SZABÓ 1982–1983, 91; SEDLMAYER 1999, 19. 863 RADNÓTI 1957, 205. 864 See subchapter II.2.2.2 (funerary monuments). 865 See subchapter II.3.2.1 and Annexe II.a.12. 866 TASSINARI 1973, 139–140, Pl. XII/2, XIII/1–2; SZABÓ 1982–1983, 91; SEDLMAYER 1999, 19. 867 SEDLMAYER 1999, 18–19. 868 TASSINARI 1973, 140. 869 SZABÓ 1982–1983, 94. 870 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998, 72–74. 871 See, e.g.: RAEV 1978, Taf. 14/5; SZABÓ 1981, 53, Fig. 2/1–2; SZABÓ 1982–1983, 87, Pl. II; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998, 73, Fig. 10–11; SEDLMAYER 1999, Taf. 6/4. 872 SEDLMAYER 1999, 17–18, 147. 873 SEDLMAYER 1999, 19–20, Karte 3 (distribution map for both types) with all the inds known in 1999 and with the bibliography. For the jug from Orheiu Bistriței the place of discovery is indicated as Dipșa because of the information taken from the old literature. 874 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998, 68, 70, 73, Fig. 9–11. 859 860 121 of both feet (left and right)875. he jug from Cristești876 can most probably be included in the Oriental version of the type. III.5.3. Jugs with relief-decorated handle 51. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XXXI/51, CI/30) 1. Unknown; Imre Botár Collection; 2. -; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Fragmentary jug handle; one of the ends which enabled its attachment to the mouth of the vessel is missing; the upper part is decorated with vegetal elements, displaying a central thumb support, while the inferior end terminates in an attachment bearing an anthropomorphic representation (possibly a bust lanked by two volutes; in Imre Botár’s lists it is registered as the head of a child); 8. -; 9. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, 394, 398, 404, no. 16, Fig. 8/30. he presence of jugs with relief-decorated handle in Dacia Porolissensis is attested by a single item, a handle included in the Imre Botár Collection from Turda/Potaissa (no. 51, Pl. XXXI/51, C/30) which is no longer preserved. he item can be seen in just one photograph illustrating a part of the bronze pieces from the collection, but it does not allow one to observe too many details or to get an impression of the dimensions. he handle displays on its upper part a inger support with vegetal decoration, while the inferior part displays a human bust with the head slightly leaning to the left, framed by two volutes. he length appears to be missing any decoration, maybe except for the base of the inger support. he jugs with relief-decorated handle877 were divided by specialists in two large categories, depending on the way the body was executed: jugs with “inarticulate” body worked from a single piece of metal (DE: “ungegliederte Henkelkrüge”), and jugs with “articulate” body, most of the times (but not always) made from a separate body and neck joined at the base of the neck878 (DE: “gegliederte Henkelkrüge”)879. Both categories were produced over a rather long interval, starting from the irst half/middle of the 1st century AD and until the middle of the 3rd century AD. hese were Italic forms manufactured at irst in workshops situated in Campania and in northern Italy, and then the Italic prototype was exported into the provinces, where the production was continued880. Both categories appear at Pompeii, but the variant with “inarticulate” body is much better represented881. From a functional point of view, we are dealing with vessels included in the drinking sets intended for serving wine882. Returning to the handle from Turda/Potaissa, it is not possible to attribute it to any of the two categories judging by the handle decoration alone, since the same type of handle can be seen on both variants, just as the artistic quality of the decoration is not necessarily a chronological indication883. he only element that allows certain comments is the attachment shaped like a human bust. he analysis of the handle decoration in the case of the jugs with articulate body carried out by A. Cahen-Delhaye resulted in establishing a number of four types: A (handle with the attachment shaped like a human mask, the upper part displaying a vegetal decoration, while the middle remains undecorated) and B (handle ending below with an attachment shaped like a human mask, the upper part displaying a vegeRUSU 1979, 179, no. 29, Pl. IV/9. ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 141, no. 199; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 218, 228, Pl. VI/3. 877 See Annexe III.5.3. 878 For a discussion about the technological stages required to produce the jugs with articulate body, see KÜNZL 1993a, 122. 879 RADNÓTI 1938, 159–167, Taf. XIV/77, 79; CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970; RAEV 1978, 618–621; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 91–96, no. 135–139; Pl. XLV/135–136, XLVI/137–139; RAEV 1986, 32–35, Pl. 24–25; KÜNZL 1993a, 122–149; BOLLA 1994, 75–76, 80, no. 85–86, Tav. LXXX/85, LXXXI/86; KOSTER 1997, 25–30, nos. 2–6; SEDLMAYER 1999, 13–17; 880 RADNÓTI 1938, 161–162, 164–166; CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970, 131; RAEV 1978, 619, 621; RAEV 1986, 34–35 (support the idea that the production of jugs with articulate body started already at the end of the 1st century BC-the beginning of the 1st century AD); KÜNZL 1993a, 123; BOLLA 1994, 75; KOSTER 1997, 25–30, nos. 2–6. 881 RAEV 1986, 34; TASSINARI 1993, I: 33, II: 22 (B1221a-b: jugs with articulate body), 23–39 (B1222: jugs with inarticulate body); SEDLMAYER 1999, 14. 882 KÜNZL 1993a, 146; KOSTER 1997, 25. 883 CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970, 130–131; BOLLA 1994, 76. 875 876 122 tal decoration, while the medial area is decorated with objects or characters), typical for the 1st century AD, and types C (handle ending below with an attachment with one or several characters, with the upper part displaying a vegetal decoration and the medial, narrow part with objects or personages) and D (handle ending below with an attachment with one or several characters, with the upper part displaying a vegetal decoration and the medial, wide part with objects or diferent characters), associated with inds that can be dated to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD884. Regarding the handles with attachments shaped like a human bust, the author considers them to represent an intermediate phase in the evolution of these pieces, from a human mask to a character or a group of characters fully rendered885. Her repertoire includes only one jug with articulate body displaying such a handle, discovered in the Vesuvian cities886. With few exceptions, the rest of the known handles with attachment in the shape of a human bust appear on the jugs with inarticulate body. Most of the discoveries of this kind appear in Vesuvian towns887. Also originating from the territory of the Italian Peninsula, a jug with inarticulate body and attachment taking the form of an Eros bust was discovered at Cremona (Lombardy, Italy)888. From the Roman provincial environment the jug with inarticulate body from Herwen-Bijlandse Waard (Gelderland, he Netherlands) found during draining works and dated on typological grounds to the second half of the 1st century AD889 can be recalled, as well as the one from Bonn (with articulate body)890 and the pair discovered in the Saône River (inarticulate body)891, one of which had its neck decorated with a Lesbian kymation892. In addition, there is a series of handles individually discovered at Augst893, at Altenstadt (Hessen, Germany)894 and two from Pannonia, uncovered in the environs of Pécs895. To conclude, it cannot be safely decided on the type of jug this handle belonged to. he handles ended in a human bust are encountered both in the case of the variant with articulate body, and on the one with inarticulate body, the latter type being much better represented from this point of view. With respect to the chronology, taking into account the fact that the medial area of the handle is undecorated – similar to the jug from Herwen-Bijlandse Waard – and that most of the known examples come from Vesuvian towns, a dating in the second half of the 1st century AD seems plausible. Of course, because the piece is lost and keeping in mind the nature of the available information, this must be viewed with reservations. he handle from Turda/Potaissa does not represent a singular ind from the territory of Roman Dacia. Handles originally attached to jugs of this type were identiied in the fort at Drobeta (decorated medial area and attachment illustrating a scene with a female character)896 and at Stolniceni/Buridava (decorated medial part and attachment in the form of an Eros head)897. III.5.4. Jug fragments 52. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXI/52, LXXX/52a-b) 1. Unknown; Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 197/58; 3. L: 82.4 mm; Lhandle: 6 mm; hhandle: 3.5 mm; Wmax. attachment: 34 mm; Wh: 73 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, highly oxidized; perforated; patina CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970, 129–131. CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970, 130. 886 CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970, 132, no. 4. 887 TARBELL 1909, 124–125, no. 147–149, Pl. LXXX/147–149; TASSINARI 1975b, 171, Fig. 5/c, d, e-g, f-h, i, 180, Fig. 9/a, b, 195–196; TASSINARI 1993, I: Tav. CXLIV/1–2, II: 26, B1222, no. 18760. 888 FROVA 1963, 38, Fig. 8–9. 889 KOSTER 1997, 26–27, no. 3. 890 MENZEL 1986, 195, no. 535, Taf. 157/535. 891 NEMETH 1993, 62, no. 61, Fig. 61. 892 BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976, 147, no. 190. 893 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1977, 145, no. 249, Taf. 159/249 (based on stylistic criteria, the jug was dated to the 3rd century AD, but this is hardly likely). 894 SCHNITZLER 1995, 92–93, no. 104. 895 RADNÓTI 1938, 166, Taf. XLII/6–7. 896 ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 150, no. 231; STÎNGĂ 2003, 105–106, 113, Fig. 7. 897 TUDOR 1968, 21–22, Fig. 2/2. 884 885 123 removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with a green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. Fragmentary jug/amphora handle; the attachment and a part of the actual handle are preserved; the attachment is highly oxidized and, thus, the facial features of the representation are diicult to work out; under the lip of the anthropomorphic character, the piece exhibits a hole that goes all the way through; Pan’s head is illustrated, with dishevelled hair, moustache and beard, small eyes and large, lattened nose; above his forehead one can notice the two horns, wide at the base and sharpened towards the tip, rendered parallel to the length of the handle; the representation is lanked by two small volutes placed at the two topmost corners of the attachment; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 6, Pl. CCCXXX/6. 53. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXI/53, LXXX/53a-b) 1. he area of the military vicus, discovered with a metal detector; 2. MIAZ n. i.; 3. D: 68 mm; H: 11 mm; hwall: 1–1.3 mm; hbase: 2 mm; Wh: 59 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, green, covered with deposits and soil; 6. Cast, light lathe inishing; 7. Jug base, slightly dished outwards; very little from the wall of the vessel is still preserved; the mark left by the axis of the lathe is visible both on the inside, and on the outside; both faces display a pair of ribs forming concentric circles; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. he exact classiication of the handle attachment (no. 52, Pl. XXXI/52, LXXX/52a-b) and of the base (no. 53, Pl. XXXI/53, LXXX/53a-b) from Moigrad/Porolissum is not possible due to the fragmentary state of the pieces. Given the meagre thickness of the preserved part from the handle, the attachment most likely comes from a jug handle, and not from an amphora898. he closest parallel can be found on a jug belonging to the Oriental version of the bitronconic jugs discussed above (subchapter III.5.2), discovered in a well from the municipal forum of Tarragona/Tarraco (Tarragona, Spain)899. he advanced state of degradation of the piece does not allow further considerations. he base no. 53 belongs to a kind of container whose body was worked together with the base, not separately, and for this reason its provenance from an amphora with ovoid body cannot be excluded. III.6. Bowls with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome 54. Dacia Porolissensis (Pl. XXXII/54, LXXXI/54a-b) 1. Unknown; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 33 mm; Dapprox: 27 mm; h 1.6 mm; Wh: 9 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process; current colour: reddish golden; small light green areas can be observed, in which the oxudation process is still active; 6. Hollow-cast, incised; 7. Fragment of a tubular handle from a bowl; only one of the ends is preserved and it displays a rib decorated with small sized incised circles; along the handle several longitudinal grooves can be seen, rather rare and poorly marked; 8. -; 9. COCIȘ 2007, 404, Pl. 2/23. 55. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXII/55, LXXXI/55a-d) 1. Unknown, Silviu Pop Papiriu Collection from Buciumi, no. 138; 2. MIAZ CC 389/1966; 3. L: 69.8 mm; Lterminal: 43 mm; Wterminal: 31.4 mm; Dhandle: 21.3 mm; hhandle: 5.7 mm; Wh: 114 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, dark grey with light green spots, traces of soil; 6. Cast in two separate pieces (the actual handle and the terminal); 7. Tubular handle from a bowl; fragmentary, only the terminal in the shape of an anthropomorphic representation and part of the actual handle are preserved; the latter is circular in cross-section, hollow-cast and lined by longitudinal grooves; the anthropomorphic representation can be identiied as a Medusa head lanked by two volutes; the facial features are rather crudely rendered; the hairstyle is represented by ine incisions and has a middle parting; above the head, on the starting point of the handle, two stylized wings can be observed, while under the chin there is a small sized palmetto; the tubular handle displays on the inside, in the breaking area, traces of burning, fact which might point to the reuse of the piece after breaking; 8. -; 9. POP, MATEI 1978, 82, no. 24, Fig. IV/14; GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 4, Pl. CCXXIX/4. For jugs and spouted jugs handles ending in such attachments, see LEBEL 1962, 32, no. 52, Pl. XLI/52; LEIBUNDGUT 1976, 107, no. 130, Taf. 65/130; KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1977, 143–144, no. 247, Taf. 157/247; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 84–87, no. 119–120, Pl. XL/119, XLI/121, LXIX/119, 122; TASSINARI 1993, I: CV/3–4, CX/3, II: 65, D2112, no. 18763. 899 AZNAR ET ALII 1990, 289, no. 239; ROIG 2003, 90–91, Fig. 6a-c. 898 124 56. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXII/56a-b) 1. Military vicus 1913, OL sector, building OL 4, F1; 2. MNITR III 9695; MNITR v. 19134; 3. L: 67 mm; W: 39 mm; h: 1.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, deformed, oxidized; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Attachment shaped like scorpion claws originating from a bowl with tubular handle; the piece is very deformed and its upper part is broken; it displays traces of a decoration executed by incisions: circles placed along the edges and X-shaped incisions; between the two claws, a medial rod ending in a palmetto can be seen; 8. -; 9. BUDAY 1914, 73, Fig. 5/8, 81, 92; TAMBA 2008, 331, Fig. VII.4.2. he term bowl is a general denomination used to refer to a shallow recipient, with the diameter measuring more than the height, with hemispherical body, horizontal or splayed rim and annular base. Its equivalent in German is “Schale”. Both names, bowl and “Schale”, are just a component of the terms employed to deine certain shapes. Regarding the Roman bronze vessels, the term does not refer to an actual shape, but, as it will be seen below, it was only used to generally characterise the body of a range of forms that are independent from one another and difer both in the presence of distinctive morphological elements, and in their function. hese are the bowls with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome (III.6), the bowls with lat handle (III.7) and those with high handles (III.8). he form described as “bowl with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome” translates into German as “Grifschale”, generally accepted in the specialised literature for naming a shallow, hemispherical vessel, with horizontal or slightly splayed rim sometimes straight and rounded towards the interior, with an annular base900. Depending on type, the vessel can present an umbo on the inside and is equipped with a grooved tubular handle most of the times ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome901. Except for the German language archaeological literature, the terminology employed is as variable as it gets and in some cases downright wrong. he problems stem from the fact that “Grifschale” is hardly translatable in other languages in a way that would make sense. he improper use of the word patera for this type of vessel, taken over from the French and Italian literature, was already discussed in this volume902. From the three fragments of bowls with tubular handle identiied among the material analysed from Dacia Porolissensis, only the handle from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 55, Pl. XXXII/55, LXXXI/55a-d) can be attributed to a speciic type, namely the Canterbury type. he handle fragment (no. 54, Pl. XXXII/54, LXXXI/54a-b) which was most likely used as raw material in a brooch workshop located in an undetermined spot in Dacia Porolissensis903 can be recognised as part of the handle from such a vessel, but the high degree of fragmentation prevents further comments. he attachment from Moigrad/ Porolissum (no. 56, Pl. XXXII/56a-b)904 represents the terminal part of the handle, shaped like scorpion claws, which facilitated its attachment to the body of the vessel. he handles with attachments in the form of scorpion claws are typical for the bowls belonging to the E type set (Millingen), but also for those from the G sets (Canterbury)905. For this reason, as long as no information regarding the dating of the discovery context is known, the chronological interval generally accepted for the two types: 35/40 – the end of the 2nd century AD (Millingen) 906 and the middle of the 1st – 2nd century AD (Canterbury)907 cannot be reduced. he decoration of the attachment using incisions is considered by H. U. Nuber as For a diferent term for deining the type, “Handed pan 1”, see LUNDOCK 2015, 15. See Annexe III.6. 902 See subchapter I.3. with the discussion regarding the erroneous use of the term patera. 903 COCIȘ 2007, 404–405, Pl. 2/23. 904 he piece could not be identiied in the storage of the National Transylvanian History Museum in Cluj-Napoca. hus, the analysis is based on an older drawing made by S. Cociș, and on the illustration included in the original publication (BUDAY 1914, 73, Fig. 5/8, 81, 92). Both were used because the surface decoration, executed by incisions, is clearer on the drawing published by Á. Buday, whereas the newer drawing is more informative. 905 NUBER 1973, 44–45, Abb. 4/1–2, 63, Taf. 4/3, 10/a-c. For the bowls from Pompeii belonging to the E type (Millingen), see TASSINARI 1993, II: 132–139 (H2311-H2322). 906 NUBER 1973, 54; PETROVSZKY 1993, 110–111 (Typ IX, 1). See the discussion of the spouted jugs with trefoil mouth (type 3.2). 907 NUBER 1973, 72. See the discussion of the spouted jugs with narrow rim (type 3.1). 900 901 125 a typical element for the specimens produced in Gaulish workshops, contrary to the relief decoration characteristic for the Italic products908. As previously mentioned, the handle ending in a Medusa head from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 55) comes from a variant of a bowl with tubular handle of the Canterbury type, characterised by a narrow mouth, a body provided with an umbo, and a handle with attachment shaped like a lion head, ending with an anthropomorphic representation. Complete vessels as well as individual handles are distributed in the western provinces and the Middle Danube909, in funerary contexts mainly dated in the second half of the 2nd century AD, but also in 3rd century hoards and graves910. To the list of discoveries one can add three more handles ending with Medusa heads: one found in the Severeanu Collection that still preserves its attachment in the shape of a lion head911, the second discovered at Rocester-Orton’s Pasture (Stafordshire, Great Britain)912, and a third probably at Carnuntum, displaying signs of intensive/ prolonged use913. Relying on the distribution area, H. U. Nuber believes that the bowls with tubular handle of the Canterbury type ending with anthropomorphic representations (Medusa, Ammon, Pan, Dionysus heads) were the products of a Gaulish workshop914. In her study dedicated to the bronze paterae from Roman Dacia, A. Ștefănescu identiied nine complete or fragmentary handles from bowls with tubular handle ending in zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protomes915, amongst them the piece from Buciumi on which I expressed my doubts in this volume916. Except for the handle ending with a Medusa head from the Severeanu Collection917 mentioned above, the other pieces were attributed by the author to the Millingen type918. As seen before, the ascription of isolated handles to speciic types is, with few exceptions, rather diicult to make. If in the case of the recipient’s body the diferences are clear, the same is not true for the handles. Concerning the pieces from Roman Dacia, the problem lies in diferentiating between those which were attached to Millingen or to Canterbury type bowls. In order to discuss these issues one must take into account four criteria: the way the grooves were arranged, the type of terminal representation, the shape of the attachment and, in some cases, certain aspects regarding the way they were manufactured919. hus, the handles attached to Millingen type bowls have their grooves arranged in two bands on the superior and inferior parts, separated by blank spaces, whereas the Canterbury handles have the grooved bands on the lateral sides920. However, this is not a general rule that can be applied to all known specimens. he handles ending with dog or wolf heads are usually typical for the Canterbury type, although there is a small number of such decorated pieces that appears in association with Millingen bowls at Pompeii and amongst the group of bowls regarded as products of Danubian workshops active towards the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century AD921. he attachments of the Millingen type handles are shaped like scorpion claws and are decorated with NUBER 1973, 46. NUBER 1973, 65–66, 201, Liste G I c, 202, Liste G III c; SEDLMAYER 1999, 52. 910 NUBER 1973, 65; SEDLMAYER 1999, 52. H. U. Nuber includes in his list a number of six complete bowls with handles ending in Medusa heads (NUBER 1973, 201, Liste G I C (3–4, 6–9). H. Sedlmayer added three more discoveries to the list. 911 GRAMATOPOL 1982, Pl. XXVII/3; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 423, 426, no. 7. 912 BEVAN 1999, 7–9, Fig. 2; FERRIS ET ALII 2000, 55–56, no. 10, Fig. 27, 95, Pl. 13. 913 VON KAISERN UND BÜRGERN 2009, 304–305, no. 1154; GÖTTERBILDER–MENSCHENBILDER 2011, 281, no. 361. 914 NUBER 1973, 66. 915 ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423–428, no. 7–15, Pl. III/2–4, IV/1–3. 916 See no. 108. 917 he pieces from the Severeanu collection should be included with reservations in any discussion regarding Roman Dacia because the collection was formed in Dobruja (BĂRBULESCU 2004, 51). 918 ŞTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423. 919 BOLLA 1994, 45. 920 NUBER 1973, 45; BOLLA 1994, 45. 921 RADNÓTI 1938, Taf. VII/31, XXVII/1, 5 (Nagyberki and Környe); NUBER 1973, 45–46, note 243, Abb. 5, 63, 65–66, Abb. 15/1–2, 192, 195, Liste E Id/1, VIIb, IXb; BÓNIS 1982, 124–130, Abb. 55–7; TASSINARI 1993, II: 137, H2312 (no. 1142, 4225), 138, H2312 (no. 7161); BOLLA 1994, 45; SEDLMAYER 1999, 52. 908 909 126 vegetal elements, while the Canterbury type exhibits both attachments of this kind, and in the shape of lion heads922. Returning to the pieces from Roman Dacia, three handles from Drobeta (one ending in a ram’s head923, the other two in dog heads924) were included by H. U. Nuber since the ‘70s in the list of Canterbury handles found separated from the rest of the vessel925. Another three handles ending in a ram’s head, from Drobeta926, Tibiscum927 and the Severeanu Collection928 are diicult to identify because of the poor quality of the published pictures, not allowing a closer observation of the details. A re-examination of these pieces might elucidate the issues. he lat upper part without any grooves could indicate that the handle from Drobeta belonged to a Canterbury type set. he piece from the Severeanu Collection most probably belongs to the Millingen type. he handle stored at the Museum of Oltenia in Craiova, ending with a dog’s head929, is very likely to originate from a Canterbury type bowl, but one cannot totally exclude the possibility of its provenance from a Millingen type bowl made from bronze sheet, similar to the inds from Nagyberki and Környe (Hungary)930. From a functional point of view, the bowls with tubular handle together with the spouted jugs with narrow mouth or trefoil mouth were part of the handwashing sets931. III.7. Bowls with lat handle 57. Bologa (Pl. XXXIII/57a-b) 1. Fort, trench XVI, metre: 65, depth: -0.90 m, praetentura sinistra, Barracks 3, small fort with earthen enclosure; 2. IAIAC n .i.; 3. D: 135 mm; H: 32 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. -; 6. Cast; 7. Hemispherical bowl with stair-like rim, annular base and lat fragmentary handle (the terminal is missing); 8. Trajan – Hadrian; 9. GUDEA 1977, 178, Fig. 9/1, 188–189, no. 40; GUDEA 1997a, 19. he denomination bowl with lat handle also designates a shallow, hemispherical vessel with slightly inwards rounded or stair-shaped rim, with annular base and lat handles cast together with the vessel and usually ending in a knob; the end is pierced to allow it to be hung on a metal ring for transportation. From a terminological point of view, the form932 poses the same problems as mentioned before when discussing the bowls with tubular handles ending with zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protomes. Since an exact translation of the German term “Badeschale” entrenched in the specialised literature is not possible, a more descriptive denomination, “bowl with lat handle”, devoid of any functional connotations is preferable. In this case too there is some terminological confusion, especially in the Italian or French texts, in which inappropriate terms such as casserole or patera appear most frequently. he only bowl with lat handle known from the territory of Dacia Porolissensis was discovered in the fort at Bologa (no. 57, Pl. XXXIII/57a-b), in a context pertaining to the small fort with earthen enclosure dated to the period between Trajan and Hadrian. Unfortunately, the piece could not be retrieved from the storage of the Institute of Archaeology and Art History in Cluj-Napoca and therefore it was not possible to examine it directly. All the available information consists in a photograph taken during the excavations and an on-site drawing. Even if the on-site drawing is not very accurate with respect to the original vessel (especially concerning the base), there are certain details that allow a classiication of the piece from a typological point of view. he stair-shaped rim, visible both in the NUBER 1973, 45, 63, note 347. STÎNGĂ 1998 342, Pl. LXXII/6; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 428, no. 11. 924 STÎNGĂ 1998, 342, Pl. LXXII/10; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 426–428, nos. 9–10, Pl. III/3–4. 925 NUBER 1973, 202, Liste G IIIa/6, IIIb/8–9. 926 STÎNGĂ 1998, 342, Pl. LXXII/5; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 150, no. 232; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 427–428, no. 12, Pl. IV/1. 927 ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 427–428, no. 15, Pl. IV/3. 928 GRAMATOPOL 1982, Pl. XXII/3; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 428, no. 13. 929 BONDOC 2000, 52–53, no. 42; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 426–427, no. 8, Pl. III/2. 930 See note 921. 931 See subchapter II. 2.2.2 and the types 3.1 and 3.2. 932 See Annexe III.7. 922 923 127 picture and in the drawing, although it appears to be slightly outward on the drawing, in fact was probably straight, particularly if one takes into consideration that, generally, the upper part of the vessel is lightly deformed and the contact zone with the handle is rendered as vertical on the drawing. he bowls with lat handle presenting such a rim were classiied by R. Petrovszky as the VIII, 3 type933. Most of the specimens comprising this variant display a beaded decoration on the exterior part of the rim. But undecorated examples also exist, like the bowl discovered in the Waal River, now kept in the collection of the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen934, the one from the grave at Herstal (Wallonia, Belgium) dated to the third quarter of the 2nd century AD935 and believed to be a Gaulish product judging from the decoration of the handle936, and also the bowl from tumulus no. 6 from Čatalka, dated to the second half of the 1st century – beginning of the 2nd century AD937. he National Museum of Transylvanian History in Cluj-Napoca owns a bowl with lat handle and undecorated rim of Petrovszky VIII, 3 type acquired from Adolf Resch in 1913. he piece is fragmentary and preserves only the beginning of the handle, decorated on both sides with a row of incised circles938, feature which indicates that this too is a Gaulish product939. Apart from the one found at Bologa, this is the only specimen which could originate from the territory of Roman Dacia, although the circumstances of discovery remain unknown. he Petrovszky VIII, 3 variant is represented at Pompeii by examples with the rim decorated with a beaded line940, while the rest of discoveries are mostly grouped in northern Gaul941. Based on the production stamps, R. Petrovszky sustained that the production took place in Capua, but also in northern Gaul or at Nijmegen between AD 40/50 and 100/120942. he bowls with lat handle were part of the toilet sets carried at the bath-house, situation which is conirmed by their association in graves with strigiles and balsamaria943. All these items were usually hung on an iron or bronze ring, as testiied by the set discovered in the baths of the forum at Pompeii944. heir appearance in graves was generally linked with the local elites and their adoption of the Roman ways of body grooming945. At irst it was considered that these bowls were used for pouring water from the pool onto the body946. R. Petrovszky questions this possibility (the vessel is too heavy and has an inadequate shape for the activity), as well as their use for mixing the oil meant for skin hydration with diferent spices and PETROVSZKY 1993, 92–97 (Typ VIIII, 1–3), Taf. 3/VIII, 3. DEN BOESTERD 1956, 14–15, no. 39, Fig. 39; PETROVSZKY 1993, 94. 935 MARIËN 1980, 244–245, Fig. 161; PETROVSZKY 1993, 94. 936 PETROVSZKY 1993, 96. 937 RAEV 1978, 632, 636, no. 19, Taf. 39/5; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1994, 307–308, Fig. 3/1, no. 3. 938 ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 149, no. 225. he bowl was registered with the inventory number II 8956 (v. 776). he same lot acquired from Adolf Resch includes a fragmentary handle originating from a bowl of the same type (inv. no. II 8956a). he handle has its margins decorated with the same rows of incised circles as those seen on the part preserved with the bowl II 8956. In these circumstances, the probability that both pieces belonged to the same vessel is rather great and this would be an interesting situation since the handle terminal is “biscuit”-shaped, a form not seen before in association with the Petrovszky VIII, 3 variant, but with the VIII, 1a (PETROVSZKY 1993, 92, Taf. 3/VIII, 1a). 939 See also the bowl with lat handle discovered at Millingen (KOSTER 1997, 85–86, no. 115) whose surface is decorated with groups of incised circles. A. Koster, relying on a specimen from Pompeii with two incised circles in the medial part of the handle (TASSINARI 1993, II: 142, no. 14070), considers that the incised circles decoration should not be necessarily regarded as a Gaulish feature. However, its appearance in the Campanian decorative repertoire is exceptional, and the vessel from Millingen and the one from the Museum in Cluj display a much more elaborate decoration in comparison to the Pompeii piece. See also: SEDLMAYER 1999, 53, note 349, Taf. 22/1. 940 TASSINARI 1993, I: 62, I1200, II: 143, I1200. 941 PETROVSZKY 1993, 94. See WELTE 2005, 562–564 for the most recent review of the main inds. 942 PETROVSZKY 1993, 95–96; WELTE 2005, 566. 943 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 58; FLÜGEL 1993, 69–70; PETROVSZKY 1993, 96; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1994, 308; KOSTER 1997, 84; WELTE 2005, 560–561. 944 WILLERS 1907, 72; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 58, Abb. 3; KOHLERT-NÉMETH 1990, 82, Abb. 28; MICHELI 1990, 122, Fig. 68; FLÜGEL 1993, 69; PETROVSZKY 1993, 94–95, Abb. 13. 945 PETROVSZKY 1993, 96; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1994, 308; KOSTER 1997, 84. 946 WILLERS 1907, 72–73; RADNÓTI 1938, 63; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1994, 308; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999, 133–134. 933 934 128 balms which were to be warmed later, arguing that: it was not necessary for the oil to be warmed, the vessel’s handle is too short for placing over ire, and the bases lack any traces that they have ever been in direct contact with the ire. he solution proposed by the cited author, and at the moment generally accepted in the specialised literature, is based on the fact that the bowls with lat handle have a stable body and were designed to stand horizontally, while the vertical or thickened rim was made this way to prevent the contents from spilling. herefore, these were the recipients into which the oil from the balsamarium was poured and later, with the help of a sponge or a cloth, was applied on the skin947. III.8. Bowls with high handles 58. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXIV/58, LXXXI/58a-b) 1. Discovered on Pomet hill by Maria Deneș; 2. MIAZ CC 710/80; 3. L: 50 mm; h: 8 mm; Hsuperior terminal: 25 mm; Wsuperior terminal: 40.5 mm; Wh: 29 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, strongly deformed (probably from contact with ire), uneven patina, golden dark green with light green areas; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Semi-circular bowl handle; the upper part which came attached above the rim is widened, with terminals decorated with bird heads amongst which a human face can be noticed; because of the severe damage, the details of the representation are diicult to observe; the handle and its inferior end were decorated by incision; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 692, no. 7, Pl. CCXXX/7. he bowls with high handles948 refer to a category of Roman bronze recipients known only from a relatively small number of inds, usually fragmentary, mostly represented by handles. From a morphological point of view, we are dealing with a shallow, hemispherical vessel with horizontal or thickened rim and annular base. he form displays two handles raised above the rim, diametrically opposed, with the end of the upper part placed on rim. he handles are usually decorated with vegetal incisions, while the upper part exhibits anthropomorphic representations and bird heads on the two extremities. A more in-depth analysis of the type owes much to M. Castoldi’s interest when discussing the bowl with high handles discovered at Locarno-Muralto (Tessin, Switzerland)949 and also to B. Bienert950. Relying on the way the handles were fabricated, B. Bienert divided the known pieces (distributed in Roman Britain, the Italian Peninsula and especially in Gallia Belgica, in Upper and Lower Germany and along the limes) in two distinct categories, each representative for a certain group of workshops. he irst category included the inds from Locarno-Muralto, Maastricht (Limburg, he Netherlands), Butzbach (Hessen, Germany) and Pompeii, which the author, judging by their artistic execution, considered to be products of an Italic workshop that started its activity in the middle of the 1st century AD 951. he second category includes a single complete example found at Marpingen (Saarland, Germany) and a series of handles appearing in contexts mostly dated to the 2nd century AD which are viewed as products of a provincial workshop952. To the list of discoveries one can further add the bowl with high handles from the grave in tumulus no. 7 from Bartlow Hills (Cambridgeshire, Great Britain)953 and another discovery made with the metal detector from Great Britain, Carlisle district954. he identiication of the workshop from the Italian Peninsula that produced, according to Bienert, the irst category of bowls should be reconsidered. In fact, the arguments put forward by M. Castoldi at the moment when the Muralto bowl was published were ignored by the previously mentioned author. he nature of the scenes seen on the inside of the object, decorated by silvering and niello, is not in agreement with the narrative character, the plasticity and the naturalism encountered in the Campanian decorative repertoire of Hellenistic tradition. Moreover, the closest analogies concerning the decoration are to be found amongst the provincial Gaulish products, and therefore 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 FLÜGEL 1993, 70; PETROVSZKY 1993, 96; KOSTER 1997, 84; WELTE 2005, 561–562. See Annexe III. 8. CASTOLDI 1979. BIENERT 2007, 167–168. BIENERT 2007, 168. BIENERT 2007, 167–168. BARTLOW HILLS 1842, 3, no. 4, Pl. I/3. https://inds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/7320 (02.05.2017). 129 the production of the type is situated in Gaul, after the middle of the 1st century AD955. Considering the data disclosed by the discovery contexts956, the end of the production period should probably be placed sometime during the irst half or at most the middle of the 2nd century AD. he handle form Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 58, Pl. XXXIV/58, LXXXI/58a-b) is extremely deformed and its aspect suggests direct contact with a source of intense heat. he details of the anthropomorphic representation are hard to make out and the bird heads are visible only on one of the arms of the handle. For this reason, the type of representation intended is not sure. he incisions grooving the length of the piece, forming a vegetal decoration, and the fragmentary end that seems to terminate in a palmetto are features that characterise a part of the handles classiied by B. Bienert in the second category. hese comprise a handle from the fort at St. Albans/Verulamium (Hertfordshire, Great Britain), dated on the basis of the discovery context between AD 130 and 140 and erroneously believed to be the handle of a spouted jug with trefoil mouth957, another from the Bavay hoard (Nord-Pas de Calais, France)958, a pair of handles from the same vessel, discovered at Horath (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany) in a grave dated to the beginning of the 2nd century AD959, one kept in the collections of the Borély Museum (Bouches-du Rhône, France)960, and inally a handle re-used on an oil lamp, which was part of the metal hoard from Dax (Aquitaine, France)961. Regarding the function, B. Bienert took into account the possible use as a serving vessel, incense burner or candlestick962, ideas which, at the present state of research, cannot be conirmed. he only vessels that can to some extent elucidate this issue are the ones from Bartlow Hills and Locarno-Muralto. Both pieces were discovered in graves. In grave no. 7 from the tumulus at Bartlow Hills, the bowl with high handles is associated with a Millingen type spouted jug963, while in grave from Muralto-Locarno, besides the bowl, a jug with inarticulate body and relief-decorated handle was found964. Although both complexes were investigated in the 19th century and, especially in the case of Locarno-Muralto, the details regarding the discovery context are far from clear, it cannot be excluded that the bowls with high handles could have been part of the washing set, replacing the bowls with tubular handle, just like the small-sized Den Boesterd 185 basin found in the grave from Grote Markt965. his hypothesis remains to be conirmed or dismissed by future discoveries. III.9. Basins he term basin denominates a recipient with the diameter larger than its height, hemispherical or cylindrical, which can be equipped with a stand or an annular base966. Usually, it has two or more smallsized handles, diametrically opposed, placed under the rim of the vessel. hese can be ixed directly to the body of the vessel, or by means of a pair of attachments. III.9.1. Hemispherical basins with stand and ixed handles 59. Gherla (Pl. XXXIV/59, LXXXII/59) 1. Unknown; 2. MIG 2364; 3. H: 91.2 mm; W: 80 mm; Dmax. handle: 20.5 mm; Wattachment: 44,7 mm; 4. Copper CASTOLDI 1979, 62–65. BIENERT 2007, 167. 957 FRERE 1972, 132, no. 137, 135, Fig. 42/137; BIENERT 2007, 167. 958 BOUCHER, OGGIANO-BITAR 1993, 126–127, no. 201; BIENERT 2007, 168, note 1059. 959 BIENERT 2007, 167, 170–171, no. 191–192. 960 OGGIANO-BITAR 1984, 116, no. 248; BIENERT 2007, 168, note 1059. 961 SANTROT ET ALII 1996, 295–298; BIENERT 2007, 168, note 1059. 962 BIENERT 2007, 168. 963 BARTLOW HILLS 1842, Pl. I/2–3. 964 FROVA 1963, 33–35, Fig. 1–3; CASTOLDI 1979, 57. 965 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 54, no. 185, Pl. VIII/185; NUBER 1973, 73 (the association from Bartlow Hill 7 and Nijmegen-Grote Markt are considered exceptions among the handwashing sets); KOSTER 1997, 87–88, no. 119. See also the type 3.3. 966 See Annexe III.9.1–9.4. 955 956 130 alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Omegashaped handle, round in cross-section; the medial area is provided with three ridges, the middle having larger dimensions; the ends, out of which only one is still preserved, terminate in a zoomorphic representation: a swan with its head turned leftwards, and underneath a fruit basket; the plumage is rendered with ine incisions; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. he hemispherical basins with stand and ixed handles967 were classiied by H. J. Eggers in two large categories that include the thirteen types identiied during the analysis of the Roman imports in the north European Barbaricum: “frühe bronzene Fußbecken mit festen Grifen” (types 94–98) and “mittlere und späte bronzene Fußbecken mit festen Grifen” (types 99–106)968. From a formal point of view, the types considered by Eggers for the “middle” group are characterised by a hemispherical body possibly executed by pressing on the lathe, with a slightly inward or thickened rim, sometimes triangular in cross-section, and an annular base most likely cast together with the body969. he two diametrically opposed handles were cast separately and attached to the body with the help of a soldering alloy. Among the “middle” group, the 99–100 types, derived from a Hellenistic prototype and initially manufactured in Campanian workshops, to be later produced also in the provinces (probably in the Rhine area between AD 25/35 and at the latest 115/130), were widespread both inside the Empire, and outside its borders970. he handle from Gherla (no. 59, Pl. XXXIV/59, LXXXII/59) comes from an Eggers 103 hemispherical basin, characterised by handles whose ends are ending in elaborate swan representations. he Eggers 102–104 types are distinguished from the others by the way their handles were made. hese are much more massive and terminate with complex animal representations (griins, seahorses, swans, sometimes anthropomorphic characters), as opposed to the 99–100 types whose handles, ending in water birds or snakes, are highly stylised. Generally, the inds attributed to the 102–104 types are few and fragmentary, mostly comprising handles. Except for the piece from Gherla, only three other items belonging to the 103 type are known: a complete vessel discovered in the former Bereg County (today on the territory of Hungary and Ukraine)971, a piece from Bonn (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany)972, and a handle found in the legionary fortress at Enns/Lauriacum (Oberösterreich, Austria)973. No exact parallel for the type of scene rendered on the Gherla handle has been identiied yet. A. Radnóti presumed a possible later production for the pieces belonging to the 102–104 types compared to the 99/100 types, considering the former as 2nd–3rd century AD provincial imitations of a presumed Campanian product974. However, such a hypothesis is not supported by the discovery contexts, because specimens appearing in later contexts are scarce975. here are no inds that can be safely dated to the 1st century AD976 and, generally, too few well dated pieces are known. his is why S. Berke See Annexe III.9.1. EGGERS 1951, 168–169, Beilage 37: “frühe bronzene Fußbecken mit festen Grifen” (Typ 94–98), Beilage 38: “mittlere und späte bronzene Fußbecken mit festen Grifen” (Typ 99–106), Taf. 9/94–95, 10/96–106. 969 For a discussion regarding the possible techniques employed for the production of hemispherical basins see GORECKI 2011, 158–160. 970 PETROVSZKY 1993, 114–118 (Typ XV, 1); KOSTER 1997, 86–87. 971 RADNÓTI 1938, 127, 129, Taf. XII/60, XXXVIII/1, 1a-b; EGGERS 1951, 147, no. 1941; SEDLMAYER 1999, 61. 972 LEHNER 1915, 49, no. 19829; RADNÓTI 1938, 129; SEDLMAYER 1999, 61. he handle from Bonn was indicated by A. Radnóti, on the basis of the information provided by H. Lehner, as analogy for the Bereg basin. In the original publication (LEHNER 1915) the piece from Bonn is not illustrated, only described: “…sehr schöner Grif einer Bronzeschüssel oder Platte in Form zweier Schwäne, die von einem Planzenornament in der Mitte auseinanderstreben…“. According to the description, we are very likely dealing with an Eggers 103 basin handle, but this information should be veriied. he object from Bonn was not included in the volume dedicated to the Roman bronzes from Bonn (MENZEL 1986) and no other publication referring to it is known. 973 SEDLMAYER 1999, 56, 61, Taf. 24/11. 974 RADNÓTI 1938, 129–130; KUNOW 1983, 23; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 200. 975 KUNOW 1983, 23; PETROVSZKY 1993, 114. 976 RADNÓTI 1938, 129; KUNOW 1983, 23. 967 968 131 considers that dividing the hemispherical basins into the 102–104 types could be a little forced and that their analysis as a single type with a long period of existence, including early, as well as late variants, would be more cautious at the current state of knowledge977. In the lack of any supplementary information, it is considered that the 102–104 types were produced during the same chronological interval as the 99–100 types. Regarding the workshops, a potential production in Capua is taken into account although this is completely uncertain at the present moment because, unlike the 99–100 types, the 102–104 types are not present in Vesuvian towns978. Also, a provincial production might be located in the Rhine area and in Pannonia979. he hemispherical basins with stand and ixed handles were mainly part of the washing services, fact conirmed by the iconographical sources which depict them together with other toilet implements980, and also by funerary inds, their inventory showing these basins in association with handwashing sets981. heir presumed employment strictly for washing the face and the feet982 is hardly supported by the archaeological information so long as we are dealing with large-sized vessels which could have been used in any stage of body cleansing and in all kind of contexts which required such a use983. heir identiication as serving vessels984 is not backed by the data presented by discovery contexts. In Barbaricum however, their function as washing basin was questioned. hey are associated with components of the drinking service and it is believed that they were used for wine mixing985. III.9.2. Steep-walled basins with attachments ending in stylised bird heads 60. Gherla (Pl. XXXV/60, LXXXII/60) 1. In the area of the fort; 2. MNITR n .i. (the piece was published with the inventory number v. 34588; however, it does not actually have an inventory number and v. 34588 is assigned to no. 75 from this volume); 3. L: 64 mm; W: 26 mm; hmax. suspension hook: 9 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, dark brown patina; 6. Cast; 7. Attachment shaped like an elongated leaf; the upper part displays a semi-circular suspension hook, round in cross-section, placed perpendicularly onto the body of the object; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. GĂZDAC 1995, 402, 410, no. 4, 419, Fig. 2/4; PROTASE ET ALII 2008, 89, 254, 454, Pl. XLV/1; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 223, Pl. I/3; GRYGIEL 2017, 358, 362, Abb. 6/3, 366, no. 7. 61. Gherla (Pl. XXXV/61, LXXXII/61) 1. In the area of the fort; 2. MNITR v. 44979; 3. L: 36.6 mm; W: 25 mm; hmax suspension hook: 3.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, highly oxidized, restored, patina removed during the restoration process; 6. Cast; 7. Leafshaped attachment; the inferior part is no longer preserved; the upper part displays a semi-circular suspension hook, round in cross-section, placed perpendicularly onto the body of the object; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. GĂZDAC 1995, 402, 410, no. 3, 419, Fig. 2/3; ȘTEFĂNESCUONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 223, Pl. I/5. 62. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXXV/62, LXXXII/62) 1. Unknown, private collection; 2. CMBN 20388; 3. L: 61.9 mm; Wmax: 28 mm; hmax.: 7.4 mm; hmax. suspension : 7.6 mm; Wh: 34 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, uneven patina, light green, traces of soil; 6. hook Cast; 7. Attachment shaped like an elongated leaf; the upper part displays a semi-circular suspension hook, round in cross-section, placed perpendicularly onto the body of the object; no traces of soldering could be observed on BERKE 1990, 24–25. See TASSINARI 1993, I: 95–96, II: 220–238, S4000. 979 KUNOW 1983, 61. 980 KUNOW 1983, 72; KOSTER 1997, 86; see also the detailed study of R. Berg regarding the iconography of the basins in household contexts (BERG 2015). 981 KUNOW 1983, 72–73; PETROVSZKY 1993, 117; KOSTER 1997, 86. 982 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002a, 202. 983 For the possible multiple functions of the hemispherical basins, depending on the context, see GORECKI 2011, 164. 984 RADNÓTI 1938, 127; KOHLERT-NÉMETH 1990, 76. 985 PETROVSZKY 1993, 117; KOSTER 1997, 87; for a diferent interpretation of the functionality of the hemispherical basins discovered in the areas outside of the provinces Dacia and Moesia Inferior see POPA 2016. 977 978 132 the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. NEMETI 2001, 98, no. 28, 101, Pl. II/16; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 223, Pl. I/1; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 67–69 (no. 13), 81, 88, Pl. 4/13, 11/13a-b; GRYGIEL 2017, 358, 362, Abb. 6/4, 367, no. 9. 63. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXXV/63, LXXXII/63) 1. Unknown; private collection; 2. CMBN 20389; 3. L: 40.8 mm; Wmax: 26.2 mm; hmax: 5.7 mm; hsuspension : 7.2 mm; Wh: 21 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots, loop traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Leaf-shaped attachment; the upper part displays a semi-circular suspension hook, round in cross-section, placed perpendicularly onto the body of the object; traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. NEMETI 2001, 98, no. 29, 102, Pl. III/1; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 215, 223, Pl. I/4; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 67–69 (no. 14), 81, 88, Pl. 4/14, 11/14a-b. he steep-walled basins were classiied by H. J. Eggers, on the basis of the north European inds, into the 78–88 types986. In the course of time such a division proved to be unsatisfactory because it is not in agreement with the discoveries from within the Empire and includes a series of rare variants and forms. his is the reason why their typology was re-evaluated in the context of the publication of the Neupotz hoard987, and of the bronze vessels with production stamps from across the Roman Empire988. he irst monographic treatment of the steep-walled basins is owed to R. Petrovszky in the context of his analysis of the Roman bronze vessels discovered in the graves from Wrocław-Zakrzów (Sakrau) (Lower Silesia, Poland)989. From a technical viewpoint, the steep-walled basins were made from a cast raw form, round and lat, which was subsequently pressed on the lathe. he attachments were separately cast and soldered to the body of the vessel. Although, generally, they were linked to the brass vessel production from the Rhine area, the absence of metal analyses averts such a generalisation, especially since some of the pieces produced here were not made from an alloy with high zinc content990. he recipients are conical, reaching the maximum diameter at the lower part, or are cylinder-shaped, with steep walls, thickened rim, triangular in cross-section, and a base that can be sunk inwards or present a ring991. Relying on the morphological features of each type, R. Petrovszky attributed the known discoveries to two large functional groups, each with its variants: steep-walled basins used in washing sets or for mixing wine and serving basins992. he Eggers 79/Petrovszky XVII, 1 type993, with attachments ending in stylised bird heads belongs to the irst group (2a). he main distinguishing elements are represented by the fastening of three attachments under the rim of the vessel, each provided with a ring-shaped handle, enabling the recipient to be secured on a tripod994. Connecting the attachments ending in stylised bird heads found in isolation to R. Petrovszky’s typology is diicult, seeing that no information regarding the morphology of the vessel on which they were attached is known. hey can be registered in the list of discoveries of this type, but it is imposible to know for sure if the vessel had three attachments or only one, or if it belonged to an Eggers 79 basin, or to a “Zwischentyp” Eggers 78–79/Petrovszky XVI, 1 type basin characterised by an Eggers 78 body and Eggers 79 attachments995, the more so since the two basins from the Weißenburg hoard classiied as such were deinitely equipped, in one of the cases, with just one attachment ending in a bird head996. EGGERS 1951, 167–168, Beilage 31: “späte steilwandige Bronzebecken mit aufgehöhtem Boden” (Typ 78–87), Beilage 32: “versilbertes, bildverziertes steilwandiges Bronzebecken” (Typ 88), Taf. 8/77–82, 9/83–88. 987 KÜNZL 1993c, 248–251: the pieces are classiied according to the form of the rim. 988 PETROVSZKY 1993, 129–131, Taf. 4/XVI, 1 (Typ XVI, 1: “steilwandige Becken (mit Ω-Grif oder Ringattasche)”, 132–133, Taf. 4/XVII, 1 (Typ XVII, 1: “Steilwandbecken mit Taubenattasche”). 989 PETROVSZKY 2012. I wish to thank dr. R Petrovszky for providing me with his analysis in manuscript. 990 PETROVSZKY 2012. 991 PETROVSZKY 1993, 132; PETROVSZKY 2012. 992 PETROVSZKY 2012. 993 PETROVSZKY 1993, 132–133, (Typ XVII, 1: “Steilwandbecken mit Taubenattasche”), Taf. 4/XVII, 1. For a recent survey of the inds belonging to the type in the present state of the research see GRYGIEL 2017. 994 PETROVSZKY 1993, 133; PETROVSZKY 2012. 995 PETROVSZKY 1993, 129–131 (Typ XVI, 1: “teilwandige Becken (mit Ω-Grif oder Ringattasche)”, Taf. 4/XVI, 1. 996 KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993, 97–98, Abb. 16, no. 46–47, Taf. 84–85 (on basin no. 46 the attachment is not preserved, 986 133 he discoveries belonging to the type are not numerous; they mainly consist of attachments and are concentrated in Roman Britain, along the Rhine limes and the neighbouring Barbaricum, in Noricum and Dacia997. Similar to the other steep-walled basins, their production is considered to have started in the last decades of the 2nd century AD and continued until the middle of the 3rd century AD (160/180– 230/250) at the latest, in workshops functioning in the Lower and Middle Rhine area998. Recently, a more precise location of the workshops has been suggested, in the western part of Switzerland999 In Dacia Porolissensis, the steep-walled basins and attachments ending in stylised bird heads are represented with certainty by three attachments discovered in the forts at Gherla (no. 60, Pl. XXXV/60, LXXXII/60; no. 61, Pl. XXXV/61, LXXXII/61) and Ilișua (no. 62, Pl. XXXV/62, LXXXII/62), without further information about the discovery contexts. he attachment from Ilișua (no. 63, Pl. XXXV/63, LXXXII/63) is smaller in size and poses some problems concerning its attribution to this type. At the moment of publication, it was considered a lask attachment1000, but this is highly unlikely since the piece is not fragmentary and it does not display any curvature. No direct parallels are known, nor of other steep-walled basins with such small attachments, but nevertheless it was included in the discussion of the Eggers 79 basins because the formal similarities with the attachments belonging to the actual type are great and, furthermore, the fact that the item is not curved suggests that it was applied on a vessel with a fairly large diameter. From the rest of the province, another stylized attachment comes from Jupa/ Tibiscum (Caraș-Severin County), discovered in a context dated to the middle of the 3rd century AD. A less stylized version of the attachment, with the features of the represented bird (dove) still detectable was discovered at Pianu de Câmpie (Alba County)1001. he closest analogies for the three attachments from Gherla and Ilișua (nos. 60–62) are the pieces assigned by R. Petrovszky to the intermediary Eggers 78–79/Petrovszky XVI,1 type, characterised by stylised attachments and represented by the two previously mentioned basins from Weißenburg (out of which only one still has its attachment preserved), also by two attachments from Noricum, found at Enns/Lauriacum and Lorch1002, and possibly by an attachment from Avenches/Aventicum1003. At the present state of research, it is not clear whether two heart-shaped, hollow cast plates, one found at Montagnac1004 and the other in the praetentura of the fort at Intercisa1005 (end shaped like a panther) belong to the same type or not. Also, some doubts have to be expressed regarding h. Boucher’s assessment of a series of small-sized bronze pieces with the inferior part hollow cast and triangular in section and the upper one shaped like a hook, regarded by the author as attachments from a type of steep-walled basin called the Argentomagus type that would have been in production since Tiberius’ reign1006. Functionally speaking, as long as it cannt be known with how many attachments the vessels from which the pieces from Dacia Porolissensis originate were equipped, one cannot decide on a speciic use. As mentioned before, the Eggers 79 basins were provided with three attachments holding ring-shaped handles, were secured on tripods and were part of the washing set, whilst in Barbaricum they served as only the trace left by the soldering alloy); PETROVSZKY 1993, 129, 328, Z.15.04-Z.15.05, Taf. 33/Z.15.04-Z.15.05; PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 3/24–25. 997 See PETROVSZKY 2012. Liste 2; GRYGIEL 2017, 365, Abb. 8, 366–368. 998 PETROVSZKY 1993, 130, 133; PETROVSZKY 2012; GRYGIEL 2017, 363–365. 999 PETROVSZKY, BERNHARD 2016, 257. 1000 NEMETI 2001, 98, no. 29, 102, Pl. III/1. 1001 PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 2/13, 15; GRYGIEL 2017, 361, Abb. 5/1, 367, nos.: 17–18. 1002 SEDLAMYER 1999, Taf. 25/7–8; PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 2/4,8. 1003 KAPELLER 2003, 89, 110, Pl. 9/62, 135, no. 62; PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 2/2. 1004 BOUCHER 2010, 20, Fig. I/9. 1005 SZABÓ 1980, 720, Fig. 47.3/10, 724–725, Fig. 47.6. 1006 BOUCHER 2010, 20–22, Fig. 5. he author rejects the idea that these objects belong to certain types of brooches because they are not equipped with catch plates. At the present moment, no complete vessel with such attachments is known. Out of the 16 catalogued objects (the last indicated in an endnote), only in the case of the piece from Mâlain (no. 3, see also p. 20) there is an indication that the backside displays soldering traces. he part which would have been attached to the body of the vessel was hollow cast and measures 3 cm in length. Under these circumstances, we must ask ourselves whether the surface on which the soldering alloy was applied is not too small to support the weight of a basin, even in the event that three such attachments were present on the vessel. 134 wine mixing vessels. For the situation within the Empire, both functions are taken into account1007. In Dacia Porolissensis, tripod fragments were found in the praetorium of the fort at Ilișua/Arcobadara1008 and at Turda/Potaissa (Imre Botár Collection)1009. However, seeing that the attachments are extremely stylised, the possibility that they come from serving basins cannot be dismissed, similar to the example from Weißenburg, provided with a single attachment for hanging on the wall1010. heir function as cooking vessels must be ruled out. III.9.3. E 81 steep-walled basins1011 64. Orheiu Bistriței (Pl. XXXVI/64, LXXXIII/64a-b) 1. Fort 1909, discovered in the course of the renovation work and enlargement of the Evangelic church, donated by the priest Johann Dienesch for the collection of the Evangelic Gymnasium from Bistrița; unearthed together with nos. 10 and 50 from this volume, as well as with a series of miscellaneous metal objects (agricultural and craft tools, weapons, domestic implements); 2. CMBN 4272; 3. H: 93 mm; Drim: 343 mm; Dbase: 110 mm; Wbase: 6.4 mm; Wh: 1270 g; 4. Brass; 5. Fragmentary, restored (the missing parts were reconstructed from resin), slightly deformed, patina removed during the restoration process, current colour: golden; 6. Cast, followed by lathe pressing; 7. Basin with steep walls, slightly arched towards the bottom, in the area where the vessel reaches its maximum diameter; signiicant parts of the rim and body are missing and were reconstructed from resin during the restoration; the rim is splayed, triangular in proile and with a rounded edge; after the maximum diameter area, the wall tapers progressively towards the base; both on the inside, and on the outside, the wall displays registers formed by pairs of incised parallel lines; the slightly concave base exhibits a barely marked ring; both on the interior and on the exterior one can observe the mark left by the axis of the lathe; no traces of soldering which would indicate the presence of attachments could be seen on the preserved part of the wall; 8. -; 9. GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971; GLODARIU 1974, 237, no. 15, Pl. XXXII/B 15c; GLODARIU 1976, 31, table 3/15, 197, no. 15, Pl. 38/B 15bc, 51/B 15c; GLODARIU 1979, Pl. 109/6; GAIU 2005; PROTASE 2007, 108, 128, 147, Fig. 21/3; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 216, 225, Pl. III/4. he steep-walled basin from the Orheiu Bistriței hoard (no. 64, Pl. XXXVI/64, LXXXIII/64a-b) is fragmentary. Considerable parts of the rim and of the upper part of the body are missing. Currently, the item is restored and therefore one can no longer tell if it was damaged in Antiquity or because of the circumstances of discovery. On the preserved lateral sides no traces of a soldering alloy were observed, but it cannot deinitely be claimed that the vessel was not equipped with attachments because these could have been situated on the missing areas. he cylindrical shape of the body, which becomes larger towards the inferior part, and the sunken base allow the piece to be attributed to the Eggers 81 type1012, corresponding to the second group, alternatively the Petrovszky b3 variant1013. H. J. Eggers included in the 81 type the specimens with soldering traces left from attachments of an unknown shape. Based on the repertoire of the discoveries known to date drawn up by R. Petrovszky, one can see that the Eggers 81 type was commonly provided with attachments, many of the pieces exhibiting soldering traces. he vessels with preserved attachments display both leaf-shaped attachments and ring-shaped handles1014. he Eggers 81 basins mostly appear in the Lower Rhine area and in the central and north European Barbaricum. hey were produced in the same workshops and at the same time as the Eggers 79 vessels. From a functional point of view, the fact that they had a single attachment and in some cases possibly none, point to their use as serving vessels1015. 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 PETROVSZKY 1993, 130; PETROVSZKY 2012; GRYGIEL 2017, 361–363. ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 133, no. 155. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, 394, 398, 404, no. 24, Fig. 8/24. PETROVSZKY 2012. See Annexe III.9.3. EGGERS 1951, 167–168, Beilage 31: “späte steilwandige Bronzebecken mit aufgehöhtem Boden” (Typ 78–87), Taf. 8/81. PETROVSZKY 2012. PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 3/9, 18: most of the specimens were provided with a single attachment (see Liste 3, 6). PETROVSZKY 2012. 135 III.9.4. Steep-walled basins with attachments shaped like grapevine leaves 65. Buciumi (Pl. XXXV/65, LXXXII/65a-b) 1. Fort 1966, the interval between the two towers of the western gate (porta principalis dextra), the fort with stone wall; 2. MIAZ CC 83/67; 3. L: 59 mm; Wmax: 37.6 mm; hmax: 7 mm; Hsuspension hook: 22.3 mm; hsuspension hook: 6.5–9 mm; Wh: 42 g; 4. Brass; 5. Fragmentary, restored, dark green patina with golden spots; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Attachment shaped like a vine leaf; the upper part displays a semi-circular suspension hook, round in cross-section, placed perpendicularly onto the body of the object; the outline of the leaf is rendered by incisions on the surface of the object; no traces of soldering are visible on the backside of the piece; 8. he irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD (after 213); 9. CHIRILĂ ET ALII 1972, 77, no. 12, Pl. CXVI/4. he attachment from Buciumi (no. 65, Pl. XXXV/65, LXXXII/65a-b), dated on the grounds of its discovery context to the 3rd century AD (after AD 213), comes from a steep-walled basin equipped with attachments in the form of grapevine leaves1016 usually classiied as the Eggers 83 type1017. he reduced dimensions of the piece and the way of decoration allow it to be attributed to a variant of the Eggers 83 type, represented by a small number of pieces. his refers to a basin equipped with three such attachments and three more shaped like sea shells and whose body illustrates an intermediary type between the Eggers 79 and 83, vessel found in the so-called “Haus der Bronzegefäße” from the civilian settlement at Enns/Lauriacum, in a burnt destruction layer dated to the second quarter of the 3rd century AD1018, and by an attachment from the fort at Straubing, from a discovery context dated to the end of the 2nd century and the irst half of the 3rd century AD1019. he limited number of inds does not allow the establishment of a more reined production interval for the variant than that generally considered for the Eggers 83 basins, namely the last decades of the 2nd century to the middle of the 3rd century at the latest. Regarding the area in which the workshops functioned, the compact distribution of the pieces along the Rhine and Danube limes to Pannonia, in Barbaricum along the Weser and the Elba Rivers, points once more to the Lower or Middle Rhine area1020. he function of the Eggers 83 basins also depends on the number of attachments with which they were provided: washing/wine mixing (three attachments), serving (one). In the case of the variant ascribed to the piece from Buciumi, the only known vessel is the one from Enns/Lauriacum, which has three attachments. Until new discoveries surface, one can presume with due caution that the item in question originates from a washing basin. III.9.5. Basin fragments 66. Gherla (Pl. XXXVII/66) 1. he area of the fort; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 79 mm; W: 40.7 mm; h: 6 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. -; 6. Cast and bent; 7. Leaf-shaped attachment with elongated inferior end; the upper part displays a suspension hook for the handle, hook which is bent above the body of the piece; 8. -; 9. PROTASE ET ALII 2008, 87, 253, 450, Pl. XLI/5. 67. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XXXVII/67, LXXXIV/67) 1. Fort, praetorium, large earthen fort; 2. CMBN 20647; 3. H: 60.4 mm; W: 50 mm; hmax: 5.5 mm; Wh: 23 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots; 6. Made from a rolled and hammered bronze sheet; 7. Omega-shaped handle with bent ends terminating with knobs; 8. Hadrian – the last decades of the 2nd century AD?; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 67–69 (no. 15), 82, Pl. 5/15. 68. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVII/68, LXXXIV/68a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 142/1958; 3. L: 34.3 mm; W: 15.9 mm; h: 1 mm; Wh: 3 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, patina removed during the restoration process when the piece See Annexe III.9.4. EGGERS 1951, 167–168, Beilage 31: “späte steilwandige Bronzebecken mit aufgehöhtem Boden (Typ 78–87)”, Typ 83: “mit drei Weinblattattaschen”, Taf. 9/83. 1018 SEDLMAYER 1999, 57, 62–63, 161, Taf. 25/5–6; PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 1/14. 1019 WALKE 1965, 63, 156, no. 12, Taf. 115/12; PETROVSZKY 2012, Liste 1/55. 1020 PETROVSZKY 2012. 1016 1017 136 was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. Basin attachment shaped like a leaf; the upper part, provided with a longitudinal groove, is langed over the body forming the suspension loop for one of the ends of the handle; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 667, no. 29, Pl. CCXVII/29. he identiication of the piece from Gherla (no. 66, Pl. XXXVII/66) as a basin attachment is conirmed by its resemblance with a series of such elements seen on a certain type of hemispherical basin with stand, known only from funerary contexts from Moesia and hrace1021. he basins are provided with two pairs of attachments in the form of leaves with an elongated inferior part, each holding an Ω–shaped handle. here are no other parallels from the Roman world. B. A. Raev dated the three known specimens, one without discovery context1022 and two found in the graves from Karaagač (today Brjastovec, Burgas, Bulgaria)1023 and Stara Zagora1024 to the second half of the 3rd century AD1025. he handle from Ilișua (no. 67, Pl. XXXVII/67, LXXXIV/67) most likely comes from a basin of undetermined type and the same is true for the leaf-shaped attachment from Moigrad//Porolissum (no. 68, Pl. XXXVII/68, LXXXIV/68a-b). Plates of this kind are typical both for the Eggers 77 and 78 basins, and for the shell-shaped basins of the Tassinari N1200 and N2300 types found at Pompeii1026. he small dimensions of the piece suggest that it was applied on recipients of a more reduced size1027. From the rest of Roman Dacia, a steep-walled basin attachment discovered at Drobeta can be mentioned here which, unlike the known forms, is decorated with an anthropomorphic representation1028. To my knowledge, this piece is unparalleled. III.10. Buckets he term “bucket”1029 designates a conical or cylindrical container whose diameter is usually smaller than its height. he main morphological criterion which makes the diference between cauldrons and buckets is precisely the relation between the two dimensions since the cauldron’s diameter is greater than its height. Another diference is represented by the lat or annular base, an element lacking in the case of the cauldrons, since these were usually suspended over the ire with a chain and thus their base is commonly slightly convex or even rounded1030. All the Roman bronze buckets are provided with a handle whose ends are ixed onto the body of the vessel by means of two diametrically opposed attachments soldered under the rim. he buckets can have steep or arched walls and, as mentioned before, a lat or an annular base. Regarding the bell-shaped buckets1031, they were included in this category and not treated as cauldrons. Although in the German specialised literature they are designated as “Kessel”, seeing that the ratio between the diameter and the height is approximately 1 to 1, certain morphological elements and especially certain technical aspects plead for their classiication as buckets. hese elements refer to the presence of an annular base and to the fact that the buckets are cast and made from several pieces of metal (the handle is ixed with the help of two attachments soldered on the body), excluding the use of the type in contact with the ire. One should resort with reservations to the Latin term situla when referring to certain types of Roman bronze buckets made from bronze and other materials because in this case too, the ancient authors who RAEV 1978, 627. RAEV 1978, 642, no. 106, Taf. 31/5. 1023 RAEV 1978, 640, no. 82, Taf. 33/4. 1024 RAEV 1978, 637, no. 38, Taf. 18/3. 1025 RAEV 1978, 627. 1026 TASSINARI 1993, I: 81–82, II: 169 (N1200), 173 (N2300). 1027 For such discoveries, see SEDLMAYER 1999, 57, 62, Taf. 25/4; KAPELLER 2003, 89, 112, Pl. 11/74–80, 136, no. 74–80; BIENERT 2007, 254, 257, no. 297. 1028 STÎNGĂ 2003, 105, 112, Fig. 6. 1029 See Annexe III.10.1–10.3. 1030 he terms “jar” and “bucket”, proposed by J. Lundock, are not proper when dealing with types belonging to the same shape (LUNDOCK 2015, 17–18). 1031 See Annexe III.10.3. 1021 1022 137 mention it mostly speak of the vessels’ functions, and not of their shape. hus, situla can be a bronze or wooden container for water transportation, a washing vessel, one used for extracting water from wells or collecting rainwater, or can be a recipient for drinking or for wine, and the information about the shape’s morphology is vague1032. III.10.1. Buckets with attachments shaped like a human mask1033 69. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVII/69, LXXXIV/69a-b) 1. Pomet hill 1978, discovered by Iulian Iepuraș from Jac village; 2. MIAZ CC 44/1978; 3. H: 55 mm; Wmax: 73 mm; h: 8.5 mm; Dsuspension loop: 22.4 mm; Wh: 97 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, uneven patina, dark grey with light grey spots and brown oxidized areas on the back of the piece; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Bucket attachment with the central part decorated with a mask representing a female character; the facial features are supericially marked and the hairstyle, with a middle parting, is rendered by incisions; the inferior part of a palmetto is igured underneath the chin, while the prolonged lateral sides, with terminals shaped like stylized animals (geese?), present a vegetal decoration also made by incisions; the same decoration continues onto the suspension loop placed on the upper part; traces of soldering can be seen on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. he buckets with attachments shaped like human masks were classiied by H. J. Eggers, according to their aspect and morphological characteristics, in the 24–29 types1034. hese illustrate an evolution of the category from type 24 present in Vesuvian towns1035, considered a Campanian (Capua) product of Hellenistic inluence appearing in discovery contexts dated between the Augustan period and circa AD 791036, to the provincial variants. he latter were chronologically placed by U. Lund Hansen, on the basis of the discoveries from the north European Barbaricum, in B2: AD 70–150/160 (types 25–26)1037, and B2/C1a: AD 70–210/220 (types 27–29)1038, while in Moravia they appear in contexts dated to the second half of the irst century (25/26 types) and second half of the 2nd century AD (after AD 161: 25/28 and 27/28 types)1039. A more in-depth analysis of the types mentioned above is diicult to provide, for several reasons. First of all, with few exceptions (Eggers 24, 261040) the discoveries mainly or exclusively cluster in Barbaricum1041. Second, the inds mostly consist in attachments and not complete specimens, and their typological evolution does not always conform to the morphological changes sufered by the vessels’ body. hese issues determined S. Berke to question the need to distinguish ive types (25–26 and 27–29) instead of two1042. Recently, J. Gorecki proposed a new division of the discoveries, based on the shape of the vessels. However, it is not always possible to speciically attribute an attachment to one of the variants of the two main groups established by the scholar1043. he existence of such a large number of attachments prompted the specialists to establish a separate typology for them. Starting from H. J. Eggers’s observations according to whom an evolution can be traced with respect to the way the attachments shaped like a human mask of the Eggers 24–29 buckets HILGERS 1969, 77–79, 282–283, no. 340. See Annexe III.10.1. 1034 EGGERS 1951, 161–162, Beilage 13: “Bronzeeimer von Situlaform mit Gesichtsattaschen” (Typ 24–29), Taf. 4/24–29. 1035 TARBELL 1909, 119, no. 109, 113, 120, no. 115a, Pl. LXX/109, 113, LXXI/115A; TASSINARI 1993, I: 110, II: 304, X1410. 1036 LINDEBERG 1973, 13; KUNOW 1983, 18, 58; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 178; LUND HANSEN 1987, 51; BOLLA 1994, 56. 1037 LUND HANSEN 1987, 49, 89–90. See also KUNOW 1983, 18 (the Flavian period until Hadrian/Antoninus Pius), 58; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, 178; BERKE 1990, 20–21. 1038 LUND HANSEN 1987, 59–60; BERKE 1990, 21–22. 1039 JÍLEK 2016, 402–409, 411 Abb. 11. 1040 BOLLA 1994, 56–59. Besides Pompeii and Herculaneum, type 24 is also attested in Pannonia, in the Germanic region of the Empire, in Raetia and Roman Britain. Type 26 is well represented in the northern Italian Peninsula. 1041 EGGERS 1951, Karte 16–17; LUND HANSEN 1987, 60, Fig. 22 (types 27–29), 333, Karte 43 (types 24–29 in the northern European Barbaricum); POULSEN 1992, 224–225, Abb. 22–25 (distribution maps of the attachments). 1042 BERKE 1990, 20–22. 1043 GORECKI 2011, 170–178, Abb. 56. 1032 1033 138 were made1044, E. Poulsen classiied them in two large groups. he distinction between them lies in the method of execution of the female mask which can either be provided with a “support” for the head (“Kopfkissen”), or not; each group displays several variants1045. he attachment from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 69, Pl. XXXVII/69, LXXXIV/69a-b) is the only fragment from Dacia Porolissensis to come from such buckets. he centre of the representation illustrates a female head with poorly rendered facial features, lanked by two highly stylised animal heads (probably geese), while on the lower part there is a palmetto with six lobes, separated from the female head by a row of incised circles that make up a necklace. he surface of the attachment, including the holding ring, is incised with vegetal elements. he female mask is provided with the head “support”, an element that allows its attribution to the group II devised by E. Poulsen1046. A more precise classiication into one of the variants established by the author cannot be operated with certainty because, as it will be seen below, the piece in question is most likely an intermediate variant. Group II (Dollerup) comprises 4 variants: the irst (A) includes attachments on which nine-lobed palmettos were depicted, the second (B) is a simpliied version of the irst, with a six-lobed palmetto, while the last two (C and D) include highly stylised specimens, smaller in size. From a formal point of view, the piece from Moigrad/Porolissum would agree with variant B, because the actual representation, although stylised, still allows one to notice the main outlines; however, the reduced dimensions are characteristic for variants C and D1047. For this reason, the best assumption is that we are dealing with an intermediate type. Of course, this poses the question whether it is possible to attribute these attachments to some of the bucket types discussed above. E. Poulsen classiied ten attachments as variant B (ive complete buckets), all discovered in Barbaricum, out of which four appear on Eggers 25 buckets with pointed shoulder, and six on Eggers 26 bi-conical buckets. Regarding the C and D variants, represented inside the Empire only in Pannonia, the only two complete buckets belong to the Eggers 27–28 type1048. Variant B is chronologically placed in B2, while D in B2/C1a. C and D are considered deinite products of a Danubian workshop, whereas for B this is taken into consideration only hypothetically1049. Given the issues detailed above, one cannot but conclude that a precise assignment for the attachment from Moigrad/Porolissum is not possible. he small size might indicate a steering towards the Eggers 27–28, and this possibility is also supported by the fact that the holding ring is decorated, detail which is in fact characteristic for these two types.1050 Nevertheless, considering that no exact parallels for the piece under analysis are known and that the number of discoveries is small, and, furthermore, the current state of research does not allow one to trace in detail such an evolution, the appearance of the variant on the 25–26 types as well cannot be ruled out. A framing in Gorecki’s types A3-A5 and B2–3 seems plausible as well1051. It is however certain that it belonged to a type of bucket probably produced in the provincial milieu and in use starting with the last quarter of the 1st century AD until the middle of the 2nd century, possibly even until the beginning of the 3rd century AD1052. On the basis of the signiicant number of inds from the northern Italian Peninsula, M. Bolla presumed an Italic production EGGERS 1951, 161: attachments with naturalistic representations (Eggers 24), stylised plates (Eggers 25–26), “degenerate” attachments (Eggers 27–29). 1045 POULSEN 1992. 1046 POULSEN 1992, 217–221, 227, 229–230. 1047 POULSEN 1992, 227. he attachments attributed to the II.B. version have an approximate width of 9 cm and a height (without the holding ring) ranging from 4 to 4.6 cm. hose belonging to the C and D versions (L: 6.5–8 cm; H: 3.5–4.2 cm) are much closer to the piece from Porolissum. 1048 POULSEN 1992, 218–221, 227, 229–230. 1049 POULSEN 1992, 222–223. 1050 See the attachments of the Eggers 28 bucket from the tomb at Lisovice (Ústí nad Labem, he Czech Republic) (KARASOVÁ 1998, 14, 103, Taf. VII/1b-c, 115, Abb. 9b). 1051 GORECKI 2011, 173–175. 1052 he buckets with human mask attachments are extremely rare in the metal hoards dated starting with the 3rd century AD (BERKE 1990, 22).he only known discovery is a variant of an Eggers 26 bucket from the hoard from Apt (CAVALIER 1988, 62–63, no. 19). 1044 139 for at least a part of the items belonging to the Eggers 26 type, but for the moment this production is hard to deine1053. From a functional perspective, the buckets with attachments shaped like human masks were part of the drinking sets and served for mixing wine and other drinks. Such a use is supported by the associations in funerary inventories1054. heir employment in the kitchen must be dismissed since they were equipped with feet. he presence of vessels like this in Pompeiian kitchens was explained by the fact that they were stored there1055. III.10.2. Buckets with slightly concave sides 70. Gilău (Pl. XXXVIII/70, LXXXIV/70) 1. Fort 1980, principia, phase III, chamber g, depth: -0.65 m, Gilău III; 2. MNITR v. 44902; 3. L: 66 mm; Wmax: 37 mm; hmax: 10 mm; hsuspension loop: 5 mm; Dsuspension loop: 9.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, dark grey patina with light green spots; 6. Full-cast; 7. Bucket attachment with concave sides and bifurcated inferior terminal; the two forked ends are partially broken; the suspension loop for the handle displays signs of intense use, fact which caused its breaking; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. he irst half of the 3rd century AD; 9. DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 53–54, no. 2, Fig. 1/2. 71. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVIII/71, LXXXIV/71a-b) 1. he fort on Pomet hill 1981, trench 31, C31/7a, square 1–3, depth: -0.80 m, the area of the principia, the fort with earthen enclosure; 2. MIAZ CC 66/89; 3. L: 74.6; Wmax: 42 mm; hmax.: 9 mm; hsuspension loop: 4 mm; Dinterior 9 mm; Wh: 65 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, without patina; 6. Full-cast; 7. Bucket suspension loop: attachment with concave sides and bifurcated inferior terminal; one of the two forked ends is partially broken; the suspension loop for the handle displays signs of use; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the piece; 8. he beginning of the 2nd – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. Unpublished. 72. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVIII/72, LXXXV/72a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 203/58; 3. L: 71.4 mm; W: 47.5 mm; h: 12.2 mm; Wh: 60 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, patina removed during the restoration, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Hollow-cast, a minor casting defect is visible on the lower part; 7. Triangular bucket attachment; the suspension loop placed on the upper part displays signs of wear; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 668, no. 11, Pl. CCXVIII/11. 73. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVIII/73, LXXXV/73) 1. Fort on Pomet hill 1943, porta principalis sinistra, western aisle, the fort with stone wall; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 70 mm; Wmax: 24 mm; hmax: 9.7 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, light green-grey patina; 6. Cast; 7. Bucket attachment in the form of an elongated leaf, trapezoidal in cross-section; the upper part displays a suspension loop with slight signs of use; traces of soldering can be seen on the backside of the piece; 8. he irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD (after AD 213); 9. GUDEA 1989, 668, no. 10, Pl. CCXVIII/10. he Eggers 361056 buckets with slightly concave sides1057 are characterised by a conical body with arched margins, by a slightly splayed rim, in most cases a separately made base and by two cast attachments that secure the handle. hey are represented in Dacia Porolissensis by two triangular attachments found at Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 72, Pl. XXXVIII/72, LXXXV/72a-b; no. 73, Pl. XXXVIII/73, LXXXV/73). Regarding the buckets with concave sides provided with attachments shaped like female masks (Medusa?) of the Neuburg type1058 (Eggers 35), two plates belonging to the type were discovered BOLLA 1994, 57. See, for instance, the hoard from Havor (Gotland, Sweeden), or the inventory of the grave from Szőlősgyörök (Somogy, Hungary) (HORVÁTH 1981; SZABÓ 1995, 82, Fig. 6, 84). 1055 KUNOW 1983, 70; SZABÓ 1995, 80. 1056 EGGERS 1951, 162–163, Beilage 18: “Bronzeeimer vom Typus Vaegegaard” (Typ 35: “mit Frauenkopfattaschen”; Typ 36: “mit dreieckigen Attaschen”), Taf. 5/35–36; LUND HANSEN 1987, 82. 1057 See Annexe III.10.2. 1058 WERNER 1936. 1053 1054 140 on territory of Roman Dacia. One comes from Jupa/Tibiscum1059 and the other from Ungra (Brașov County)1060. Amongst the discoveries of complete buckets bearing attachments similar to the ones from Porolissum, one can mention here the bucket from one of the tombs at Himlingøie (1829) (Seeland, Denmark)1061, the one discovered at Garenne du Roi (Picardie, France)1062 and the two buckets included in the hoards from Weißenburg1063 and Flavia Solva1064. Numerous attachments of this kind are known1065. he pieces usually classiied by specialists as the Eggers 36 type make up a heterogeneous group. Diferences can be observed with respect both to the shape and size of the body, and to the attachments, which can be pointed and thin (no. 73), wider, of diferent sizes, with faceted surface and hollow cast (no. 72) or made from bronze sheet. he last mentioned are characteristic for an Oriental version of the Eggers 36 buckets which, unlike the Occidental, is smaller in size, has steep walls and is massively represented in funerary inventories from Moesia and hrace starting with the second half of the 2nd century AD1066. Such a bucket is part of the bronze vessel hoard discovered at Zlatna/Ampelum1067. he two attachments from Gilău (no. 70, Pl. XXXVIII/70, LXXXIV/70) and Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 71, Pl. XXXVIII/71, LXXXIV/71a-b), characterised by highly arched margins and a bifurcated inferior end, were linked by H. Sedlmayer with the bell-shaped buckets1068 which will be treated below in this volume. he two pieces were discussed together with those belonging to the Eggers 36 type because I agree with M. Luik’s opinion that it is very diicult to distinguish between this form and that of the bell-shaped buckets when all we have for study are the attachments alone1069. An example to this efect is the Eggers 36 bucket from de hoard at Chalain-d’Úzore (Rhône-Alpes, France) provided with attachments with pointed ends1070. he attachments of a bucket with the same body shape, kept in the collection of the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen, have bifurcated ends1071. he same situation can be observed in the case of some variants of the bell-shaped bucket. According to the imprint left on the body of the vessel, the specimen discovered at Salzburg had attachments with bifurcated end1072, while the bucket from the Apt hoard was provided with the version with pointed end1073. For this reason, the attachments found in isolation1074 must be treated with precaution. he Eggers 36 buckets are spread in Roman Britain, in eastern and northern Gaul, along the Rhine and Danube limes and in Free Germany1075. On the basis of this distribution pattern, it is considered that they were manufactured in workshops from Gaul or from the Rhine area between the middle of ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 153, no. 244; ARDEȚ 2004b, 38–39, Fig. 5/a-b; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 217, 226, Pl. IV/4. 1060 ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 153, no. 245; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 226, Pl. IV/5. 1061 EGGERS 1951, 85, 163, no. 174; LUND HANSEN 1987, 205, Fig. 134, 207 (dated to C1b at the latest). 1062 TASSINARI 1975a, 54, no. 119, Pl. XXVI/119a-b. 1063 KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993, 108–109, no. 55, Abb. 24, Taf. 97 (dated around the middle of the 3rd century AD). 1064 MELCHART 1985–1986, 228–229, Bild 1, 5–7; SEDLMAYER 1999, 103, 163–164, Abb. 24 (dated around the middle of the 3rd century AD, possibly even later). 1065 See, e.g..: EGGERS 1966, 120, Abb. 12 (Chester), 125, Abb. 19 (Richborough), 154, Abb. 55 (York); TASSIANRI 1975, 56–57, no. 130–138, Pl. XXVIII/130–138; BISHOP 1996, 13–14, no. 22, Fig. 7/22; SEDLMAYER 1999, 98, Taf, 46/1; KAPELLER 2003, 124, Pl. 23/146, 140, no. 146. 1066 RAEV 1978, 629, 635, no. 4, Taf. 33/3 (Balčik), 639, no. 62, Taf. 15/1 (Rila), 640, no. 79, Taf. 28/4 (Stara Zagora); SEDLMAYER 1999, 103. 1067 TÉGLÁS 1902, 7–8, no. 2, Fig. 1/2; NOVAK 1942, 235–236, Fig. 3; WOLLMAN 1996, 211, Pl. 13/2, 24/1, 96; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 143, no. 204; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216–217, 226, Pl. IV/3. 1068 SEDLMAYER 1999, 105–106, Taf. 47/3–5. 1069 LUIK 2005, 264. 1070 FEUGÈRE 1984–1985, 36, Fig. 2, 49, no. 51, 55, Fig. 24. 1071 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 47, no. 153, Pl. VI/153. 1072 SEDLMAYER 1999, 105, Taf. 47/2. 1073 CAVALIER 1988, 65–66, no. 23. 1074 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 47–48, no. 154, Pl. VI/154; EGGERS 1966, 121, Abb. 14 (Corbridge), 159, Abb. 60 (Gillbanks); BOUCHER 1971, 158, no. 324; TASSINARI 1975a, 58, no. 139, Pl. XXVIII/139; CRUMMY 1995, 71–73, no. 2040, Fig. 76/2040; KAPELLER 2003, 124, Pl. 23/147, 140, no. 147; LUIK 2005, 277, no. 6, 283, Abb. 6/6. 1075 See the distribution maps in SEDLMAYER 1999, 104, Karte 13; LUIK 2005, 263, Abb. 1, 264, 266. 1059 141 the 2nd century AD and the middle of the 3rd century1076. he three half-inished attachments found at Autun (Fig. 11/5–7) certify that they were also produced at the site1077. Moreover, the discovery of the clay moulds from Milan1078 adds another point on the distribution map of the workshops. J. Kunow attributed the attachment found in the Ornavasso-San Bernardo cemetery to the Eggers 35 type on the basis of the identiication provided by J. Graue1079; this determined the former to presume that these buckets were already in use during the 1st century BC1080. he identiication was however corrected by C. Boube, who included the attachment from Ornavasso in the repertoire of Beaucaire type bucket discoveries1081. hese buckets were employed as part of the drinking service, for mixing wine, a function supported by the hoard associations as well as by the funerary inventories. heir use in direct contact with ire should be disregarded, because that would have led to the melting of the soldering alloy applied on the constituent parts1082. A possible use as a water transportation recipient1083 in certain contexts should not be ruled out. III.10.3. Buckets with bell-shaped body 74. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXVIII/74, LXXXV/74a-b) 1. Pomet hill 1973, found in the southern corner, next to the grapevine, by Gheorghe Tămeș from Jac village; 2. MIAZ CC 762/73; 3. H: 59.7 mm; Wmax: 41 mm; hmax: 13 mm; hsuspension loop: 6.4 mm; Wh: 75 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, light green patina; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Triangular bucket attachment lanked on both sides by a leaf with rounded tip; the upper part displays a suspension loop on which signs of use can be seen, decorated with vegetal motifs composed from incised circles; the central scene depicts Bacchus under an arched grapevine pergola terminating at both ends with grape bunches; the god is represented as a nude youth, standing, resting the weight of his body on his right foot; with his right, bent hand he appears to be grabbing the end of the pergola; in his left hand he is holding a bunch of grapes; above the bunch, one can notice a vertical, circular object which might be the upper part of a tyrsos, only partially rendered (on other attachments of the same type the character is illustrated holding a tyrsos in his left hand); the manner of the representation is schematic and crude; the backside is provided with a deep incision which allowed the piece to be attached to the rim of the vessel; traces of soldering are still visible; 8. -; 9. POP, MATEI 1978, 81, no. 15, Fig. IV/12; KAUFMANNHEINIMANN 1998, 39, 41, Abb. 14/11. he buckets with bell-shaped body1084 designate a type of cast container with a strongly splayed rim, a body with an S-shaped proile and an annular base, also provided with two attachments that allow a handle to be secured. Within the type, three variants can be diferentiated with respect to the form of the attachments: the irst two are considered products of the workshops active in the western provinces of the Empire and are characterised either by the attachments with bifurcated end discussed above, similar to those applied on the Eggers 36 buckets, or by attachments decorated with Bacchic scenes like the one from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 74, Pl. XXXVIII/74, LXXXV/74a-b). he third variant, “Balčik”, with bronze sheet attachments similar to those seen on the Oriental kind of Eggers 36 buckets, is represented by a large number of inds discovered in Moesia and hrace and is regarded by specialists as a product of the workshops from this part of the Empire1085. From the KUNOW 1983, 19; KOSTER 1997, 49, no. 45; see SEDLMAYER 1999, 103 and LUIK 2005, 264 for the latest discovery contexts. 1077 See subchapter II.3.2.1 and Annexe II.b.3. 1078 See subchapter II.3.2.1 and Annexe II.a.7. 1079 GRAUE 1974, 25, 63, Abb. 12/5. 1080 KUNOW 1983, 19. 1081 BOLLA ET ALII 1991, 20. 1082 KOSTER 1997, 49. 1083 KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993, 108. 1084 See Annexe III.10.3. 1085 RAEV 1978, 628, 635, no. 4, Taf. 33/2 (Balčik), 637, no. 36, Pl. 28/1 (Kalojanovec), 639, no. 67, 69, Taf. 15/5, 7 (Sliven and Soia), 640, no. 79, Taf. 28/2 (Stara Zagora); CASTOLDI 1986, 213; SEDLMAYER 1999, 108. 1076 142 territory of Roman Dacia, such a bucket was recovered from the bronze vessel hoard found at Zlatna/ Ampelum1086. Returning to the bell-shaped buckets with attachments decorated with Bacchic scenes, these were the subject matter of many studies mostly focused on the analysis of the specimen discovered at Milan or on the issue of the Roman bronzes discovered in the northern Italian Peninsula1087. A separate analysis of the attachments’ iconography was made by A. Kaufmann-Heinimann who grouped the 24 known attachments in three variants illustrating an evolution from the pieces with elaborate decoration to those with schematic representations1088. he attachment from Moigrad/Porolissum was attributed to the second variant, named Carnuntum-Porolissum, together with four other specimens, two discovered in northern Italy (Como and Piedmont), one in the villa at Liestal-Munzach (Basel-Landschaft, Switzerland) and another one at Carnuntum. All of these are characterised by a triangular form, with the edges lanked by a pair of small-sized leaves, and display a child Bacchus who is holding the end of a pergola with one hand, whilst with the other is gripping the tyrsos, or is holding the pergola ends with both hands1089. he bell-shaped buckets equipped with attachments with Bacchic scenes appear mostly in the northern Italian Peninsula, whence they were distributed eastwards, along the Danube, in Raetia, Noricum and Pannonia1090. here are only a few discoveries from the western provinces and therefore they were regarded as products of north Italian workshops. Concerning the chronology, the most recent discoveries can be dated around the middle of the 3rd century AD, while the production possibly began sometime during the last decades of the 2nd century AD1091. Similar to the Eggers 36 buckets, this type was also used as a mixing vessel, part of the drinking service, fact proven both by the associations with other elements of the set seen in discovery contexts1092, and by the resemblances with the Hemmoor type buckets igured on the Simpelveld sarcophagus (Fig. 6)1093. III.10.4. Bucket fragments 75. Gherla (Pl. XXXIX/75, LXXXVI/75) 1. From the area of the fort; 2. MNITR v. 34588; 3. L: 232.3 mm; h: 6 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, severely deformed, uneven patina, dark green with light green spots; 6. Cast; 7. Bucket handle, rectangular in cross-section, with each end terminating in a knob; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 76. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXIX/76, LXXXVI/76a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 130/58; 3. L: 45.6 mm; W: 22.7 mm; h: 2.9 mm; Wh: 10 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored (it was broken in two parts which were pieced together during the restoration process), deformed, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Bronze sheet, hammered, perforated; 7. Leaf-shaped bucket attachment; the upper part presents a suspension loop; because of the methods employed during the restoration, no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the attachment; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 668, no. 6, Pl. CCXVIII/6. 77. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXIX/77, LXXXVI/77a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 128/58; 3. L: 43.7 mm; W: 33.3 mm; h: 1.4 mm; Wh: 8 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Bronze sheet, hammered, perforated; 7. Bucket attachment; TÉGLÁS 1902, 8, no. cat. 3, Fig. 1/3; NOVAK 1942, 234–235, Fig. 2; WOLLMAN 1996, 211, Pl. 12/1, 24, 96/2; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 142, no. 202. 1087 GALLIAZO 1979, 200, no. 83; FROVA 1963, 38, Fig. 11; CASTOLDI 1986; BOLLA 1994, 59, 61–62, no. 69, Tav. LVIII-LIX; POULSEN 2000, 438–440, Fig. 8; CASTOLDI 2002, 290–292, Fig. 2; CROCE DA VILLA 2002, 179–181, Fig. 1. 1088 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 39–42, Abb. 14–15. 1089 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 39, 42, Abb. 14/9–13; POULSEN 2000, 439–440. 1090 See the distribution map in KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 42, Abb. 15. 1091 CASTOLDI 1986, 213–214, Fig. 4; BOLLA 1994, 59; KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 39; POULSEN 2000, 440; CASTOLDI 2002, 290. 1092 SEDLMAYER 1999, 108; POULSEN 2000. 1093 See subchapter II.2.2.2. 1086 143 the inferior part is broken; the upper part displays a suspension loop on which signs of use can be observed; because of the methods employed in the restoration, no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the attachment; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 674, no. 6, Pl. CCXXI/6. 78. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XXXIX/78) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 125/58; 3. L: 57.5 mm; W: 18.4 mm; h: 1.9 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Bronze sheet, hammered, perforated; 7. Leaf-shaped bucket attachment; the upper part presents a suspension loop; because of the methods employed in the restoration, no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside of the attachment; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 668, no. 5, Pl. CCXVIII/5. 79. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XXXIX/79) 1. “Középmál” (the northern slope of “Dealul Cetății”, starting with Traian Street) 1911, in the grapevine of Sándor Bethlen’s wife; 2. -; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Bronze sheet, hammered, perforated?; 7. Leaf-shaped bucket attachment; the inferior part is broken of, while the superior part displays a suspension loop; 8. -; 9. BAJUSZ 2005, 556, 45/86b/2. ábra; MUSTAȚĂ 2015b, 208–210, Fig. 2/7. 80. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XXXIX/80) 1. “Szindivölgy-Tető” (the ridge of Sândului Valley) 1910, Ij. Ferenc Bardócz’s grapevine; 2. -; 3. L: 35 mm; W: 23 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; 6. Bronze sheet, hammered, perforated?; 7. Leaf-shaped bucket attachment with a suspension oriice placed on the upper part; 8. -; 9. BAJUSZ 1980, 383, no. 663; BAJUSZ 2005, 671, 44/81/1. ábra; MUSTAȚĂ 2015b, 208–210, Fig. 2/6. he handle from Gherla (no. 75, Pl. XXXIX/75, LXXXVI/75) deinitely comes from a bucket, but it is impossible to determine its type. he ive bronze sheet attachments from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 76, Pl. XXXIX/76, LXXXVI/76a-b; no. 77, Pl. XXXIX/77, LXXXVI/77a-b; no. 78, Pl. XXXIX/78) and Turda/Potaissa (no. 79, Pl. XXXIX/79; no. 80, Pl. XXXIX/80)1094 can be attributed to the Oriental versions of the Eggers 36 buckets and of the bell-shaped buckets previously discussed, but the assumption should be made with reservations because triangular bronze sheet plates can also appear on some globular balsamaria1095. Looking at the rest of Roman Dacia, such attachments were discovered at Mehadia1096, in the fort at Răcari1097 and at Tibiscum1098. III.11. Balsamaria From a formal viewpoint, balsamaria1099 represent a heterogeneous bronze vessel category, including all of those used for containing oils, perfumes or scented creams required during toilet time. Concerning the terminology, the choice of the term balsamarium has been already argued for in a previous chapter of this volume1100. It was employed as a technical term, with no connection to the Latin terminology, because this is the current archaeological convention. he forms included vary from the recipients with relief-decorated or undecorated globular body to those shaped like lagons. III.11.1. Globular balsamaria with relief-decorated body 81. Gilău (Pl. XL/81a, XLI/81b, LXXXVII/81a, LXXXVIII/81b-c, LXXXIXd-g) 1. Fort 1979, via decumana, the segment towards via sagularis, outside the southern tower of the gate, depth: his fact is valid only for the attachments from Moigrad/Porolissum. he items registered by István Téglas in his notes were not preserved to date. he idea that they were made from bronze sheet is just an assumption grounded in their formal characteristics. 1095 BRAUN 2001, 150 (B 25), 152–153 (B 32). 1096 BOZU 2001, 153, no. 77, Pl. V/77. 1097 BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, 232, no. 721, 414, Pl. CXVIII/721. 1098 ARDEȚ 2004a, 31–32, Pl. III/10. 1099 See Annexe III.11.1–11.2. 1100 See subchapter I.3. 1094 144 -0.50 m, Gilău III; 2. MNITR v. 45341; 3. H: 145 mm; Hwith handle: 221 mm; Drim: 96 mm; Dexterior rim: 108 mm; Dlid opening: 55 mm; Dbase: 91 mm; Hattachments: 45 mm; Wh: 822 g; 4. Copper alloy and silver; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, green with reddish brown spots; 6. Cast in several pieces (body, rim, lid, base, attachments, handles, handle terminals), incised, lathe-inished; 7. Gobular vessel with the body slightly elongated towards the bottom; the exterior part of the rim is rounded, folded inwards and hollow inside; the edge of the rim exhibits a series of concentric incisions and, on one side, a triangular groove which enabled the attachment of the ixed part of the hinge that held into place the lid, now lost; the exterior side of the rim is decorated with incised vegetal elements grouped in four alternating registers constituted from laurel leaves, pine cones, laurel leaves, and buds, separated by an obliquely positioned band (tenia); the scene depicted on the body is delineated by a register composed of an incised Lesbian kymation topped by a partially deteriorated beading above, and by the walking level pertaining to the actual scene beneath; the representation consists of an agonistic scene rendered in relief, composed of nine male characters divided into three distinct groups; the irst group, emplaced starting with the end of one of the attachments, comprises three characters: the irst, seen from the proile and positioned towards right, dressed in a piece of cloth wrapped around his hips and knotted in front, is observing the two nude athletes engaged in combat; the left one, whit his left leg raised, is grabbing his adversary by the head with his left hand, while with the right he is holding the man’s left hand; the second group consists of two nude athletes standing, caught just before the moment of the attack: the left man leans over to gain momentum, with his right hand hanging down and his left raised (the left hand was not executed in relief, but incised); the right athlete is in a defensive position, with his left arm close to the body and the right arched above his forehead; these two groups are divided by the representation of a column with the upper part decorated with oblique incisions arranged in two diferent registers; most likely a basket is placed on top, representing the awards, decorated with oblique incisions and circular elements, out of which an object whose surface was silvered emerges; the basket is lanked on both sides by incised palm leaves; the third group is composed of four characters, most probably two referees who frame two athletes during the inal moment of boxing; the irst character from the left side is seen from the proile, the lower part of his body is wrapped in a long garment and he holds a stick in his left hand (the hand and the stick are not in relief, only incised); next, there is the irst athlete depicted standing, in the winner’s stance, with his right foot bent and right hand pointing upwards, while with the left hand he is touching the back of the defeated opponent; in his right hand he is holding a somewhat rectangular object of small size, probably made from lead and used as weapon during the ight; the loosing athlete is illustrated leaning, with his head resting down on his right forearm, kneeling on his right foot and bending his left; the “gloves” used for boxing (caestus), with their laces highlighted by silvering, can be seen on the forearms of both athletes; the fourth person, represented on the right, is leaning and with his left arm he is trying to help the defeated athlete; a vessel lanked by two incised palm leaves can be observed above the group; this is probably another award and its shape is similar to the vessel on which it was represented, except for the inferior part, since this is provided with a foot; to the right of the group, there is a herma representing a nude character with beard, facing left and sitting on a low base; the vessel was provided with two rhombic attachments positioned on the shoulder, each having a massive suspension ring on the upper part, rectangular in cross-section and without signs of intense use; the two attachments were used for holding the terminals of the arched handle, which is circular in cross-section and is decorated with incised teardrop-shaped vegetal elements; the two ends terminate in two separately cast appliques taking the form of lion heads; 8. he irst half of the 3rd century AD; 9. ISAC 2000; ISAC 2001b; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 146, no. 216 (D. Isac); ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 26, Abb. 9, 9a; DIACONESCU 2013, 216-236. he balsamarium from Gilău (no. 81, Pl. XL/81a, XLI/81b, LXXXVII/81a, LXXXVIII/81b-c, LXXXIXd-g), originating from a discovery context dated to the irst half of the 3rd century AD1101, is ascribed to a category of pieces illustrated only by a relatively small number of inds1102. hese are characterised by a globular or ovoid body decorated in relief. he vessels are provided with an annular base or with a stand and with a gripping handle joined to the body with the help of two attachments. he rigorous publication of the vessel from Gilău1103, with emphasis on the iconographic issues posed by the scene depicted on it, makes the detailed recount of the discussion useless for the scope of this volume. In what follows, the main conclusions reached at the moment of publication will be briely presented, 1101 1102 1103 ISAC 2000, 201; ISAC 2001b, 189. Except for the vessel from Gilău, until the year 2001 only 62 such pieces were known (see BRAUN 2001). ISAC 2000; ISAC 2001b; DIACONESCU 2013, 216-236. 145 as well as certain aspects pertaining to the type in question, with the needed additions dictated by the evolution of the research during the last decade. According to the author of the initial publication, the scene on the balsamarium from Gilău illustrates three diferent stances of palaestra ighting carried out according to the Greek tradition: the irst two groups of athletes are engaged in close body ighting (Graeco-Roman wrestling; one of the scenes possibly depicts a pankration), while the members of the third group are involved in a boxing competition, seen at the moment of victory. he competitions take place inside the palaestra, as suggested by the column and the herm, and their outcome (i.e. the award ceremony), although not represented, is suggested by the prizes illustrated in the upper register1104. he closest analogy indicated by D. Isac, both from a formal and from an iconographic viewpoint, is a relief-decorated balsamarium with globular body discovered at Auvergne, France1105, which displays a much simpliied palaestra scene involving a single group of athletes. he same author attributes the vessel from Gilău to type 8 from K. Szabó’s classiication of toilet bronze vessels from Pannonia1106, and, based on the other known recipients of this type, considers it a provincial product manufactured in the western provinces of the Empire, most likely designed to contain oil. Concerning the chronology, a very important element reducing the time interval to which the type is generally dated (middle of the 1st century AD – irst half of the 4th century AD1107) is noted: the object rendered on the column dividing the irst two groups of ighters is a basket with awards, an item that appears on coin issues from Asia Minor during the 3rd century AD1108. Subsequent to C. Braun’s monograph dedicated to the globular bronze vessels with relief-decorated body from the Roman Empire1109, the balsamarium from Gilău attracted once more the specialists’ attention when G. Alexandrescu analysed a relief-decorated balsamarium found in a grave from Slokoshtitsa (Kiustendil, Bulgaria)1110, in a wider discussion referring to the iconography of the scenes depicting the athletes’ rewarding1111. Unlike the Gilău specimen, a single group of athletes engaged in combat can be seen on the vessel from Slokoshtitsa, the rest of the scenes illustrating the award ceremonies. his is the only situation in which such a theme appears on a relief-decorated bronze vessel. On the basis of the iconographic elements, the production period of the piece was placed sometime during the the second half of the 2nd century AD – beginning of the 3rd century AD1112. Regarding the balsamarium from Gilău, the author considers that it displays certain resemblances with the vessels attributed by C. Braun to the types I or II1113. A new perspective regarding the production technology has been brought forward by Al. Diaconescu. he author observed that several parts of the decoration were not worked in the repousée technique, but only marked by way of incision and that the incised areas are larger than they should have been, causing a disproportionate rendering of the human body (e.g., an arm larger than usual), situation which could have been corrected if the area would have been raised (Pl. LXXXIX/81f ). herefore, he considers that we are dealing with an uninished object, combining diferent metalworking techniques, which was locally produced1114. hough, in the present state of the art, it is very hard to sustain a local production of the vessel, these technical observations are valid. he vessel from Gilău ISAC 2000, 202–210; ISAC 2001b, 190–195; for a discussion regarding the iconography of the vessel see also DIACONESCU 2013, 216-236. 1105 REINACH 1894, 311–312, no. 395; TASSINARI 1975a, 75, no. 204, Pl. XXX/204a-d; TERENZIANI 1986, 216, note 5; BOLLA 1994, 66; ISAC 2000, 212; BRAUN 2001, 122, no. 29; ISAC 2001b, 196; ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 27, Abb. 14–15. 1106 SZABÓ 1984, 101, 107, Fig. 6/8. 1107 BRAUN 2001, 101–106. 1108 ISAC 2000, 211–214; ISAC 2001b, 195–197; ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 17: the prize baskets appear on the obverse of coins starting with the 2nd century AD (a series of coins issued by Commodus); DIACONESCU 2013, 224-225. 1109 BRAUN 2001: unfortunately, the vessel from Gilău was not included in this monograph, most likely because it was still unpublished. 1110 MESHEKOV, STAIKOVA 1998, 56, 57, Fig. 10, 58, Fig. 15, 59, Fig. 16, 65, no. 10. 1111 ALEXANDRESCU 2005. 1112 MESHEKOV, STAIKOVA 1998, 61; BRAUN 2001, 130–131, no. 43bis; ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 13–14, 20. 1113 ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 14. 1114 DIACONESCU 2013, 235. 1104 146 seems to be unique from this perspective as well. A strong contrast can be noticed between the elaborate decorations of most of the scenes and the careless incisions of the Lesbian kymation, for exemple (Pl. LXXXIX/81d). Since the vessel was produced from several separate parts (base, body, rim, handle with attachments), the decoration of the body had to be done before assembling the components. For this reason it was the conscious choice of the craftsman to leave the decoration in this state and assemble the vessel. Given that, as it will be shown further, the object has no clear parallels among other examples belonging to the type, it cannot be excluded that the vessel from Gilău represents an uninished experiment of the craftsman which was used because it was fully functional. he iconographic themes igured on the 62 globular balsamaria with relief-decorated body identiied by C. Braun were grouped by her in seven wide categories: Erotes and putti representing the four seasons, Dionysos/Bacchus and his cortege, other mythological scenes (Ajax, the Dioscuri, Hercules, the Roman she-wolf, Phaeton and Vulcan), bucolic scenes, athletes, gladiators and venatio scenes, miscellaneous animals and seashells, as well as other representations (women during bathing, philosophers/ poets, Negroid heads)1115. he vessel from Gilău is included in the series of representations of athletes, gladiators and venatio scenes1116. Regarding the images of athletes engaged in battle in the palaestra or outside it, such scenes appear on four other Roman bronze balsamaria with relief-decorated body. First of all, there is the already mentioned vessel from Auvergne, France, dated according to iconographic criteria to the second half of the 2nd century AD1117. Another piece that features agonistic scenes is that from Slokoshtitsa (Kyustendil, Bulgaria)1118, considered, as indicated above, an item produced at the beginning of the 2nd century AD and taken out of use during the second half of the 2nd century – beginning of the 3rd century AD. Part of the series is also the vessel from the P. Getty Museum, Malibu1119, dated, again on the basis of iconographic elements, to the irst half of the 2nd century AD1120, as well as a balsamarium kept in a private collection from Vienna and possibly discovered in Istanbul1121. he friezes on the vessels from Auvergne and Slokoshtitsa depict a single group of athletes competing in pankration, whilst the rest of the scenes are completed by palaestra images adjacent to the competition and the award ceremony. he scene on the balsamarium from the P. Getty Museum, Malibu is the most complex of all, since it displays four groups of athletes competing in classical wrestling and pankration. he groups are delineated by a krater with palm leaves, by a table with prizes and a referee that assists them, holding palm leaves in his right hand. On the balsamarium kept in Vienna, three groups of boxing athletes appear, assisted by a referee1122. Although the diference between wrestling and pankration is diicult to render in representations1123, depicting one of the legs raised can be a distinctive element, since foot kicks were not allowed in Graeco-Roman wrestling1124. For this reason, the irst group of athletes represented on the Gilău vessel most likely compete in pankration, and not in wrestling, because the left character is rendered with his left foot raised, applying a lateral kick to his adversary. From an iconographic perspective, the presence of the herm and of the column topped by the basket with prizes does not necessarily indicate that the ight took place inside the palaestra; they are also igured in the cases of ights taking place in the stadium1125. In the attempt to place the balsamarium from Gilău in the category of the vessels of this type discovered in the Roman Empire, the irst problem to be encountered is the lack of any connection between the iconography and the morphology of these items, as well as the fact that, with few exceptions, the established types could not be attributed to a more precise chronological interval1126. he four pieces 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 BRAUN 2001, 40–85. BRAUN 2001, 73–79, e category. BRAUN 2001, 104, 122. BRAUN 2001, 130–131, no. 43bis; ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 13–14, 20, 25, Abb. 1–3. BRAUN 2001, 108, no. 2; ALEXANDRESCU 2005, 26, Abb. 10–11. BRAUN 2001, 102–103. TERENZIANI 1986, 216, note 9; BOLLA 1994, 66; BRAUN 2001, 127–128, no. 39. For a detailed description of the frieze iconography, see BRAUN 2001, 73–76. ISAC 2000, 208; BRAUN 2001, 74; ISAC 2001b, 194; DIACONESCU 2013, 227. BRAUN 2001, 74. See the discussion in BRAUN 2001, 73. BRAUN 2001, 85–86. 147 mentioned above, although displaying agonistic friezes, are ascribed to four diferent types according to the vessels’ typology1127. Furthermore, there are artistic and iconographic diferences between the ive friezes. he scene on the Gilău balsamarium does share a few elements with the one seen on the vessel from the P. Getty Museum: the Lesbian kymation that delineates the upper part of the scene1128 and the way the characters were rendered in high relief, although the execution of the latter is clearly superior. Relying on the Lesbian kymation and on some details concerning the way the folds of the referee’s garment were realised, C. Braun dates the balsamarium kept in Malibu in the irst half of the second century AD, more precisely during Hadrian’s reign1129. he question is to what extent the presence of the Lesbian kymation can constitute a dating element for the pieces, since, as mentioned above, the prize baskets for the athletes begin to appear on coins no earlier than the end of the 2nd century AD. he vessel from Gilău has no exact analogies and for this reason it is diicult to attribute it to one of the types established by C. Braun. he globular shape of the body is up to a certain point similar to that of the specimens included in the IIa type, but these do not possess a prolonged inferior part, being in turns provided with a base that forms a small stand1130. he elongated body is typical for the IIb type1131, but this usually presents a rather marked shoulder placed towards the upper part of the vessel, unlike the one from Gilău. A good parallel for it could not be identiied in the group of 32 balsamaria with relief-decorated body, irrespective of the type, dated by C. Braun between the second half of the 2nd century AD and the irst half of the 3rd century AD, interval during which the vessel from Gilău was deinitely produced1132. he way the rounded rim was made, hollow on the inside, the handle and the manner of decorating these two elements, the silvered surfaces1133 aimed at attracting the viewer’s attention to certain points are elements not observed on any of the other known balsamaria. Speaking of dimensions, this is amongst the largest specimens found to date. Most of the pieces of this kind measure between 5 and at most 11/12 cm in height. Except for the vessel from Gilău only three such items surpass these numbers, two of them being slightly taller1134. Based on the above discussion, one can reach the conclusion that the vessel from Gilău is unique and the closest parallel from an iconographic point of view is represented by the balsamarium from the P. Getty Museum. It is possible that the two were part of a series with common iconography, produced during the 2nd century AD, out of which only these two specimens were discovered. he prospective need to reassess the chronology of the Malibu vessel cannot be excluded, nor the possibility that the one from Gilău was based on an older piece. he latter was produced sometime starting with the end of the 2nd century AD, it was only briely or not intensively used since it lacks the usual wear marks seen on the attachments of other specimens, and became buried during the irst half of the 3rd century AD. Contrary to most pieces included in this category, which are funerary inds1135, the one from Gilău surfaced in a fort, a circumstance met in only two other cases1136. Concerning the distribution of the discoveries, three regions with an increased number of pieces were observed: Gaul, Lower Germany and the Danube area, especially in Pannonia and Moesia1137. However, the poor representation of some regions could be also determined by the state of publiP. Getty Museum, Malibu (Braun I type), Auvergne (Braun IIa type), Vienna (Braun IIb type), Slokoshtitsa (Braun IIc type). he vessel from the P. Getty Museum and the one from Gilău are the only ones from this category on which the Lesbian kymation was used to delineate the friezes. 1129 BRAUN 2001, 102, 106: tighter chronological intervals could be observed for the types IIb (from the middle until the end of the 2nd century AD) and III, with one exception (beginning of the 3rd century AD). 1130 BRAUN 2001, 5–6, Abb. 2. 1131 BRAUN 2001, 5–7, Abb. 3. 1132 BRAUN 2001, 104. 1133 It cannot be excluded that more vessels of this kind originally displayed silvered surfaces which are no longer preserved because of the extensive use or high degree of deterioration. 1134 BRAUN 2001, 119, no. 22 (13.5 cm), 125, no. 34 (15 cm), 141–142, no. 60 (16.2 cm). 1135 BRAUN 2001, 36–39. 1136 REICHART 1955 (Kösching); ISAC 2000, 213; BRAUN 2001, 37, 112–113, nos. 10–11 (Odernburg and Kösching); ISAC 2001b, 197. 1137 BRAUN 2001, 33–36, Abb. 40. 1127 1128 148 cation of the material or by the fact that only complete examples were published, leaving out the fragmentary material. At the present state of research, it is not possible to point to the workshop that manufactured the vessel. Globular balsamaria with relief-decorated body were certainly produced in several regions of the Empire. A production located in Egypt, around Alexandria, which would have continued the tradition of the Hellenistic toreutics can hardly be supported because no discoveries of this type are known from the area1138. Workshops that also produced this kind of vessels were active in Gaul, Lower Germany and possibly in northern Italy1139. hey do not appear in the cities around the Vesuvius1140, while their manufacture in the Danubian provinces (Pannonia, Moesia or hrace) remains uncertain for the moment1141. As noted at the moment of publication, the vessel from Gilău was most likely produced in a workshop located in the western provinces of the Empire, an element possibly leading to this conclusion being the richly decorated rim and handle. However, considering that we are dealing with a unique piece, this attribution should be made with due caution. From a functional point of view, the vessels of this type were certainly used for toilet purposes. With respect to the contents, they were most probably illed with olive oil, at least some of the known specimens were. However, if the formal resemblance between the balsamaria with relief-decorated body and those with undecorated body is taken into consideration1142, as well as the fact that the latter contained substances such as perfumed oils, ointments or soap, the possibility should not be excluded for this category either1143. here are multiple clues that indicate their use during the toilet or in the baths. First of all, there is the iconography of the friezes rendered on these vessels, which illustrate palaestra scenes including oil vessels and athletes carrying such vessels, Erotes occupied with grooming, women during bath time, as well as representations of Hercules, held as the patron of palaestrae1144. he representation on the mosaic discovered in the thermae of a private house from Aquincum, previously discussed in this volume1145, is relevant for the matter. It presents the ight between two athletes, assisted by a referee. he right corner of the scene displays a balsamarium, most likely containing oil, while the left presents a ring from which three strigiles are hanging. In addition to the iconographic data, there is also archaeological information, especially the association of the pieces with strigiles in funerary contexts1146. III.11.2. Globular balsamaria with undecorated body 82. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XLII/82, XC/82a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 203/58; 3. L: 36.1 mm; W: 15.1 mm; h: 4.1 mm; Wh: 9 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Balsamarium attachment in the shape of a human bust, a child, possibly Eros, sitting on a palmetto; the facial features and the hair are rendered rather schematically with ine incisions; the suspension ring, exhibiting serious signs of use, is decorated with incised semicircles; traces of soldering can be seen on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. he globular balsamaria with undecorated body or, in few cases, decorated with vertical grooves, correspond to the Den Boesterd 308–3091147, Szabó 61148 types. hese are characterised by a globular body provided with a slightly splayed or thickened rim decorated with ovulos, a usually high base, in the form TERENZIANI 1986, 218; BOLLA 1994, 68; BRAUN 2001, 36. SZABÓ 1984, 101; TERENZIANI 1986, 217–218; BOLLA 1994, 68; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54; BRAUN 2001, 31. 1140 See TASSINARI 1993. 1141 BRAUN 2001, 32. A hracian production for some of the lower quality specimens is claimed by R. Nenova-Merdjanova (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54). 1142 See the discussion regarding the function of this type. 1143 BRAUN 2001, 94, 99. 1144 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 53; BRAUN 2001, 95. 1145 See Fig. 2 from subchapter II. 2.2.2. 1146 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 53; BRAUN 2001, 94–95. 1147 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 88, 308–309, Pl. XII/308. 1148 SZABÓ 1984, 100–101, 107, Fig. 6/6. 1138 1139 149 of a stand, and a lid with a knob, fastened to the rim with the help of a hinge. he handle is secured to the vessel with two attachments placed on the upper curvature of the body. he attachment from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 82, Pl. XLII/82, XC/82a-b), shaped like a human bust, certainly originates from such a vessel, fact proven by the complete or partially preserved examples that bear such attachments. An integrally preserved balsamarium with dished rim decorated with ovulos was discovered in a tomb from Isaccea/Noviodunum dated after the middle of the 2nd century AD1149. he vessel preserves both attachments, which are shaped like Eros busts and are of the same size as the one from Moigrad/Porolissum. Another complete vessel, very similar to the one from Isaccea, comes from Carnuntum and is now part of a private collection1150. he fragmentary balsamarium with unknown provenance kept in the Hungarian National Museum still preserves the upper part of the body, the dished rim, decorated with ovulos, and the two attachments taking the form of an Eros bust seated on a palmetto1151. Two small-sized balsamaria with attachments in the form of human busts that display a much more schematic decoration were discovered at Nijmegen and were generally dated between the 1st and the 3rd century AD1152. A vessel equipped with the same type of attachments which was recovered from the Saône River in France1153 should be mentioned here as well. In addition to the integral vessels, there are also ive attachments discovered in isolation. One was found in the legionary fortress at Neuss1154, two that were probably part of the same vessel can be seen in the National Museum from Belgrade1155, lacking any information regarding their discovery context, and a further two with unknown provenance are kept in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto1156. he formal resemblances between the globular balsamaria with relief-decorated body and those with undecorated body suggest that both types were produced in the same workshops. he hypothesis is also supported by the distribution area of the undecorated type, which appears in large numbers in Gaul, Lower Germany, in northern Italy and in the Danubian provinces1157. he fact that the type is missing from Pompeii1158 together with the chronology provided by the discovery contexts1159 point to a production which, with a few exceptions1160, was carried out by the workshops located in the western provinces of the Empire, in the time interval spanning from the end of the 1st/beginning of the 2nd century to probably the irst half of the 3rd century AD1161. his chronological interval cannot be further reined on typological bases. he balsamaria with undecorated body, same as the decorated kind, are included in the category of toilet vessels, their contents ranging from perfumed oils to ointments and soap. To date, the content of three specimens was analysed. he irst, discovered in he Netherlands, near Maastricht, contained a kind of oil-based liquid soap1162, the second, originating from Bonn, perfumed oil1163, while in the last, an enamelled vessel from Nijmegen, a fat, beeswax-based and probably perfumed substance was idenSIMION 1995, 216, Fig. 1/1a-c, 223–224, no. 16, 225, no 14; BRAUN 2001, 153–154, no. B 35, Abb. 126. VON KAISERN UND BÜRGERN 2009, 322, no. 1217. 1151 SZABÓ 1984, 100–101, 106, no. 13, Pl. LII/1; BRAUN 2001, 145–146, no. B 7, Taf. 74/c. 1152 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 88, 308–309, Pl. XII/308; BRAUN 2001, 149, no. B 19, B 20, Abb. 111. 1153 BONNAMOUR 1977, 24, Fig. 3; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 108, no. 169, Pl. LIII/169; SZABÓ 1984, 112, Fig. 9; NEMETH 1993, 96–97, no. 104, Fig. 104; BOLLA 1994, 64; BONNAMOUR 2000, 41, 125–126, no. 100; BRAUN 2001, 151, no. B 28, Abb. 119. 1154 MENZEL 1986, 207–208, no. 578, Taf. 180/578. 1155 RATKOVIĆ 2005, 59–60, nos. 10, 11. 1156 HAYNES 1984, 86, nos. 135, 136. 1157 BOLLA 1994, 64. 1158 See TASSINARI 1993. 1159 Based on their discovery context, most of the pieces are dated to the 2nd century AD and the beginning of the 3rd century AD (BOLLA 1994, 64, BRAUN 2001, 144–155). 1160 he balsamaria with globular body decorated with vertical grooves (Petrovszky XIV, 1 type) are considered to be manufactured in the eastern part of the Empire (the Balkan area or the coastline of Asia Minor) (PETROVSZKY 1993, 119–120, Taf. 4/XIV, 1). 1161 BOLLA 1994, 64; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54. 1162 KOSTER 1997, 82; BRAUN 2001, 94, 147–148, no. B 16, Abb. 108. 1163 BRAUN 2001, 94, 144, no. B 1, Taf. 72/a. 1149 1150 150 tiied1164. he idea that the vessels could contain a liquid was rejected by some specialists who for the most part argued that the shape is inadequate for liquids1165. In my opinion, the hypothesis should not be completely disregarded because, although the lack of a spout hinders the pouring out of a liquid, at the present state of research two globular balsamaria were found together with small ladles. he irst is the previously mentioned vessel discovered in the Saône River, inside of which there was a ladle1166. he second, kept in a private collection, was found together with a ladle of the same type1167. Most likely the contents of these vessels were not all the same and they could vary according to the size of the container. III.11.3. Globular balsamarium fragments 83. Bologa (Pl. XLII/83, XC/83a-b) 1 Fort 1973, Trench XXIV, meters: 60–68, depth: -0.85 m, on the yellow clay layer, retentura sinistra, Barracks 13, large fort with earthen enclosure; 2. IAIAC, n. i.; 3. H: 12 mm; D: 45.4 mm; Dinterior rim: 33 mm; h: 1.6 mm; Lknob: 13.7 mm; Wknob: 12.1 mm; Wh: 22 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, brownish green; 6. Cast in two separate pieces (knob and plate), lathe-inished; 7. Lid from a circular toilet vessel; part of the rim is missing; the front side was decorated with four incised concentric circles; in the middle, it displays a large knob shaped like a female head with oval face, hair combed over her head, and extremely schematic features; the knob was cast separately and was attached to the lid through a centrally placed oriice, with the help of a bronze rod which was part of the closing mechanism; also on the backside, there is an interior rim which enabled the lid to be ixed onto the interior of the vessel; 8. Hadrian – the beginning of the 3rd century AD; 9. GUDEA 1997a, 43, 68. he lid discovered in the fort at Bologa (no. 83, Pl. XLII/83, XC/83a-b) cannot be safely attributed to a certain type of balsamarium and therefore it is discussed separately. his type of circular lid provided with a mobile button that continues in the inferior part with a metal rod is characteristic for globular balsamaria, both for the ones with relief-decorated body, and for the undecorated variety. he lid was fastened to the rim of the vessel with the help of a small-sized hinge which had one of its mobile parts soldered to the lid and the other to the rim. he vessel was closed like this: when the button moved, the inferior rod was pushed through an oriice made on the inside of the rim; it was opened by pulling back the rod1168. Amongst the globular balsamaria preserved together with the lid, most of the buttons on these do not display any decoration but have a simple shape, rounded or in the form of a chess pawn. he only known two cases of decorated buttons appear on lids belonging to pieces with relief-decorated body: the balsamarium found at Bakar in Croatia, whose friezes feature animals and which possesses a button shaped like a theatrical mask1169, and the vessel discovered at Alba-la-Romaine/Alba Augusta Helviorum in France, decorated with garlands and theatrical masks whose button takes the form of a seashell1170. Another button shaped like a woman’s head can be seen on a bronze lid which might have belonged to a cylindrical toilet recipient found in the necropolis at Isaccea/Noviodunum1171. From the information disclosed at the moment of publication, one cannot tell whether we are dealing with a decorative button, or if the lid was provided or not with a closing system. All the undecorated balsamaria I know of DEN BOESTERD 1956, 87–88, no. 307, Pl. XII/307; BRAUN 2001, 94, 149, no. B 21, Abb. 112. PETROVSZKY 1993, 120; KOSTER 1997, 82. 1166 BONNAMOUR 1977, 24, Fig. 3; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 108, no. 169, Pl. LIII/169; SZABÓ 1984, 112, Fig. 9; NEMETH 1993, 96–97, no. 104, Fig. 104; BOLLA 1994, 64; BONNAMOUR 2000, 41, 125–126, no. 100; BRAUN 2001, 151, no. B 28, Abb. 119. 1167 BRAUN 2001, 151–152, no. B 29, Abb. 120. 1168 For such a ixing mechanism, see, for instance, KOSTER 1997, 82–83, no. 110, 112; BRAUN 2001, 147–148, no. B 16, Abb. 108. 1169 BRAUN 2001, 114–115, no. 14, Taf. 15. 1170 BRAUN 2001, 125, no. 34, Taf. 39. 1171 SIMION 1984, 83, 485, Pl. XI/4; SIMION 1995, 216, Fig. 1/4a-b, 224, nor. 17, 225, no. 17. In his description, the author mentions that the piece possesses a closing mechanism, but this is not illustrated and from the published drawing it ensues that the diameter of the vessel’s rim is smaller than the lid’s, circumstance which rules out the existence of a closing mechanism like the one in question. 1164 1165 151 that were preserved together with the lid display a simple button, whereas the ones on the decorated vessels can either be simple, or decorated. However, this is not an argument for the attribution of the igured lids to the relief-decorated specimens because, generally, too few complete examples of both types survived and such a conclusion should be grounded based on a much larger number of inds. III.11.4. Iron balsamaria1172 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Pl. XLII/84a, XC/84a-c, XCI/84d-e) 1. Victor Deleu Street, building C1, western proile, second stone phase, sub-phase 2; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. H: 92.7 mm; Dmax. body: 89.2 mm; Drim: 30.3 mm; Dbase: 56.9 mm; Wh: 249 g; 4. Iron, the inferior plate of the closing mechanism is made from copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored (when discovered, the piece was in a severe state of degradation, highly oxidized, the body was deformed and the base was broken in three; during the restoration, in order to ensure its stability, some parts were covered with a thick layer of resin, resulting in important changes with respect to its original shape, especially concerning the mouth and the base); the present colour is dark brown, while the inferior plate of the closing mechanism displays a brownish dark green patina; 6. he body was executed from two raised hemispheres united in the area of the maximum diameter; because of the state of degradation, it was not possible to determine whether the base was produced separately or not; the mouth was separately made: from two metal pieces divided by the inferior plate of the closing mechanism; 7. Globular vessel with slightly splayed rim (vertical following the restoration process), narrow neck, highly arched walls, slightly splayed base (as result of the restoration, the base was signiicantly enlarged compared to its original shape and it also became more splayed); the upper part of the closing mechanism, pieces from the base, as well as the two handles which theoretically should have been placed under the rim are missing; the bronze plate constituting the ixed part of the closing mechanism exhibits two holes: one oval, placed next to the rim (D: 9.4–10.7), through which the liquid was pouring, and the other centrally located (D: 2.6 cm), used for holding in place the upper, mobile plate of the lid system, now lost; this second, mobile plate, provided with two small knobs, had an opening similar to the ixed plate, and, by rotating it, the contents of the vessel could be sealed; 8. he middle of the 3rd century AD – the abandonment of the province; 9. MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012a; MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012b. 85. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Pl. XLIV/85a, XCII/85a-c, XCIII/85d-e) 1. Victor Deleu Street, building C2, chamber b, second stone phase, sub-phase 1 (discovered together with nos. 30 and 34); 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. H: 100 mm; Dmax.body: 82.8 mm; Drim: 38.9–41.6 mm; Hattachment: 30.7 mm; Wh: 259 g; 4. Iron; 5. Fragmentary, restored, dark brown colour; 6. he body is made up from two raised parts, manufactured separately, which are joined in the area of the maximum diameter; the upper part includes the rim; the handles and closing mechanism were made separately; 7. Amphora-shaped vessel with vertical rim, short and narrow neck and spherical body; it was not provided with a base and the inferior part of the body is elongated and terminates in a knob; only one of the handles survived (the second was added in the course of the restoration process), whose inferior part ends with a leaf-shaped attachment which still holds the irst loop of the chain used for hanging; a closing mechanism was ixed to the interior of the rim, similar to that described at no. 84, but this time completely preserved: a mobile, superior plate with two knobs and an inferior, ixed one; because the vessel was restored, the two holes from the plates, one used for ixing the upper plate, the other for accessing the contents, can no longer be seen; 8. he irst half of the 3rd century AD; 9. MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012a; MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012b. he reasons behind the inclusion of the two iron vessels discovered at Cluj-Napoca/Napoca have been already detailed at the beginning of this volume. he irst of the two vessels (no. 84, Pl. XLII/84a, XC/84a-c, XCI/84d-e) was executed from iron and bronze, while the second (no. 85, Pl. XLIV/85a, XCII/85a-c, XCIII/85d-e) only from iron. As it will be seen later, the entire issue of iron toilet vessels is tightly connected to the bronze vessels and this is why it was considered that it is pertinent to discuss them at this point. Contrary to the plain nature of the raw material, iron vessels represent an exceptional ind from the Roman world. In the specialised literature, the circumstance was explained by the nature of iron, which is much more prone to the oxidation process as compared to other metals, this leading to the survival of a much smaller number of objects to date, but also to the limited interest shown by experts towards this 1172 For a preliminary analysis of the iron vessels from Napoca, see MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012a, MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012b. 152 type of objects1173. One could also add the technical diiculties encountered by the Roman craftsman when attempting to forge small-sized objects, as long as casting was not an option. Based on the discoveries made until now, three main categories of Roman iron vessels can be diferentiated. hese were either produced integrally from iron or combined iron and bronze elements and are generally dated between the 2nd and the 4th centuries AD. he largest category is represented by the iron spouted jugs used for boiling water1174. Such vessels were discovered especially in the western provinces of the Roman Empire1175 and on the territory of Pannonia1176. Another category is formed by the vessels known as “pilgrim lasks”1177. Discoveries of this kind are rather scarce. One can mention a vessel of the sort made from two iron halves joined at the middle, with the contact zone between them covered with bronze, found in the Roman fort at Newstead, Roman Britain, in a well dated to the Antonine period1178. Another object of this type was discovered in a 2nd century grave from the southern necropolis from Abritvs (Hisarlâk, near Razgrad, Bulgaria). he vessel, executed from iron only, is provided with a pair of attachments placed on the shoulders, securing a bronze handle1179. he Archaeological Museum from Vienne (Rhône-Alpes, France) houses a similar iron item, with the mouth and neck made from bronze and the body wrapped in a bronze band, originating from the Gréan Collection1180. Probably the most interesting piece belonging to the group is the lask recovered during the 19th century from the Saône River in France: the vessel, also made from two halves covered with a bronze band in the contact area, was decorated with a motif comprising grapes and grapevine leaves by inlaying the iron body with brass and pure copper1181. he third category of iron vessels, in which the ones from Napoca can be included, comprises toilet vessels. At the current moment, only ten discoveries of this type are known from the territory of the Roman Empire; from a morphological viewpoint, these can be grouped in ive distinct types1182. he irst is represented by globular vessels, provided with a large mouth opening and a lat base. he two specimens attributed to the type come in two diferent variants. he irst is illustrated by the vessel kept in the collections of the Royal-Athena Galleries in New York, characterised by an iron globular body equipped with an iron base. In the upper part, the body displays two ring-shaped attachments securing a massive bronze chain. he most interesting part is represented by the lid, a representation of a child Venus Anadyomene riding a dolphin1183. he piece is an exquisite work and until now it is unique. he second variant is represented by an iron vessel with globular, slightly elongated body, equipped with two attachments with Bacchic representations, with bronze handle and lid, also discovered in the Saône River, France1184. None of them beneits from a dating disclosed by the discovery context. BARATTE 1993, 224. Considering the morphological elements, the iron spouted jugs used for boiling water represent variants of the bronze sheet spouted jugs (“Blechkannen”). Both the bronze, and the iron specimens were used for boiling water, function proven also in the case of the iron spouted jugs by the limescale seen on the inside (BARATTE 1993, 227; KOSTER 1997, 30 with the bibliography; for the typology of the bronze sheet spouted jugs, see BOLLA 1979 and BOLLA 1989 with the bibliography). 1175 BARATTE 1993, 224–227; KOSTER 1997, 30–41. 1176 SZIRMAI 1993: the author analyses only the funerary inds originating from late Roman cemeteries dated between the second half of the 3rd and the second half of the 4th century AD. 1177 For a review of the main inds dating from the Imperial period, see FEUGÈRE 1991b, 125–126; KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1994, 172–174. 1178 CLOSE-BROOKS 1980; for a similar piece recently discovered at Oderzo (Veneto, Italy), see SANDRINI 2012. 1179 IVANOV, STOJANOV 1985, 70, Fig. 96: judging from the published photo, it is not clear whether or not the handle is ixed by the two attachments. It can be supposed that either the handle was discovered separately in the grave and was subsequently attached to the vessel, or that the vessel was repaired in Antiquity and the handle which originally belonged to a diferent type was added to it. 1180 BOUCHER 1971, 138, no. 254. 1181 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 110, no. 174, Pl. LIV/174, LXXIV/174 (see also no. 200: a similar iron lask from which only the inferior part of the body survived); BONNAMOUR 2000, 41, 127–128, no. 136. 1182 Considering that we are dealing with a small number of inds, the typology proposed for the iron toilet vessels should be regarded with the due reservations; it remains to be conirmed or dismissed by future discoveries. 1183 he vessel is on sale and can be viewed at the following internet address: http://www.royalathena.com/pages/RomanCatalog/Bronze/Vessels/GMZ15.html (11.09.2012). 1184 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 128–129, no. 199, Pl. LX/199, LXXVI/199; BONNAMOUR 2000, 41, 131, no. 204. 1173 1174 153 he second type consists of vessels with a globular body, narrow neck and vertical mouth, provided with an annular base and two small-sized handles that allowed the attachment of a chain. he irst vessel which corresponds from a formal point of view to the description above is an iron balsamarium from Rottenburg am Neckar (Baden-Württemberg, Germany), dated on the basis of the discovery context between the 2nd and the 3rd centuries AD. he recipient represents the closest analogy for one of the two iron vessels from Napoca (no. 84) but, contrary to this, it still preserves the vertical mouth made from bronze or brass and the two handles placed under the rim, suspending a bronze chain from which only the irst ring is preserved1185. From a technical point of view, both the vessel from Rottenburg am Neckar and the one from Napoca were manufactured from two iron hemispheres joined in the area of the maximum diameter. he contact line between the two halves is still visible on the specimen from Rottenburg am Neckar. In turns, concerning the vessel from Napoca, its advanced state of degradation did not allow it to be restored exactly according to the original shape. he piece was covered in a layer of resin to make it stable, but this also led to signiicant formal alterations. For this reason, but also in order to observe certain details relevant for the technological process, radiography was used1186 (Pl. XLIII/84b). hus, it can be noticed that initially the mouth of the balsamarium from Napoca did not have vertical sides, but slightly splayed, and also that the base had a smaller diameter than that resulted after restoration (Pl. XLIII/84c). Concerning the production technology, the dividing line between the two hemispheres that made up the vessel, placed in the area of the maximum diameter is visible on the radiograph. he two lines visible in the area of the mouth prove that this was worked separately and later added to the body of the vessel. Furthermore, the mouth was made from two individual pieces of metal separated by the inferior plate of the locking mechanism. With respect to the base, because it was found broken of from the rest of the vessel and was attached at the moment of restoration, it cannot be certain if it was executed separately or if it was an integral part of the lower hemisphere. he third type of toilet iron vessels is also represented by two inds: a container discovered at Vajta (Fejér, Ungaria) and the second iron balsamarium from Napoca (no. 85).he type is characterised by a spherical body, with rounded inferior part ending in a small knob, a narrow neck continued by a vertical mouth and two handles ixed under the rim, for holding a chain. he balsamarium from Vajta was discovered in 1935 together with a strigilis, part of the inventory of a tumulus grave disturbed by modern activities. he relation between the two pieces and the rest of the funerary inventory is not clear. he iron vessel’s mouth is covered with a bronze band and the two handles each preserve the irst ring of the iron chain1187. he only diference from the specimen found at Napoca is the presence of the annular base. However, considering that the description provided at the moment of publication speciies that the inferior part of the body is rounded and ends with a small knob, it seems quite probable that we are dealing with a vessel which originally was of the same shape as the one from Napoca, and only later, while it was being used, an annular base was attached to it. Because it was not possible to personally examine the vessel from Vajta, the information referring to the production technology of the two pieces is entirely based on the observations allowed by the radiograph of the Napoca vessel (Pl. XLV/85b-c). On this, it is very clear that the second handle of the vessel was added during the restoration process, since no metal core is visible. Without counting the handles, the piece was made from three diferent parts: the inferior part of the body, the superior part together with the neck and the mouth, joined with the former above the line of the maximum diameter, and inally the closing mechanism which was SEITZ 2005, 362, Abb. 483. I wish to thank dr. Cosmin Onofrei and Dan Duma for their help with the radiography of the objects. 1187 FÜLEP 1949, 41–42, 28. tábla/1–3. he strigilis accompanying the iron balsamarium bears a Greek inscription: Ρουψος ταρσευς εποιει; the author draws attention to the fact that this is a property, and not a producer inscription. However, based on the careless aspect of the letters and the lack of pauses between words, when A. Radnóti discusses once more the items from Vajta in the context of the analysis of the iron balsamarium from Intercisa, he reaches the conclusion that we are dealing with a strigilis produced by Rufus from Tarsos. He considers that under these circumstances one cannot exclude the possibility that the components of the toilet set came together from the Oriental part of the Empire (RADNÓTI 1957, 191). For the moment, no data supports the Oriental origin of the bronze vessel. For a new interpretation of the inscription, seeing Rufus as a travelling craftsman who repaired the piece, see KOVÁCS 2007, 788. 1185 1186 154 worked separately and ixed onto the rim’s interior. One can notice on the radiography a poorly marked line that could indicate the dividing line between the two plates of the closing mechanism. he fourth type comprises vessels with pear-shaped body, with the maximum diameter placed towards the inferior part of the body, with a rounded base, very narrow neck when compared to the body, and a slightly splayed rim. he irst vessel of this type is kept in the collections of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz am Rhein, Germany and originated from a private collection, with unknown discovery circumstances1188. Only the body and the beginning of the neck are preserved, and in the area of the maximum diameter the joining line between the two components is noticeable. he second iron balsamarium comes from the necropolis at Intercisa (Dunaújváros, Fejér, Hungary). he only comment regarding the discovery context is that the piece comes from a grave, without any further chronological indications. he piece appears to be complete, and the neck is held by a bronze ring1189. A third vessel, very similar to the one from Intercisa, was discovered in 1998 in a burial from Aquincum (Budapest, Hungary)1190. It is not clear if the type was equipped with handles. he item from the RGZM, Mainz, is fragmentary, while in the case of the objects from Intercisa and Aquincum there is no mention on the matter. he ifth type is represented by a single object preserved in a private collection from Bouclans (Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, France)1191. From a morphological point of view it displays the same characteristics as type two with few exceptions. he globular body provided with an annular base continues in the upper part with a long, narrow cylindrical neck. he vessel has two handles ending in leaf-shaped attachments and each handle still preserves the irst large loop of the hanging chain. Considering the rarity of these objects and the material of manufacture, a question arises concerning the form: are these original pieces or do they represent imitations of some of the containers commonly made from other materials? Regarding type I, for the irst variant represented by the vessel from the Royal-Athena Galleries, New York, no parallel is known. For the second one, namely the vessel recovered from the Saône River in France, although there are no iron analogies, the shape of the body, as well as the lid together with its hinged closing mechanism, equipped with a small handle to facilitate the lifting, are all typical for a category of bronze balsamaria used for toilet purposes and considered typical 2nd–3rd century Roman provincial products1192. hus, it can be assumed that the iron vessel was produced by the same workshops, during the same chronological interval. he characteristics of one of the balsamaria from Napoca (no. 84) and of the piece from Rottenburg am Neckar (type II) can be easily likened to another type of copper-alloy Roman balsamarium. he latter was most probably produced in the provincial environment and was speciic for the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. It had a globular body and a narrow neck and was made from two pieces of metal joined above the shoulder1193. An important feature of the type is the lid’s closing mechanism, consisting of a pair of metal plates: an inferior, ixed and pierced plate to allow the pouring of the vessel’s content, and an upper, mobile plate provided with two knobs that eased its rotation in order to close or open the lid. his kind of closing mechanism can be observed on some of the better preserved examples, such as the balsamarium from the Rainau-Buch (Rainau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) hoard1194 or the he vessel is unpublished and was part of the private collection of Dr. Fliedner, Monsheim, Bad Kreuznach (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany). It is registered in the RGZM, Mainz records with the inventory no. O. 15638. I wish to thank dr. Markus Scholz from the RGZM Mainz for kindly allowing me to examine the piece. 1189 RADNÓTI 1957, 191, 218, no. 22, Pl. XXXIX/11; SZIRMAI 1993, 422, 427, Fig. 7/6. 1190 VASS 2016, 15. 1191 http://artefacts.mom.fr/en/home.php (03.05.2017), no. BLS–4052. 1192 See, e.g.: DEN BOESTERD 1956, 88, no. 308–309, Pl. XII/308; SZABÓ 1984, 100–101, types 6 and 7; KOSTER 1997, 83–84, nos. 111–113. A bronze specimen quite similar to the iron vessel was also discovered in the Saône River (BONNAMOUR 1977, 24, Fig. 3; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 108, no. 169, Pl. LIII/169; SZABÓ 1984, 112, Fig. 9; NEMETH 1993, 96–97, no. 104, Fig. 104; BOLLA 1994, 64; BONNAMOUR 2000, 41, 125–126, no. 100; BRAUN 2001, 151, no. B 28, Abb. 119). 1193 SEDLMAYER 1999, 42, Taf. 16/11–14 with a review of the main discoveries and the bibliography; CASTOLDI 2002, 300–303; BIENERT 2007, 232–233, 237–239, no.: 271–273. 1194 PLANCK 1983, 332, Abb. 134/1. 1188 155 piece from Calvatone (Lombardy, Italy)1195. he morphological similarities, as well as the presence of the closing mechanism make me believe that the production of type II iron vessels is closely linked to the production of the copper-alloy specimens. he two vessels included in type III, one from Napoca (no. 85) and the other from Vajta, do not present resemblances with any other type of Roman metal vessel. he only common element is represented by the closing mechanism described above, examined in detail in the case of the vessel from Napoca. When the piece from Vajta was published no information regarding the presence or absence of such a mechanism was ofered. At irst sight, a certain similarity with the glass toilet vessels of the Isings 61 type1196 can be observed. Nevertheless, there are also diferences from these: the iron vessels’ rim is not lattened and they cannot stand in a vertical position. On the other hand, even without any functional implications, the resemblance between the form of the type III vessels and one of the most common types of olive oil amphorae, namely the Dressel 20 type, cannot be ignored1197. he similarity is surprising since, although both the Dressel 20 amphorae and the two iron vessels were used for transporting oil, the contexts are completely diferent. he body of the type IV vessels, with a highly lared inferior part, also inds at least partial parallels amongst some of the types of glass toilet vessels1198, while the morphology of the vessel from Bouclans (type V) is very similar to the provincial bronze balsamaria decorated on the body with groups of latheturned concentric circles1199. As seen so far, it is not possible to establish a clear chronology for the ive identiied types of iron vessels. Out of the ten known pieces, only the two iron balsmaria from Napoca, surfaced during the excavations on Victor Deleu Street, have a well-deined discovery context. Vessel no. 84 was found inside building C1, in a layer pertaining to the last habitation sub-phase of the second stone phase, dated between the middle of the 3rd century AD and the end of the Roman habitation in the area, most likely coinciding with the abandonment of the province1200. Vessel no. 85, together with other metal objects amongst which the Millingen type spouted jug (no. 30) and the fragmentary handle from a bronze sheet spouted jug (no. 34) were identiied on one of the loors of chamber b inside building C2, belonging to the irst sub-phase of the second stone phase, dated from Septimius Severus to the middle of the 3rd century AD1201. hus, one can state with certainty that the iron vessels from Napoca were being used here throughout the irst three quarters of the 3rd century. he prototypes of the four types seem to indicate a provincial production and a use in the course of the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. Hopefully, if the number of inds of this type will increase, the chronological aspects will be clariied to a greater extent. he fact that the iron vessels discussed here were part of the toilet vessel category cannot be questioned, especially since the use of the bronze and glass prototypes mentioned above for the toilet purposes is evident. Arguments in favour of this interpretation are provided by the chains attached to the handles, allowing the vessels to be carried the rings designed for the transportation of the toiletry equipment to the baths, as well as by the fact that they had a lid. Furthermore, the balsamarium from Vajta was associated with a strigil. he question asked once again, and which received various answers from the specialists, is what exactly did they contain? As seen before1202, for the bronze prototype corresponding to type I several kinds of content must be taken into account. Regarding the bronze balsamaria equipped with a closing mechanism composed of a pair of plates, on the basis of the analogy to the modern recipients with similar mechanisms, used for keeping spices, M. Castoldi envisages the CASTOLDI 2002, 301, Fig. 12, 303, Fig. 16. ISINGS 1957, 78–81. 1197 PEACOCK, WILLIAMS 1986, 136, class 25, Fig. 67. I wish to thank my colleagues dr. Mariana Egri and Szilamér Péter Pánczél for the insightful discussions referring to the possible prototypes. 1198 ISINGS 1957, 40–43 (form 26, 28), 97–99 (form 82). 1199 See, e.g.: STUTZINGER 1984, 234, Abb.8. 1200 COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, 637–639. 1201 For a detailed comment on the discovery contexts, see subchapter IV.2. 1202 See the discussion concerning the function in the case of the analysis dedicated to the type of globular balasamaria with undecorated body. 1195 1196 156 possibility that their content was not liquid or viscous, but rather granular1203. In what concerns the iron vessels, the main element that must be borne in mind when discussing the possible content is the raw material of manufacture. Even if up to the present moment no analysis was conducted on the interior of the ten known vessels, it is hard to believe that they held anything other than oil, because this is the only substance that could have stopped the oxidisation process. Any other cosmetic substance, such as perfumed creams, would have probably deteriorated, greatly intensifying the oxidisation process. III.12. Anthropomorphic vessels he anthropomorphic vessels represent a category of Roman bronze containers whose main feature is the shape of the body, which can take the form of a human head, a bust, or sometimes of a complete character. he pieces can either have a stand, or not, and are usually provided with a lid and a handle ixed with the help of two attachment loops. he terms used by specialists to designate the anthropomorphic vessels shaped like a bust or a human head1204 are quite varied. For instance, in the German specialised literature, names such as “Balsamarium in Büstenform”1205, “(anthropomorphes) Büstengefäß”1206, “Kopfgefäß”1207 are encountered, in the French “balsamaire anthropomorphe”1208, “vase anthropomorphe”1209, “vase plastique”1210, “vase plastique en forme de tête humain”1211, in English “bust-vessel”1212, and in Spanish “balsamario antropomorfo”1213. However, considering the objections raised by the specialists in the course of time especially concerning the function of these containers (which will be addressed in detail below), V. Marti’s point of view seems to be the most sensible: as long as the function of the various types is very problematic, the use of the term “balsamarium” should be avoided, since it entails a speciic function (i.e. as recipients for oils or scented creams). A neutral designation, based on purely morphologic criteria, such as “anthropomorphic vessel” is much more suited to the circumstance1214. III.12.1. Anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessels1215 86. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XCIV/86a-e) 1. Unknown; 2. MNM 24/1913, 2; 3. Hwith handle: 95 mm; Hwithout handle: 55 mm; Wbust: 41 mm; Lbase: 27 mm; Wbase: 19 mm; hmax.wall: 1 mm; Hsuspension ring: 8 mm; Dlid: 18 mm; Wh: 66.71 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, golden dark brown with green spots; 6. Hollow-cast, incised; 7. Vessel in the shape of a human bust; fragmentary: the lid and the base are missing, while traces of soldering can be noticed in the contact area between the wall and the base; the ixed part of the hinge which held the lid into place is still preserved; the bust of a Black boy with full face features rendered schematically and poorly outlined (especially the right eye and eyebrow) is represented; the pupils are not well marked and the upper lip is slightly deformed, probably due to a light mechanical shock; the hair, kept in small strands, is depicted very schematically, as lozenges grooved by oblique and horizontal incisions; the strands which frame the face are rounded; the neck is short and, since this is a bust representation, only the beginning of the arms was illustrated; in the upper part, two suspension rings can be seen, both with serious signs of use (the left one is almost broken), which hold an omega-shaped handle, rhomboidal in cross-section; 8. -; 9. SUPKA 1913, 280; RADNÓTI 1938, Taf. LIV/2; MARTI-CLERCX, CASTOLDI 2002, 300. See Annexe III.12.1. 1205 RAEV 1978, 630. 1206 RADNÓTI 1938, 172; GARBSCH 1980; SEDLMAYER 1999, 43; BIENERT 2007, 250. 1207 SEDLMAYER 1999, 43; PALÁGYI 2002. 1208 MAJEWSKI 1964, 125. 1209 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002. 1210 EUZENNAT 1957, 187. 1211 SZABÓ 1984, 102, type 10. 1212 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54–57; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999, 132. 1213 POZO 1988. 1214 MARTI 1996, 980. 1215 Certain issues referring to anthropomorphic vessels were previously discussed by the present author when analysing the vessel from Strâmba (Turceni, Gorj county) (MUSTAȚĂ 2010a). 1203 1204 157 MILLE 2002, 386; ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2003, 178, no. 13, Pl. 6/1, 2; ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2005, 37, 46, no. 13, 60, Pl. 6/1–2. he anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel from Moigrad/Porolissum1216 (no. 86, Pl. XCIV/86a-e) belongs to a category of Roman bronze recipients which has long been approached by specialists only from an iconographic perspective, without seriously trying to investigate the material on formal bases1217. Nevertheless, there are some attempts at devising a typology for the anthropomorphic Roman vessels from the entire Roman Empire1218, or from a certain region1219. he iconography of the anthropomorphic vessels is fairly diverse, but there is no clear relation between the iconographic types and the typology established according to the morphological elements1220. Similar themes can appear, for instance, both in the case of the vessels with stand, and of those without. However, there is a certain preference for some themes1221. he most frequently rendered image is that of the Nubian, of the Ethiopian or “Negroid” (the so-called “ethnographic” types labelled by the specialised literature), presented also by the vessel from Moigrad/Porolissum. Another favourite theme is represented by divinities, the most popular being Hercules or the members of the Dionysian tyasos. Among the images of mortals, an inclination for depicting nude, beardless youths displaying an iconography similar to Antinous can be noted. his is illustrated by another anthropomorphic vessel discovered in Roman Dacia, at Strâmba (Turceni, Gorj County)1222. he presence of amulets around the necks of these personages proves that they are mortals and not gods1223. In addition to the mortal representations, there are also characters whose iconography is strongly inluenced by that of Faustina Minor or Geta1224, as well as images of laternarii, grotesque characters and children1225. Another group comprises vessels shaped like human feet, animals, or objects1226. In her analysis dedicated to the Roman bronze vessels used in the palaestrae and baths from the provinces of Moesia and hrace, R. Nenova-Merdjanova classiies the bust-shaped recipients in the third category1227. With the publication of the bronze vessels from Pannonia, K. Szabó included the anthropomorphic vessels in types 10 and 11: type 10 comprises those vessels shaped like human heads, while type 11 those bust-shaped, with or without pedestal1228. V. Marti-Clercx and B. Mille are responsible for a much more in-depth attempt to classify anthropomorphic vessels, based on a number of 322 pieces from across the Roman Empire, which lead to the identiication of three main categories. Type A comprises vessels with the body taking the form of a bust, but which can also be shaped like a human head or standing igure, with or without stand, with a circular opening in the middle of the cranium covered by a hinged lid and provided with two loops attached to the head, used for suspending the handle (263 discoveries, the vessel from Moigrad/Porolissum included). Type B includes bust-shaped vessels provided with a narrow rimed neck positioned in the middle of the head (39 discoveries), while type C is represented by head-shaped vessels, without pedestal or handle (20 discoveries)1229. he vessel from Moigrad/Porolissum is part of an iconographic series identiied by the two above mentioned authors, which belongs to type A, characterised by representations of nude busts rendered only SUPKA 1913, 280; RADNÓTI 1938, Taf. LIV/2; ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2003, 178, no. 13, Pl. 6/1, 2; ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2005, 37, 46, no. 13, 60, Pl. 6/1–2. I wish to thank Zsolt Mráv from the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest for allowing me to examine the vessel from Moigrad. 1217 See, e.g., POZO 1988. 1218 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002. 1219 SZABÓ 1984. 1220 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 385. 1221 See POZO 1988; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54–56; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 385. 1222 BONDOC 2000, 47–48, no.: 38; ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 154, no.: 250; MUSTAȚĂ 2010a. 1223 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 55–56; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999, 132. 1224 MARTI 1996, 984. 1225 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000. 1226 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 57. 1227 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54–57, Fig. 3–5. 1228 SZABÓ 1984, 102, 109/Fig. 7/10–11. 1229 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 385–386, Fig. 1. 1216 158 down to the inferior part of the pectoral muscles, with the arms depicted only until under the shoulder, with rich and disproportionate hairdo1230. he series is made up from ive pieces of this kind discovered at Besançon (Franche-Comté, France)1231, Köngen (Baden-Württemberg, Germany)1232, Moigrad/ Porolissum, Rezé (Pays de la Loire, France)1233, and the last one kept in the collection of the Museum of the Archaeological Institute in Soia, Bulgaria1234. Generally, the manner of rendering the facial features is schematic for all of the pieces belonging to the series: the main lines are poorly marked, the eyes are sunken and incised on the margins, while the pupils, also sunken, are not always visible. If in the case of the irst two pieces (Besançon, Köngen) slight diferences can be noticed as compared to the Porolissum piece (more voluminous hairdo, mouth schematically rendered by a simple, sunken and curved line, without tracing the lips, the chin is a bit more pointy), the resemblance between the vessel from Moigrad/ Porolissum and the one kept in the collections of the Archaeology Institute in Soia is very high1235. Unfortunately, all the four pieces are missing any clear data regarding the discovery context. he vessels from Besançon, Köngen and Moesia/hrace (?) all come from private collections, whilst the one from Moigrad/Porolissum has unknown discovery circumstances. K. Majewski’s study from 19631236 highlighted the existence of three European areas with a high number of anthropomorphic vessel discoveries: the Danube area (Pannonia and hrace), the Rhine and the Black Sea areas1237. he subsequent publication of similar pieces from Hispania revealed a large number of inds, especially in Lusitania1238. At the present state of research, an approximate number of 350 anthropomorphic vessels are known, the total of pieces originating from Europe being greater than of those from Asia Minor or Africa. One can speak of a general distribution of these vessels inside the Roman Empire, to a smaller extent in the Italian Peninsula and a larger concentration on MARTI 1996, 983; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 386. MAJEWSKI 1964, 114, ryc. 31, 121, no. 57; BRONZES ANTIQUES BESANÇON 1981, no. 111; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 386. 1232 PLANCK 1980, 179–181, Abb. 126; NUBER 1988, 105, 114, Abb. 58, 93; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 386; LUIK 2005, 268–269, 278, no. 17, 286, Abb. 9/17. he piece from Köngen was irst published with images by D. Planck (PLANCK 1980) who illustrates a vessel without handle. In the catalogue dedicated to the Roman bronzes from Baden-Württemberg (NUBER 1988), the image referring to the Köngen vessel (Abb. 93) presents another anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel than the one indicated by D. Planck, this one being equipped with a handle. he explanatory text accompanying the image that indeed illustrates the piece from Köngen (Abb. 58) refers to a vessel from Heilbronn-Böckingen. he information published by H. U. Nuber was taken as such by the specialised literature. V. Marti (MARTI 1996; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002), relying on the information provided by H. U. Nuber, includes the two vessels in the iconographic series, without noticing the confusion. When the Roman bronzes from Köngen were published (LUIK 2005), the illustration provided for the anthropomorphic vessel is in agreement with the 1988 catalogue, and a proile image of the vessel is added. he author, although also citing D. Planck, does not mention anything regarding a possible error. he two images from the publications mentioned above present two nearly identical anthropomorphic vessels. Clearly, one of them shows the unrestored vessel, whereas the second illustrates a restored piece (NUBER 1988, Abb. 58, 93). Verifying the bibliographic reference provided by H. U. Nuber for the vessel from Heilbronn-Böckingen (KOCH 1971, 44–45, Abb. 13), the error is conirmed because the actual piece from Böckingen is totally diferent from the iconographic series in question. Consequently, the two images from the 1988 catalogue illustrate the same vessel from Köngen originally provided with a handle, but the handle itself was re-attached only following the restoration. he error consists in replacing the image of the Heilbronn-Böckingen piece with another one of the Köngen vessel. 1233 PLOUHINEC 1967, 164–165; MARTI 1996, 983; MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 386. he authors record in this iconographic series the bust-shaped anthropomorphic vessel from Rezé, reused as a steelyard weight and dated on the basis of its discovery context to the end of the 2nd century AD (PLOUHINEC 1967, 160–161). However, there are diferences from a morphological and iconographic point of view (the bust is made without marking the hands of the character, he is not nude, but wears a tunic, visible on the right shoulder, the hairdo has lesser volume and is much more schematically rendered) as compared to the other vessels belonging to the series. 1234 ILIEVA 2004, 47–48, Fig. 3. 1235 At the moment of publication, the piece was illustrated only from the proile and this is why it was not possible to compare in detail the way the facial features were rendered. 1236 MAJEWSKI 1963. 1237 MAJEWSKI 1963, 96. 1238 POZO 1988. 1230 1231 159 the limes, especially along the Germanic limes1239. Pieces of this kind are only exceptionally found in Barbaricum1240. Establishing the production centres in which the anthropomorphic vessels were manufactured still represents a problem for the specialists. Up to now, no stamped specimen was found and this is why it can be assumed that the production started at a later date, considering that beginning with the second third of the 2nd century AD the custom of stamping vessels fades out1241. In the lack of direct evidence to attest any production (moulds, semi-inished products), the type is considered to have been produced in several areas: Alexandria, Asia Minor, hrace, Gaul and Pannonia1242. he massive representation of the “ethnographic” types, as well as the complex iconography displayed by some of the pieces were for a long time seen by specialists as elements pointing to a production in workshops active in Alexandria or in Asia Minor1243. In the same line of thought, the pieces of a lower artistic quality were attributed to Gaulish and Pannonian workshops1244. he large number of inds of this type from the Danube area was explained by the “orientalisation” process sufered by the army from this region during the Severan period, when the pieces arrived from the East together with their owners1245. he more in-depth research carried out in recent times with respect to this category of inds does not appear to support these theories. As previously mentioned in this volume1246, of relevance for the matter are the chemical analyses conducted by V. Marti-Clercx and B. Mille on items coming both from the western and the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. he results showed that during the Roman period two alloys were used for the production of anthropomorphic vessels: an alloy composed of four elements (copper-lead-tin-zinc), typical for the pieces discovered in the western provinces, and an alloy composed of three elements (copper-lead-tin) from which the objects found in the eastern parts were made. hus, the presence of zinc indicates in this case a production in the western provinces1247. From an iconographic point of view, it was noticed that the anthropomorphic vessels discovered in the Danube and Rhine area mainly illustrate the “ethnographic” types, whereas common for the East are the images of gods or picturesque subjects1248. For a general dating of the anthropomorphic vessels, one of the most important aspects is represented by their absence from the inventories of the houses from Pompeii and Herculaneum1249. Furthermore, they do not show up in funerary inventories earlier than the 2nd century AD1250. In addition, there is also the lack of production stamps and the resemblances with the iconography of Antinous and Faustina Maior, elements indicating that the production could not have started earlier than the end of the 1st century AD and thereafter continued throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, as proved by the discovery contexts1251. As mentioned before, the discovery context is not known for any of the four pieces belonging to the iconographic series that includes the piece from Moigrad/Porolissum and this is the reason why the general chronological interval for these cannot be reduced. Regarding the production area, it can be assumed that we are dealing with products of a workshop active in the western provinces of the Empire, since MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 386/Fig. 2 (distribution map). For the anthropomorphic vessels discovered outside the Roman Empire, see COARELLI 1961 (ive anthropomorphic vessels found at Bergam, Afghanistan) and JILEK 2016, 399–402, Abb.2 (Žárovice – Hamry, Czeck Republic). 1241 PETROVSZKY 1993, 181. 1242 RADNÓTI 1938, 172–173; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 57. 1243 COARELLI 1961, 175–177: supports the Egyptian origin of the pieces; MAJEWSKI 1963, 126. 1244 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 57. 1245 RAEV 1977, 631. 1246 See the discussion in subchapter II.3.1.2. referring to the analysis methods. 1247 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 389–391. 1248 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002, 391–392. 1249 See TASSINARI 1993. 1250 NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 57. 1251 MARTI 1996, 983–985. For a detailed discussion regarding the discovery contexts, see also: SEDLMAYER 1999, 43–45; BIENERT 2007, 247. 1239 1240 160 three of the ive known objects, including the one from Rezé1252, were discovered here. Except for the balsamarium from Moigrad/Porolissum and the one from Strâmba with an iconography inspired from that of Antinous, only one more piece belonging to the type was discovered on the territory of Roman Dacia: a balsamarium with a Janus-like representation depicting two Sileni, found at Reșca/Romula1253. Although it was considered for a long time that the anthropomorphic vessels were part of the toilet sets and contained the oil used at the baths for skin cleansing, the lack of any clear evidence in this direction determined the specialists dealing with the subject to formulate other hypotheses concerning their possible uses. he main proponent of the idea that they were used for oil transportation is R. NenovaMerdjanova1254. Her irst argument is represented by the illustration of the ethnographic types, whom she considered to be the slaves who carried their masters’ instrumentum balnei to the baths. he prophylactic signiicance of the Negroid image in the Roman world is brought into discussion, as well as the possibility that the representation played the same role the amulets did at the baths1255, underlining their apotropaic function against the evil eye1256. he author connects the depiction of nude, beardless young men whose iconography is close to that of Antinous with the homosexual relations that took place in the bath-houses. In addition, there is also the association of anthropomorphic vessels with strigiles and other pieces belonging to toilet sets in funerary inventories1257. Following P. Göessler’s hypothesis, F. Coarelli1258 links the anthropomorphic vessels to the frankincense import from Egypt. hus, according to the author this category of containers represented no more than a package for a granular product and, since some of these vessels display exceptional workmanship, it is presumed that the content must have been rather expensive. Because during the Roman period frankincense was imported from Egypt, F. Coarelli considers that the anthropomorphic vessels were also brought from there and reached other areas of the Empire together with their content. One of the arguments put forward is the fact that many vessels were reused as steelyard weights, a circumstance which, from his point of view, proves that once the content ran out, they could no longer be used1259. Tempting as it is, such a hypothesis is hard to accept. here is no proof that the vessels indeed contained frankincense and they could have been turned into steelyard weights because they were not functional anymore. Another point of view, mainly grounded in practical observations, was expressed by V. Marti1260, who claims that the anthropomorphic vessels could not have contained anything liquid or compact. Liquids are dismissed because of the absence of a spout in many cases and their opening is considered too narrow to allow the extraction of the content with a ladle. Solid perfumed creams are also ruled out since these were impossible to be completely removed from the vessel. he shoulder area, for instance, would remain out of reach even if a glass baguette were to be used1261. he author proposes instead scented powders or spices with a granular structure which could have been burned. It is diicult to agree with this hypothesis because none of the vessels discovered so far exhibits traces of burning. From an iconographic perspective, V. Marti considers that the “ethnographic” types represent members of the Dionysian cortege rendered as such because the craftsmen who made the vessels had mistaken the Ethiopians for the Indians defeated by Dionysus1262. he beardless young men are identiied as house slaves and the author’s conclusion is that the anthropomorphic vessels were used in the household, during meal time, as recipients for storing aromatic substances1263. At the present state of research there is no argument in favour of this theory. It is not at all certain that there was confusion between Ethiopians 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 See note 1233. BONDOC, DINCĂ 2003, 21–22, no. 12. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 55–56; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2000, 309–312. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54. COARELLI 1961. COARELLI 1961, 177. MARTI 1996, 985–1000. MARTI 1996, 986–987. MARTI 1996, 993. MARTI 1996, 987. 161 and Indians, and the fact that these pieces appear most frequently in the limes and not in the urban areas questions their use in sumptuous banquets. Another theory expressed by specialists was that the anthropomorphic vessels do not actually exist as a group in the actual sense of the term. he poor quality of the casting as well as of the joints would not have allowed anything liquid to be contained. Consequently, it was suggested that the vessels with pedestal were used as furniture appliqués1264. Unfortunately, in the lack of written sources there is not enough evidence to support any of the aforementioned hypotheses, although the characteristics of the items render more credibility to their possible use as toilet vessels. Analysing the contents of these vessels prior to their restoration is very important, but as far as I know this was done only in the case of three of them: one from Kabile (Yambol, Bulgaria)1265 which contained vegetable oil, another from Lillebonne (Haute-Normandie, France)1266 which held a fat and scented body care product, and inally a vessel from Aisey-le-Duc (Bourgogne, France) containing a perfumed powder1267. A diferent function according to the size of the items should not be excluded. he category of Roman anthropomorphic bronze vessels comprises pieces ranging in height from 4–5 cm to 20 cm, implying a varied content. he vessels making up the iconographic series which includes the piece from Moigrad/Porolissum measure between 5 and 6 cm in height, fact which in my opinion rules out their use for transporting oil, being too small to serve this purpose. III.13. Vessel feet 87. Buciumi (Pl. XLVI/87, XCIV/87a-b) 1. Fort 1970, Barracks 4, southern side, depth: -0.80 m, fort with earthen enclosure, phase 1b; 2. MIAZ CC 200/70; 3. L: 45.4 mm; W: 24 mm; h: 7 mm; Wh: 31 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Unrestored, uneven patina, light green, traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Pelta-shaped foot which displays a vertical incision in the medial area; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside; 8. AD 114/115 – the beginning of the 3rd century; 9. Unpublished. 88. Buciumi (Pl. XLVI/87, XCIV/87a-b) 1 Fort 1973, Barracks 5, square 52, depth: -1.3 m, fort with earthen rampart, phase 1a; 2. MIAZ CC 217/73; 3. L: 55 mm; W: 23.2 mm; h: 7.6 mm; Wh: 45 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Unrestored, greyish dark green patina, traces of soil; 6. Cast; 7. Pelta-shaped foot which displays a vertical incision in the medial area; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside; 8. AD 106/107 – 114/115; 9. Unpublished. 89. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XLVI/89) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 176/58; 3. L: 31.3 mm; W: 17.3 mm; h: 4.9 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, dark green patina; 6. Cast; 7. Pelta-shaped foot from a vessel; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 90. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XLVI/90) 1. Fort on Pomet hill 1985, Trench 87, in the area of the principia; 2. MIAZ n. i.; 3. L: 33 mm; Wmax: 14.3 mm; h: 2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; 6. Cast; 7. Pelta-shaped foot from a vessel; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 91. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XLVI/91) 1. “Tündérhegy” (“Dealul Zânelor”) 1906; 2. -; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Pelta-shaped foot from a vessel; the terminal of the medial elongation is broken of; 8. -; 9. BAJUSZ 2005, 729, 32/9/2 ábra; MUSTAȚĂ 2015b, 208–210, Fig. 2/8. 92. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. XLVI/92) 1. “Szindivölgy-Tető” (the ridge of Sândului Valley) 1904, Ferenc Bondár’s grapevine; 2. -; 3. .; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; 6. Cast; 7. Vessel foot, possibly from a bucket; the superior end is bifurcated, while the inferior one 1264 1265 1266 1267 See the discussion in SZABÓ 1984, 102, 104. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995, 54; MARTI 1996, 985. TRESORS D´ORFEVRERIE 1989, 110, no. 47; MARTI 1996, 985. MARTI 1996, 985. 162 is arched and displays a serrated decoration on the edge; 8. -; 9. BAJUSZ 2005, 679, 30/87/3. ábra; MUSTAȚĂ 2015b, 208–210, Fig. 2/9. Amongst the analysed pieces from Dacia Porolissensis a number of six items were identiied as feet for various types of Roman bronze vessels. Because from a formal viewpoint they cannot be clearly attributed to a certain type of vessel, they were treated and discussed separately, with the diferent possible attributions for each of them. Applying a number of three or four feet to the vessel base had the purpose of balancing and stabilising the recipient’s body, especially if it was provided with a massively cast horizontal handle, but not exclusively. Most of the feet appear on 1st century AD types1268 and are encountered on casseroles1269, spouted jugs1270 and jugs1271, on bowls with tubular handle ending in zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protomes1272, on buckets1273 and basins1274. he evolution of the technological process determined the appearance of annular bases and the of the massive casting, especially concerning the casseroles. hese elements conferred stability to the vessels, making the feet redundant. his evolution can be witnessed on the material pertaining to the end of Pompeian habitation, which comprises few vessels with feet, most likely due to the previously mentioned facts1275. Five out of the six identiied items can be ascribed to the general category of pelta-shaped feet, more exactly to types 3 (Turda/Potaissa, no. 91, Pl. XLVI/91) and 4 (Buciumi, nos. 87–88, Pl. XLVI/87–88, XCIV/87a-b, 88a-b; Moigrad/Porolissum, nos. 89–90, Pl. XLVI/89–90) according to E. Deschler-Erb’s classiication1276. Type 3 includes the pelta-shaped feet which only have their medial arm moulded, an element that cannot be seen on the piece from Turda/Potaissa because it is broken in that area. Feet like these are known, among others, from Haltern1277 (the variant with narrow ends and curved medial area), Magdalensberg1278, Vindonissa1279and in the Archaeological Museum from Split1280. Relying on the dimensions of the pieces belonging to group 3, as well as on the similarities with the ones belonging to types 1–21281 it can be assumed that in this case they were also used as casserole feet, even though at the present moment no bronze vessel whose base preserved this type of foot is known. Type 4 is represented by the two specimens from Buciumi (nos. 87–88), discovered in contexts dated to the beginning of the 2nd century AD (no. 87) and throughout the 2nd century (no. 88), and by the two from Moigrad/Porolissum (nos. 89, 90). It is characterised by rounded ends and a medial area which is usually sharpened. he body can be decorated with concentric circles, but there are also undecorated examples. he type is further divided in two distinct groups based on the size of the pieces: a irst See FLÜGEL 1993, 60; SEDLMAYER 1999, 115–118; KAPELLER 2003, 95. DEN BOESTERD 1956, Pl. XIII/7b, 12b; BREŠČAK 1982, 40–42, nos. 3–5, 15, T. 1/3–5, T. 2/15; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 69–70, Pl. XXXI/88, XXXII/90; PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 11/C.20.40, Taf. 23/P.06.01, Taf. 28/T.08.08; TASSINARI 1993, G3100 (7042); BIENERT 2007, 255, note 1510. 1270 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 81–82, Pl. XXXIX/116. 1271 HOFFILLER 1911, 313, Sl. 122; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 93–94, 96–97, Pl. XLVI/137, XLVII/141; TASSINARI 1993, C2200 (10615); BIENERT 2007, 255, note 1510. 1272 OETTEL 1991, 48, no. 20, Taf. 20/c; TASSINARI 1993, H2100 (12719 and 5019); BIENERT 2007, 255, note 1510. 1273 WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, Taf. 3; BIENERT 2007, 255, note 1510. 1274 OETTEL 1991, 47, no. 17, Taf. 17/a-c; TASSINARI 1993, S1110–1120, T1000 (11240, 6482), T2000 (11637, 3170); BIENERT 2007, 255, note 1510. 1275 SEDLMAYER 1999, 117. 1276 DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 22–24, Abb. 10. 1277 MÜLLER 1997, 16, 37, nos. 35–38, Abb. 11/35–38. 1278 DEIMEL 1987, 120, no, 9/4, 126, no. 11/12, 149, no. 23/4, Taf. 9/4, 11/12, 23/4; SEDLMAYER 1999, 114, no. 17, Taf. 51/17. 1279 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 62, no. 44, Taf, 5/44. 1280 JOVANOVIĆ 2010, 214, no. 18–20, Pl. 1/18–20. 1281 See DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 23, Abb. 10/1–2. For a list of the discovered vessel feet classiied by E. Deschler-Erb in types 1 and 2, see FLÜGEL 1993, 60, note 34; SEDLMAYER 1999, 116–117. Types 1 and 2 are typical for the casseroles with the handle ending in swan heads and for the casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal (BREŠČAK 1982, T. 1/4–5; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 62; FLÜGEL 1993, 60; SEDLMAYER 1999, 117). 1268 1269 163 and most prominent group includes pieces whose maximum length measures 3 cm, whilst the second comprises large-sized pieces measuring between 4 and 6 cm, similar to the ones from Buciumi, and is represented by a small number of inds1282. here are many type 4 discoveries which are chronologically distributed during the 1st century AD and the beginning of the 2nd century AD1283. Amongst these, one can list the inds from Haltern1284, those from Noricum surfacing in contexts dated to the irst half of the 1st century AD1285, those from Pompeii1286, the ive specimens from Vindonissa1287, as well as the pieces kept in the Archaeological Museum from Split1288. hese feet were deinitely used on the bases of casseroles with handles ending in swan heads and of the casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal, as proved by the complete casseroles which still preserve the attached feet1289. At Pompeii a foot of this type can also be seen on the base of an early variant of the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal1290. hree feet like these also survived on the base of a casserole with circular piercing on the handle terminal discovered at Carnuntum1291. Except for the casseroles, the type 4 pelta-shaped feet was very likely also attached to amphorae1292, to Millingen type spouted jugs1293, to jugs with relief-decorated handle1294 and, very probably secondarily, on bronze sheet spouted jugs1295. No analogy is known for the foot from Turda/Potaissa (no. 92, Pl. XLVI/92). he characteristics of the piece and its dimensions bring it close to bucket feet1296 formally speaking, whereas its use as a foot is supported by the presence of the central perforation that most probably served for ixing it. Since we are dealing with a collection piece that survived only in the form of an illustration, there was no way to directly examine the item. III.14. Bronze vessel fragments with uncertain typological attribution 93. Buciumi (Pl. XLVII/93, XCIV/93) 1. Fort 1973, Barracks 2, transverse baulk, depth: -0.80 m, fort with earthen enclosure, phase 1b; 2. MIAZ CC 344/73; 3. L: 31 mm; W: 9 mm; h: 5 mm; Wh: 5 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, light green patina; 6. Cast, incised; 7. One of the superior ends of a handle from a jug or casserole, which enabled the attachment to the rim of the vessel; it is shaped like a bird head, with the eye, beak and plumage schematically rendered by incisions; 8. AD 114/115 – the beginning of the 3rd century; 9. Unpublished. For the larger sized feet belonging to the type, see HOFFILLER 1911, 313, Sl. 122; BREŠČAK 1982, 40, no. 3, T. 1/3; JOVANOVIĆ 2010, 214, no. 15, Pl. 1/15. Such a piece (L: 5 cm) was also discovered in Roman Dacia, at Mehadia (BOZU 2001, 153, no. 76, Pl. V/76). 1283 For a list of the pieces discovered up to the year 1996, see DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 23–24, note 68. 1284 MÜLLER 1997, 16, 18, 36, nos. 30–32, 1285 DEIMEL 1987, 127, no. 11/17, 11/18, Taf. 11/17–18; SEDLMAYER 1999, 114, Taf. 51/20–2. 1286 TASSINARI 1993, I. 123–124, 199, II. 128, G, 1915C, 2106A, 19052A, 19052B. 1287 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 63–64, Taf. 5/46. 1288 JOVANOVIĆ 2010, 213–214, nos. 9–15, Pl. 1/9–15. 1289 DEN BOESTERD 1956, 4–5, no. 12, Pl. XIII/12b (casserole with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal); BREŠČAK 1982, 40, no. 3, T. 1/3 (casserole with the handle ending in swan heads); BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 70, no. 90, Pl. XXXII/90 (casserole with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal); TASSINARI 1993, II. 128, 18752 A (casserole base with the foot still attached); DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 23–24; SEDLMAYER 1999, 117. 1290 TASSIANARI 1993, I. 133, II. 116, G3100, 7042. 1291 PETROVSZKY 2006b, 269–270, no. 961, Abb. 422.; VON KAISERN UND BÜRGERN 2009, 301, no. 1140. 1292 SEDLMAYER 1999, 117, 134, Abb. 15, Taf. 15/12: an amphora from Magdalensberg, discovered together with such a foot. 1293 NUBER 1973, 45, note 238; FLÜGEL 1993, 60; DESCHLER-ERB 1996, 24, note 69; SEDLMAYER 1999, 117, note 784: a Millingen type spouted jug found in the Cave of Letters, Israel and dated based on the discovery context during Bar Kokhba’s uprising. 1294 HOFFILLER 1911, 313, Sl. 122: three large-sized feet were attached to the base of the jug and the author connects them with a repairing that took place in Antiquity. 1295 KOÇEL ERDEM 2009, 222, 224–225, Fig. 13–15, Dwg. 4–5. 1296 For the Roman bronze bucket feet see, e.g.: DEN BOESTERD 1956, 39, nos. 113–114, Pl. V/113–114; BOUCHER 1971, 167, nos. 363–372; TASSINARI 1975a, 58–59, nos. 144–148, Pl. XXVIII/144–148; BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976, 129, no. 151; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 63–64, no. 47–51, Taf. 5/47–51; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985, Taf. 3; HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 68, Taf. 3/28; SEDLMAYER 1999, 113, Taf. 51/11, 13–14; KAPELLER 2003, 142, Pl. 29/187–189. 1282 164 94. Buciumi (Pl. XLVII/94, XCV/94) 1. Fort 1975, building 1, fort with stone wall; 2. MIAZ CC 132/1975; 3. Dbase: 120 mm; Dmax. body: 144 mm; Hvessel: 28.5 mm; h: 1 mm; Wh: 201 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, deformed, uneven patina, green coloured spots; 6. Raised from a lat metal sheet; there are no signs of lathe pressing; 7. he inferior part of a vessel with slightly splayed wall; halfway of the preserved surface (10 mm from the base), the wall displays two holes left by rivets, which enabled its attachment; it is possible that this is a piece of metal which could have been used for repairing the base of a vessel; 8. After AD 220, judging by monetary inds; 9. Unpublished. 95. Gilău (Pl. XLVII/95, XCV/95) 1. Fort 1979, Trench XIII, depth: -1.50 m, via principalis, western drainage ditch; 2. MNITR v. 44880; 3. L: 108 mm; Wmax: 27.7 mm; H: 26.6 mm; hmax: 8.22 mm; Dinterior suspension ring: 12.7 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, uniform, greenish light grey patina; 6. Full-cast, incised; 7. Vessel attachment composed of two stylized leaves joined in the middle; the body is decorated with incised vegetal motifs; the suspension loop is placed perpendicularly on the body and shows signs of use; no traces of soldering could be observed on the backside; 8. -; 9. DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 54, no. 3, Fig. 1/3; ISAC 1997, 104, Pl. XXIII/2. 96. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XLVIII/96, XCV/96) 1. From the excavations of Károly Torma, somewhere between Ilișua de Jos and Cristeștii Ciceului (Csicsókeresztúr); discovered together with pottery, pieces of iron, bone and glass; 2. MNITR 3333; MNITR v. 19002; 3. Dapprox. : 45 mm; H: 50 mm; happrox. wall: 1 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, green base with brown spots; 6. Cast in one piece, followed by pressing; 7. he inferior part of a vessel constituted from the base and part of the wall, severely deformed; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 69–70 (no. 16), 82, 88, Pl. 5/16, 11/16. 97. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XLVIII/97, XCVI/97a-b) 1. Fort 1995, praetentura dextra, barracks area, meter 6, depth: -0.30 m; stone fort; 2. CMBN 23359; 3. H: 37.2 mm; W: 59 mm; hwall: 1.3 mm; hrim: 1.8 mm; Wh: 15 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, deformed, without patina; 6. Cast; 7. Only the beginning of the splayed rim, with broken edge, and part of the wall are preserved; under the rim there are two parallel incisions; 8. he last decades of the 2nd century AD? – the irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 69–70 (no. 17), 83, Pl. 6/17. 98. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XLIX/98, XCVI/98a-b) 1. Fort 1995, praetentura dextra, barracks area, trench 4, metre 2, depth: -0.75 m, burnt layer corresponding to the end of the large fort with earthen enclosure; 2. CMBN 22685; 3. Dapprox. base: 63 mm; L: 63.1 mm; W: 38.8 mm; Wh: 7 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, without patina; 6. Raised from a lat metal sheet, turning traces can be observed on the backside; 7. Base and part of the wall from a vessel; it displays signs of cutting; 8. he last decades of the 2nd century AD; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 69–70 (no. 18), 83, Pl. 6/18. 99. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XLIX/99, XCVI/99a-d) 1. Stray ind on Pomet hill 1964, donated by the teacher Nicolae Pătru Popescu; 2. MNITR IN 21514; 3. L: 54 mm; Wmax: 34 mm; Dperforation: 9 mm; Wh: 71 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, uneven patina, light green spots; 6. Cast; 7.Possibly a basin attachment in the shape of a palmetto decorated with incisions forming a vegetal motif; the suspension loop, located on the upper part and perpendicularly on the body of the piece, was half drilled and displays a small casting defect; the backside shows traces of soldering; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 3, Pl. CCXXX/3; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24, Fig. 2; MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 192–193, 195, no. 2, 201, Pl. III/1. 100. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. XLIX/100, XCVII/100a-b) 1. Discovered on Pomet hill, together with 19 other bronze pieces, by the local Gheorghe Tamba during agricultural works; 2. MIAZ CC 16, 18/1957; 3. L: 112 mm; W: 34.8 mm; hpiece1: 1.5 mm; hpiece2: 1 mm; Wh: 39 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, deformed, uneven patina, reddish brown with greenish black areas; 6. Hammered, joined by superimposition; 7. Curved fragment, most likely originating from the body of a cauldron; the piece is made up from two pieces of metal: one with tapering edge, and another, thicker, piece with jagged edge; the two were joined by superimposing the teeth on both sides of the piece with thinner edge; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 101. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. L/101) 1. Military vicus, building LM3; 2. MIAZ n. i.; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete; 6. Hammered metal sheet; 165 7. Wide jug handle, rectangular in cross-section; the inferior part ends with an attachment shaped like a stylized leaf; the upper part displays two arms which enabled the attachment to the mouth of the vessel; one of these was perforated and still holds a rivet inside the piercing; 8. -; 9. TAMBA 2008, 253, Fig. VI.5.14. 102. Moigrad/Porolissum (L/102, XCVII/102) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 142/1958; 3. L: 20.2 mm; W: 15 mm; h: 6 mm; Wh: 6 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. he upper part of an attachment consisting of its suspension loop; it displays signs of use; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 103. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. L/103) 1. Fort on Pomet hill 1987, “Barracks 10” (the cistern by via praetoria), Trench 93, m: 10; 2. MIAZ n. i.; 3. L: 90 mm; Wmax.: 26 mm; h: 3.5 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Handle with perforated terminal; the medial area is widened and has slightly rounded edges; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 104. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LI/104, XCVII/104) 1. Fort on Pomet hill 1987, “Barracks 10” (the cistern by via praetoria), Trench 93, C9, L6/1, l 20, depth: -0.90 m, demolition layer; 2. MIAZ CC 772/87; 3. L: 135 mm; W: 118.4 mm; Dapprox. base: 105.6 mm; hbase: 0.5 mm; hwall: 0.5 mm; Wh: 48 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, highly deformed and oxidized, uneven patina, light green, traces of soil; 6. Raised from a lat metal sheet; 7. Bronze sheet probably used for mending the base of a vessel; it is seriously deformed; part of the deformed wall, folded in multiple layers, is preserved; 8. he irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD (after AD 213); 9. Unpublished. 105. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LI/105, XCVII/105) 1. Fort on Pomet hill 1987, Trench 84, meters: 56–60, from the discarded soil, building C6; 2. MIAZ CC 245/84; 3. L: 105.3 mm; W: 52.2 mm; h: 0.6 mm; Wh: 15 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uneven patina, green with brown spots; 6. Hammered; 7. Semi-circular bronze sheet, probably used for mending the base of a vessel; over a surface measuring 23 mm, diferently coloured, it was superimposed with another piece of metal; on this area the marks left by six rivets meant for joining the two plates (ive holes and one preserved rivet) can be observed; the piece appears to have been intentionally cut, since it has a regular edge; 8. -; 9. Unpublished. 106. Turda/Potaissa (Pl. LII/106, CI/16) 1. Unknown, Imre Botár Collection; 2. -; 3. -; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary; 6. Cast; 7. Strainer with horizontal handle slightly curved in cross-section and partially preserved; the body is round, hemispherical and perforated with large sized holes of diferent diameters; 8. -; 9. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, 393, 398, 404, no. 16, Fig. 8/16. he high degree of fragmentation and in some cases the absence of complete pieces to provide a clear image on the type of vessel from which some of the analysed fragments could have originated, determined a separate analysis for fourteen items (nos. 93–106). Most of them, even though they deinitely belonged to bronze vessels, cannot be typologically classiied; a small number can either be connected to certain repairing activities, or to some forms which were not archaeologically identiied to date. he fragment shaped like a bird’s head from Buciumi (no. 93, Pl. XLVII/93, XCIV/93), coming from a discovery context generally dated to the 2nd century AD, belongs to the superior part of a handle; more precisely, it represents the end of one of its two arched arms which allowed the handle to be attached to the rim of the vessel. he handles whose upper ends are decorated with bird heads (usually swans or water birds) are typical for several categories of Roman bronze vessels. For this reason, it is not possible to identify the exact type to which the Buciumi piece belongs to, considering that the preserved part is too small and does not allow the diameter of the vessel’s rim to be measured. Handles with ends decorated like this are typical for the casseroles with relief-decorated handles of the Eggers 1511297 and 152–1531298 types (Petrovszky VII, 1–31299) and for certain types of jugs such as the ones with high EGGERS 1951, 174, Typ 151–153, Taf. 13/151; PETROVSZKY 1993, 47–48; see also p. 89 for the diference between the Eggers 151 and 152–153 types; PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002. 1298 EGGERS 1951, 174, Typ 151–153, Taf. 13/152–153. 1299 PETROVSZKY 1993, 89–91, Taf. 3/VII, 1–3. 1297 166 handle1300 or jugs with relief-decorated handle1301. In this case a more precise identiication cannot be provided1302. Concerning piece no. 94 (Pl. XLVII/94, XCV/94) from Buciumi, which was dated to the 3rd century AD on the basis of its discovery context, one can suppose that it was used as such, in contact with the ire, by attaching a horizontal handle with the help of the two rivets whose holes are still visible on the wall of the item. No parallels are known and, considering the technical data (the vessel was manufactured from a mechanically shaped bronze sheet), we are most likely dealing with a local product. he upper edge of the vessel’s wall is irregular, either indicating an intentional cut if the original piece was taller, or a careless execution. he possibility that the object was not used as a vessel, but as a piece used for repairing the base of a bronze vessel, the two rivets serving to secure it to the base1303 cannot be excluded, although such an operation would have demanded the existence of a row of rivets all around the piece. he identiication problems posed by the attachment found in the fort at Gilău (no. 95, Pl. XLVII/95, XCV/95) mainly derive from the lack of clear parallels. he body of the piece is lat, an element which prevents it from being applied on a curved vessel body. However, the wear marks visible on the holding ring point out that at some point a handle hung from it, or another ring which held the handle. From a formal point of view, the only known possible ascription (and which for the moment remains hypothetical) is represented by a type of attachment characteristic for the cauldrons with narrow and cylindrical neck from Pompeii of type V11001304. Even though they are not identical, since the attachments from Pompeii are triangular and their surface is undecorated, the manufacture process is the same: a lat part emplaced on the vessel’s shoulder and a perpendicular ring. For this reason it can be considered that the piece from Gilău possibly represents a variant of this type of attachments. he inferior part of a vessel from Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 96, Pl. XLVIII/96, XCV/96), although highly deformed, might be regarded as part of an amphora when considering the high degree of curvature displayed by the walls and the small diameter of the base. he attribution is not certain because the exterior part of the base does not exhibit any traces of lathe inishing: neither the mark of the ixing axis, nor the traces of concentric circles are visible. On the other hand, the piece is not restored and thus it cannot be excluded that we are possibly dealing with a specimen on which these marks are only vague1305 and thus they cannot be seen at the moment. he possibility of identifying the nos. 97 (Pl. XLVIII/97, XCVI/97a-b) and 98 (Pl. XLIX/98, XCVI/98a-b) also from Ilișua/Arcobadara are likewise limited. Because of the wall curvature that seems to splay towards the rim, no. 97 might originate from a hemispherical shape, most likely small-sized, possibly a serving form. No. 98 appears to be a bronze sheet base that diplays light traces of lathe inishing. he fragmentation degree of both pieces does not allow a more exact attribution. See e.g.: BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 86–87, Pl. XLI/122–123; TASSINARI 1993, II. B1242, B1251a-c, B1252. See e.g.: CAHEN-DELHAYE 1970; BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 91–95, Pl. XLV/135–136, XLVI/137; KÜNZL 1993a; TASSINARI 1993, II. B1221a, B1222; KOSTER 1997, 25–30, nos. 2–6; SEDLMAYER 1999, 13, Taf. 2/1. 1302 A similar fragment discovered in the legionary fortress at Oberaden (PETROVSZKY, STUPPERICH 2002, 21, 36, no. 33, 66, Taf. 31/Kat. No. 33; MÜLLER 2006, 306–307, Abb. 1/6, 312–313, no. 6) was attributed to the casseroles with relief-decorated handle of the Eggers 151 type. Here the identiication is justiied because the fortress was occupied between 11–8/7 BC (MÜLLER 2006, 305), while the other types discussed above are subsequent to this chronological interval. For other fragments of this kind, see also: FAIDER-FEYTMANS 1979, 167, no. 336, Pl. 126/336; KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1994, 171–172, no. 294, Taf. 114/293. 1303 For such a method of repairing Roman bronze vessel bases, see e.g.: FLÜGEL, HÜSSEN 1996, 9–10, no. 1, Abb. 1 (Östland type bucket); KOSTER 1997, 62, no. 77 (Östland type bucket); SEDLMAYER 1999, Taf. 7/8 (jug with raised handle), 10/2 (bronze sheet spouted jug). 1304 TASSINARI 1993, I. 102, V1100, 198, no. 18670, Tav. CLXXVIII/3–4, II. 275, V1100, no. 18670: these are cooking recipients which were most likely placed on the stove, fact proven by the ash traces seen on the vessels’ body (TASSINARI 1993, I. 231). 1305 Among the group of amphorae discovered at Pompeii there are a few pieces that do not display concentric circles on the exterior side of the base. See TASSINARI 1993, II. 2, no. 1964 and 11640, 3, no. 1874, 8, no. 2995, 11, no. 6540 (with concave base), 12, nos. 2193, 13082, 13, no. 13380, 16, no. 10655. 1300 1301 167 Burgh by Sands Neuss Langres Augst Brugg Moigrad Răcarii de Jos Davidovac Olympia Legend: limes of the Roman Empire Roman settlement attachments with anthropomorphic decoration attachments with vegetal decoration semi-finished product 0 500km Fig. 19. The distribution of bronze attachments with semi-pierced loop within the Roman Empire. As previously showed1306, the palmetto-shaped attachment with a semi-pierced loop from Moigrad/ Porolissum (no. 99, Pl. XLIX/99, XCVI/99a-d) belongs to a category of Roman bronze items regarded for a long time by specialists as uninished pieces. he study published in the year 2000 by J. Gorecki concerning the issue of the local Roman bronze vessel production at Pompeii succeeded in critically reassessing all of the direct and indirect evidence regarding the Empire wide production of these objects1307, including the pieces in question pertaining to the category of semi-inished products1308. he identiication of the piece from Porolissum as well as of a considerable number of inds of this kind1309 determined me to readdress the issue1310, especially since after the individual publication of the analysis referring to these inds, their number has encreased. he irst two pieces which are part of this category and were discussed in the specialised literature are an attachment discovered at Augst/Augusta Raurica and another one found at Brugg/Vindonissa1311. he plate from Augst/Augusta Raurica is shaped like a palmetto, its surface is decorated with incisions forming a vegetal decoration, and it displays a loop on its upper part which was cast together with the rest of the item. Its identiication as a semi-inished piece is conirmed by its coarse surface which still displays burr traces as well as by the way the loop was pierced: the piercing process was started, Diferent variants of the analysis of this type of artefacts were published by the present author; see MUSTAȚĂ 2009; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b. 1307 GORECKI 2000. 1308 GORECKI 2000, 453. 1309 See Annexe IV. 1310 I wish to express my gratitude towards dr. Richard Petrovszky and dr. phil. Joachim Gorecki for the extremely useful and interesting discussions concerning this category of inds. 1311 GORECKI 2000, 453. 1306 168 probably using a drill, but was never completed1312. he attachment from Brugg/Vindonissa exhibits an anthropomorphic decoration consisting in a child’s head (Eros), while the loop is half-pierced1313. Judging from the characteristics of the attachment from Augst/Augusta Raurica it was considered that the inished product should have had a completely pierced loop and for this reason the piece from Brugg/Vindonissa was included in the same semi-inished category1314. Since three more items of this kind surfaced, all characterised by the same semi-pierced loop, the discussion regarding the nature of these objects was reopened and it was suggested that we are in fact dealing with inished products1315. For the moment, thirteen attachments displaying the characteristics described above are known (Fig. 19). From a typological point of view, they can be grouped in two categories, both with a semipierced loop. he irst category comprises the palmetto-shaped attachments with the surface incised with vegetal decoration, discovered at Augst/Augusta Raurica1316 (Fig. 20/1, Annexe IV/1), Moigrad/ Porolissum1317 (Fig. 20/2, Pl. XLIX/99, XCVI/99a-d, Annexe IV/2), and Răcarii de Jos1318 (Fig. 20/3, Annexe IV/3). he second category includes those decorated with a child’s head (Eros) placed between two volutes, displaying a small-sized palmetto also lanked or not by a pair of volutes on the inferior part. Pieces like these were found at Brugg/Vindonissa1319 (Fig. 20/4, Annexe IV/4), Burgh by Sands1320 (Annexe IV/5), Davidovac1321 (Fig. 20/5, Annexe IV/6), Langres1322 (Fig. 20/6, Annexe IV/7), Neuss/ Novaesium1323 (Fig. 20/7, Annexe IV/8), and Olympia1324 (Fig. 20/8, Annexe IV/9). Other items from this category are kept in private collections (Edgar L. Owen Gallery of Antiquities, New Jersey1325: Fig. 20/9, Annexe IV/10), in museum collections (Archaeological Museum Gaziantep1326: Annexe IV/11; Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin1327: Annexe IV/12) or have been on sale on the antiques market1328 (Annexe IV/13). Except for the object from Augst/Augusta Raurica, the other pieces mentioned above do not present elements which would allow them to be interpreted as semi-inished products. heir exterior surface as well as the piercing on the loop were trimmed of and polished. he marks left by the drill used for piercing, visible in the case of the attachment from Augst/Augusta Raurica are no longer visible on the others. A small casting defect can be seen on the upper part of the piece from Moigrad/Porolissum but that does have a bearing on its functional character. Also, on the back of the same object there are traces of a soldering alloy, fact which supports the idea that it was functional. Unfortunately, the inds outside Roman Dacia could not be examined and when they were published no information was provided regarding the existence or absence of a soldering alloy. If one takes into account all of the above, the possibility that these attachments represent in fact inished and not semi-inished products appears as fairly high. In the same line of thought, it is very likely that the pieces from Moigrad/Porolissum and Răcarii de Jos illustrate inal variants of the semi-inished FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, Abb. 1/11; GORECKI 2000, 453. HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, 11–12, no. 81, Taf. 10/81. 1314 GORECKI 2000, 453. 1315 See MUSTAȚĂ 2009; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b. 1316 FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, Abb. 1/11. 1317 GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 3, Pl. CCXXX/3. 1318 BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, 228, no. 672, Pl. CXIII/672. I wish to thank dr. Dorel Bondoc, specialist from the Museum of Oltenia, Craiova for the help he provided in illustrating the piece from Răcarii de Jos. 1319 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, 11–12, no. 81, Taf. 10/81. 1320 https://inds.org.uk/database (03.05.2017), Record ID: LVPL150. 1321 RATKOVIĆ 2005, 121, no. 58. 1322 LEBEL 1965, 165–166, no. 43, Pl. XV/43. 1323 MENZEL 1986, 206 (no. 570), Taf. 180/570. 1324 GAUER 1991, 190 (Le 69), Abb. 13/11, Taf. 82/4. 1325 http://edgarlowen.com/a51ar.shtml – 07.09.2012, no. 5947. 1326 http://artefacts.mom.fr/en/home.php (03.05.2017), no. BAS–4030. 1327 http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus (03.05.2017), no. Fr. 1472 a 6. 1328 h t t p : / / w w w. e b a y. c o m / i t m / S U P E R B - R O M A N - B R O N Z E - V E S S E L - M O U N T – 2 N D - C E N TURY-AD-/231014111908?nma=true&si=4p6b60ICXvMAWe2Sd9AQWQu5u04%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 (26.09.2013). 1312 1313 169 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 5cm 0 Fig. 20. Bronze attachments with semi-pierced loop. 1. Augst/Augusta Raurica (redrawn ater FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, Abb. 1/11); 2. Moigrad/Porolissum; 3. Răcarii de Jos (redrawn ater BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, pl. CXIII/672; photo: D. Bondoc); 4. Brugg/Vindonissa (redrawn ater HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, Taf. 10/81); 5. Davidovac (redrawn ater RATKOVIĆ 2005, no. 58); 6. Langres (LEBEL 1965, pl. XV/43); 7. Neuss/Novaesium (redrawn ater MENZEL 1986, Taf. 180/570); 8. Olympia (redrawn ater GAUER 1991, Abb. 13/11, Taf. 82/4); 9. Edgar L. Owen Gallery of Antiquities, New Jersey. 170 piece from Augst/Augusta Raurica. Consequently, we are dealing with a new type of attachment characterised by a semi-pierced loop1329. Another argument in favour of this hypothesis is represented by the rather wide area of distribution of these pieces (Fig. 19). When trying to reconstruct the fastening mechanism of the handle, the characteristics of the objects present valuable information. Even though no bronze vessel with such attachments was discovered to date, their provenance from bronze vessels is supported by their curved shape and by the soldering alloy on the backside. Considering the type of curvature indicated by the attachments, the shape of the vessel on which they were applied seems to be most likely a basin with hemispherical body. he fact that they were applied in pairs of two under the rim of the vessel, each pair supporting a small-sized handle, is pointed out by the way the piercing was done1330. he pieces from Augst/Augusta Raurica, Davidovac, Neuss/Novaesium, Olympia, from the private collection in New Jersey, and from Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin were pierced on the right side, whereas on those from Moigrad/Porolissum, Răcarii de Jos, Brugg/Vindonissa, Burgh by Sands, Langres, Gaziantep Museum, and the antiques market the piercing is placed on the left side. his situation suggests the existence of two diametrically opposed pairs of attachments located under the rim, each holding a handle. he main hindrance in the attempt to reconstruct the fastening system is the fact that so far no type of Roman bronze basin is known to present a mechanism that uses attachments with semi-pierced loop. Bronze basins with two pairs of attachments having a completely pierced loop and provided with omega-shaped handles represent rather frequent discoveries in the Roman world. One of the most complex examples to this efect is represented by the attachments belonging to the Eggers 77–78 types1331, massively represented (especially the second) in the Roman metal objects hoard from Neupotz (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany)1332. Other types of handle fastening mechanism encountered in the case of Roman bronze vessels consist in two diametrically opposed attachments placed under the rim of the vessel which have a thickened upper part pierced at both ends, allowing the ixing of an oval handle. his system is also seen in the case of the Eggers 69 recipients with attachments shaped like grapevine leaves1333, or of the Eggers 91–921334. Concerning the attachments with semi-pierced loop, the presence of an oval ring entailing a ixing system similar to the one described above is improbable, even though it cannot be completely ruled out. At a closer examination of the pieces (Fig. 20) one can observe that the part of the loop which was not pierced is very nicely inished and in some cases is arched towards the hollowed side. his proves that it was visible, located on the outer side of the fastening mechanism. For this reason it can be assumed that the handle was most likely ixed in the free space in-between the attachment plates after these plates had been secured to the vessel’s body. he attempt at a reconstruction (Fig. 22/1a-b) was modelled on a bronze handle discovered in the Roman fort at South Shields1335 (Fig. 21). he item was published as a helmet handle, but such an identiication is questionable because the end of the piece does not appear to be broken and for the moment no fastening mechanism for helmet handles is known to use semipierced attachments. Furthermore, the length of the uninished handle end ranges between 6 and 7 mm, Fig. 21. Bronze handle from South Shields (ater ALLASON-JONES, MIKET 1984, 166–167, no. 427). while the depth of the perforation of the plate from 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 25. MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 25. EGGERS 1951, 167–168, Taf. 8/77–78. KÜNZL 1993c, 248–253. EGGERS 1951, 166, Taf. 8/69; SEDLMAYER 1999, 54, Taf. 22/5–7. EGGERS 1951, 168, Taf. 9/91–92. ALLASON-JONES, MIKET 1984, 166–167 (no. 427). 171 172 Fig. 22. 1a-b. Possible reconstruction of the fastening mechanism. Moigrad/Porolissum measures 6 mm. Another handle which could have been in theory part of a mechanism of this type is kept in the collections of Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen, he Netherlands. his one was published as a stylised variant of the handles ending in water birds or animals speciic to the Eggers 97–103 basins1336. However, the uninished ends suggest that they were not visible as long as the piece was functional. From an iconographic point of view, there are no close parallels for the attachments with vegetal decoration in Roman toreutics. On the other hand, the small-sized palmetto appearing on the inferior part of the attachments with anthropomorphic decoration displays similar characteristics. his type of palmetto is a common motif on the handles and attachments of Greek bronze vessels1337. he association of an anthropomorphic representation (maenada, medusa) with a small-sized palmetto placed underneath, similar to the attachments with anthropomorphic decoration, is typical for the decorative appliqués placed on the Campanian casseroles produced by P. Cipius Polybius1338 corresponding to the Eggers 142 type1339, but also for the attachments of the Augst 253 type buckets1340. From an iconographic point of view, these representations are the closest to the attachments discussed here. Similar representations, combining an Eros, a female head or a theatrical mask with a palmetto framed by two volutes appear frequently as decorative elements of the inferior handle ends belonging to lagons or amphorae produced in Campanian workshops1341. For the attachments with vegetal decoration – at least for the one from Moigrad/Porolissum keeping in mind the similarities – it can be assumed that the production centre was situated at Augst/Augusta Raurica, a hypothesis supported by the semi-inished item found here. With respect to the second category with anthropomorphic decoration, the present state of research does not allow any workshop to be identiied. Even though the category includes a small number of inds, there is nothing to indicate that all of the pieces were produced in the same place, but this possibility cannot be excluded either. In the present state of the research, the distribution of the inds would rather indicate a workshop which functioned somewhere in the western provincese of the Empire. Regarding the chronology, the semi-inished product from Augst/Augusta Raurica is dated, based on the discovery context, from the second half of the 2nd century AD until the beginning of the 3rd century AD1342, an interval relevant for the pieces from Moigrad/Porolissum and Răcarii de Jos. Amongst the attachments with anthropomorphic decoration, only the one from Brugg/Vindonissa beneits from a dating provided by the discovery context, namely the period between AD 30/40 and 1011343. For the piece from Olympia, the only comment is that it belongs to the Roman Imperial period1344. Such a situation could suggest that the attachments with anthropomorphic decoration are prior to the ones with vegetal decoration. However, this hypothesis is grounded in too few information and will have to be conirmed either by new inds, or by reassessing the known data. Consequently, despite the fact that until now no Roman bronze vessel possessing a handle fastening mechanism comprised of attachments with semi-pierced loop was discovered, there is a great probability that we are dealing with inished objects. Nevertheless, some questions regarding the matter remain unanswered. he irst refers to the fact that, although except for the semi-inished item from Augst/ Augusta Raurica twelve pieces of this type are known, they were discovered in diferent places and never in pairs. Also, the slight diferences between the objects from a category suggest that they were produced with the help of wax models. If this hypothesis is true, it is curious that the perforation of the loop was not executed, at least partially, in the mould, but was only later drilled, an operation which implies a DEN BOESTERD 1956, 54 (no. 184), Pl. VIII/184. See e.g.: GAUER 1991; TARDITI 1996. 1338 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 21–22, Abb. 3 with an iconographic analysis of the appliques of this type known in 1998. 1339 EGGERS 1951, 172–173, Taf. 12/142. 1340 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998, 37–38, Abb. 13. 1341 TASSINARI 1993, Tav. CXX – CXXV; TASSINARI 1998, 93, Fig. 7. 1342 FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 120. 1343 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985 (1986), 12, no. 81. 1344 GAUER 1991, 190 (Le 69). 1336 1337 173 Fig. 23. 1–2. The two types of jagged joint. greater efort extended over a longer period of time. hese issues will probably be elucidated once a greater number of objects of this kind comes to light. he piece from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 100, Pl. XLIX/100, XCVII/100a-b) is only tentatively identiied as part of a bronze vessel because just a small-sized fragment is preserved. he curvature of the object might indicate its provenance from a bronze cauldron, but it is very diicult to establish whether the straight edge resulted from cutting it after the piece was no longer functional, or it was part of the inished product. he irst variant appears more probable because this kind of joint served the purpose of connecting two large pieces of metal and would have been pointless if one of the plates would have had such a small width. From a technical point of view, the type of joint used to make the object is called “jagged joint” (“zinnenartige Naht”1345). his can be made in two ways. he irst consists in cutting teeth into the edges of both bronze plates which are then joined (Fig. 23/1). To increase the resistance, a soldering alloy is applied between the teeth and in the last stage the area is hammered while still hot, an operation which strengthens the joint1346. he second way, used in the case of the piece from Moigrad/Porolissum, is much less eicient because the resulting joint is weaker. his is done by making the margin of one of the plates thinner and cutting the teeth only into the second piece of metal. he joint is created by inserting the thinner part between the teeth1347 (Fig. 23/2). Usually a soldering alloy is used in this case as well, but it was not observed on this piece. his technique was used starting with the 3rd century AD and can still be seen today in some workshops from Greece and Turkey that manufacture metal vessels1348. he issue of the vessels executed using jagged joints was debated in the specialised literature especially in the context of the typo-chronological classiication of the cauldron containing the so-called silver vessel hoard attributed to Sevso. he cauldron in question was made from three pieces of metal, while the base was attached to the wall with the help of a jagged joint1349. Although the silver pieces which are part of the discovered group can be chronologically placed in the 4th–5th centuries AD, M. Mundel Mango dated the cauldron to the 6th century AD, considering that the jagged joint does not appear prior to this date1350. he discussion was readdressed with earlier parallels put forward by M. Nagy and E, Tóth1351, and subsequently by S. Bender, who proved that, typologically, the cauldron belongs to a group of similar pieces, typical for the 3rd century AD1352. As an argument in favour of an earlier dating for the BENDER 1992, 119. NOLL 1980, 86–88, no. 41, 43, Taf. 32/41, 33/43; BENDER 1992, 122; BUJARD 2005, 139, Fig. 5; PITARAKIS 2005, 23–25, Fig. 21–22. 1347 TROTZIG 1991, 52–57, Fig. 24–29. 1348 PITARAKIS 2005, 23. 1349 MUNDELL MANGO 1990, 86; BENDER 1992, 120. 1350 MUNDELL MANGO 1990, 86–87. 1351 NAGY, TÓTH 1990, 7; VISY 2012, 20–22. 1352 BENDER 1992, 120–122; VISY 2012, 20–22. See also the discussion in CIUGUDEAN 2003, in the context of analysing the bronze bucket in which the “Apulum VII” monetary hoard was deposited. Based on S. Bender’s article, the author points to a number of six Roman bronze cauldrons that are said to present mixed joints (rivets and jagged joints): Mauer an der Url, Siscia, Martigny, Buch, Stein and Metz-Sablon (CIUGUDEAN 2003, 16). In fact, S. Bender discusses these 1345 1346 174 Fig. 24. Bronze vessels with jagged joints. 1–2. Alba Iulia/Apulum (drawn by Mugurel Manea). 3a-b. The History Museum in Sighișoara (photo: Silvia Mustață). jagged joint he recalls a cauldron found in the hoard from Mauer an der Url1353 (Mauer bei Amstetten, Austria), dated towards the middle of the 3rd century AD, whose body was executed using such a joint, and another similar piece discovered at Nagyberki-Szalacska1354 (Somogy, Hungary). Recently, a later dating in the 4th century in a workshop which functioned in the area of the Lake Balaton has been suggested by M. Nagy1355. he piece from Moigrad/Porolissum represents a further argument for dating the starting point of the jagged joint technique already in the 3rd century AD. Unfortunately, the discovery context is not known since this is a chance ind. However, it was very likely used in the Roman fort on Pomet hill. his claim is supported by other Roman bronze vessels from Dacia which were repaired or made using this technique. First of all one can mention a basin, most probably used for serving, a typical 3rd century cauldrons only from the point of view of the formal resemblance with the Sevso treasure cauldron, the only ones displaying jagged joints being the vessels from Mauer an der Url and Nagyberki-Szalacska (BENDER 1992, 121–122). 1353 NOLL 1980, 86–88, no. 41, 43, Taf. 32/41, 33/43; BENDER 1992, 122. 1354 RADNÓTI 1938, 123; BENDER 1992, 122. A. Radnóti did not illustrate the cauldron from Nagyberki-Szalacska. From the image provided by the original publication (KÁLMÁN 1906, 427, 34. ábra), it appears that the jagged joining line is placed above the base, and not in the middle of the wall (as in the case of the vessel from Mauer an der Url), fact which can be potentially connected to a replacement of the base. 1355 NAGY 2012, 57–60. 175 shape appearing in bronze vessel hoards from the western provinces of the Empire1356. he item was discovered in 1964 at Alba Iulia, on the occasion of the construction works carried out in order to build the city’s printing press in the area of the Palace of the consular governor of the three Dacian provinces1357 (Fig. 24/1). he original publication mentions that the vessel was repaired, but no information is given regarding the type of repairing. At a closer examination1358 one can notice that the inferior part of the vessel was mended using two pieces of metal ixed with the help of a jagged joint. Again at Alba Iulia, inside the Municipium Septimium Apulense, a bronze bucket was discovered1359 containing the “Apulum VII” monetary treasure that ended with coins issued in AD 260/262, a date which represents a terminus post quem for hiding the hoard1360. he bucket (Fig. 24/2), cylindrical and with a splayed rim, was made from two pieces of bronze: a cylindrical part rolled in order to form the body of the container and a round base, all connected with jagged joints. According to the authors, the base of the vessel was repaired in Antiquity by adding a circular piece to its centre, procedure done with the help of the same kind of joint1361. he History Museum from Sighișoara holds a large-sized cauldron with a rounded base and a handle made from an iron rod which has a lattened medial part and is twisted towards the ends, but the discovery circumstances are unknown1362. he cauldron (Fig. 24/3a-b) was manufactured from two pieces of metal: one that formed the body and was vertically joined and the base, both pieces united with a jagged joint. Typologically, the cauldron belongs to a variant of the Westland type cauldrons, being ascribed to type 2 of the classiication devised by Fr. Baratte: cauldrons with dished base and walls1363. Some vessels similar to the piece from Sighișoara are kept in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen1364, others were recovered from the Saône River in France1365. Based on the associations supplied by the discovery contexts, Fr. Baratte dates the type to the 4th–5th centuries AD1366. Because of this, as long no information regarding the discovery context is known, the use of the Sighișoara vessel inside the province cannot be sustained; the piece could have been used just as well in the period subsequent to the abandonment of the Dacian province. he handle from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 101, Pl. L/101) most likely originates from a spouted jug. he fact that it was made from bronze sheet and especially the presence of rivets at the upper ends suggest that this is not an original piece, but rather a locally produced handle intended for repairing a spouted jug which lost its handle. In the context of the discussion referring to the local production of Roman bronze vessels from hrace, R. Nenova-Merdjanova places a spouted jug with trefoil mouth of the Millingen type found in a grave near Stara Zagora in Bulgaria in the category of local products. For this type of basin, see BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 36, 39, Abb. 22/13; KAPELLER 2003, 94, 128, Pl. 27/164, 141, no. 164. 1357 MOGA 1985, 71, no. 1, Fig. 1; ŞTEFĂNESCU-ONIŢIU 2008b, 216, 225, Pl. III/3; OTA 2012, 56. 1358 I wish to thank dr. Vasile Moga from the National Union Museum in Alba Iulia for the possibility to examine and register the vessel. 1359 he morphological characteristics of the vessel do not allow its clear ascription to a certain shape and this is why the researchers sway between the designation as a bucket or as a cauldron (see BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 35, 38). Typologically, the piece belongs to the Eggers 16 type, which is dated from the 1st century BC to the middle of the 3rd century AD. For buckets of this kind, see RADNÓTI 1938, 116–117, Taf. X/50, XXXV/1–5; WERNER 1938 (for the pieces discovered in 3rd century deposits from the western provinces); KUNOW 1983, 17; BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 35–36, 38, Abb. 21/5; KÜNZL 1993b, 241 (E 106–108); KOSTER 1997, 67–68, no. 89–91; KAPELLER 2003, 94, 125, Pl. 24/153–154, 140, no. 153–154. 1360 ARDEVAN ET ALII 2003, 9–10, 41. 1361 CIUGUDEAN 2003, 11, 13. 1362 he piece is unpublished and does not possess an inventory number. I wish to thank dr. Gheorghe Baltag from History Museum in Sighișoara for the opportunity to examine the vessel. 1363 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 19–20. 1364 KOSTER 1997, 72–73, no. 97–99. No. 99 is the closest, morphologically speaking, to the piece from Sighișoara. No mention of the use of a jagged joint is made, but the author does say that the vessel was repaired in Antiquity “…with small pieces of bronze, used as some kind of split pins”, a comment which could indicate the use of this technique. Unfortunately, for this piece as well the circumstances of discovery remain unknown. 1365 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 20, no. 2–6, Pl. II/2–3, III/4–6. 1366 BARATTE ET ALII 1984, 19. 1356 176 In arguing for such a classiication, the author mentions the presence of a handle made by hammering which no longer has the speciic shape and decoration of those belonging to the Millingen type spouted jugs and a lat bronze sheet base which was not worked on the lathe. hese aspects determined her to conclude that the piece is of an inferior quality compared to the other inds belonging to the type and represent a local product1367. he handle is similar to the one from Moigrad/Porolissum, the only differences being the more careful execution of the inferior part and the fact that it was soldered under the rim of the vessel and not riveted. As mentioned before1368, one should be cautious when ascribing the piece to the category of local products because, especially when considering the base that was attached to the vessel’s body, is seems much more probable that the piece was not locally produced, but only repaired. Four other pieces from Moigrad/Porolissum were included among those with uncertain typological ascription. Fragment no. 102 (Pl. L/102, XCVII/102) deinitely represents the upper part of an attachment from a vessel, fact supported by the wear marks visible on the superior area, although the vessel type cannot be determined. It was not possible to analyse directly the handle with pierced end (no. 103, Pl. L/103) because it was not identiied in the storage of the Museum of History and Art in Zalău, and thus the illustration was taken from the ield documentation. he medial area of the item, wider than the rest, with its two rounded edges, could indicate its provenance from a late variant of the Eggers 161 strainers or dippers which exhibit handles with a rhomboidal-shaped widened area, sometimes with rounded edges, and pierced ends1369. he handle does not display the splayed end characteristic for this type, but its irregular shape could be explained by the damage sufered in the course of time or by an intensive use. An argument against this attribution is the small distance between the end of the handle and the widened area. Recognising the piece as a pan handle is hindered precisely because of the existence of the widened area which is not typical for the handles seen on this form1370. he two circular pieces of bronze sheet (no. 104, Pl. LI/104, XCVI/104; no. 105, Pl. LI/105, XCVII/105) were probably used for repairing some bronze vessels and their relatively round shape allows the supposition that they were base replacements. Regarding piece no. 105, the hypothesis is also supported by the rivet traces and by the darker shade of the edge, indicating that it was superimposed by another sheet of metal. No analogies are known for the strainer from Turda/Potaissa (no. 106, Pl. LII/106, CI/16) included in the Imre Botár Collection. he piece is lost and the illustrated image is the only one preserved to date. he actual shape difers from the classical types of Roman strainers. Considering that, judging from the image, the item does not seem to be too large, one cannot dismiss the possibility that it represents the end of a ladle used for wine sifting. It is similar to a piece of this kind, rather crudely executed, 6 cm wide and with a preserved length of 11 cm, discovered at Carnuntum1371. III.15. Incerta 107. Bologa (Pl. LII/107, XCVIII/107a-b) 1 Fort, Trench XVI, metres: 32–33, depth: -0.43 m, wooden barracks behind building B1, stone fort phase; 2. IAIAC, n. i.; 3. L: 85 mm; D: 25.3 mm; h: 2–2.8 mm; Wh: 38 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uniform light golden green patina; 6. Hollow-cast in two separate pieces, joined on the inside with the help of a metal band; 7. Tubular handle; several longitudinal facets, rather rare and poorly marked, can be seen; 8. he beginning of the 3rd century AD – the abandonment of the province; 9. GUDEA 1977, 188, no. 39, 212, Fig. 33/30. NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2001, 197, 199, no. 20, 202, Taf. 2/4; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002b, 592–593, Fig. 4. 1368 See also note 375. 1369 See, e.g.: RADNÓTI 1938, Taf. 25/4–5; WERNER 1938, Taf. 108/1a-b, 4a-b, 109/2a-b, 113/1; SEDLMAYER 1999, Taf. 39/5; RATKOVIĆ 2005, 129, no. 64, 131, no. 66; BIENERT 2007, 106–111. 1370 TASSINARI 1993, II. 147–153, J1100-J2320 (the specimens from Pompeii). For the pans with mobile handle, typical for the interval between the middle of the 2nd and the middle of the 3rd century AD, see PERTOVSZKY 1993, 136–137, XIX, 1, Taf. 4/XIX, 4; SEDLMAYER 1999, 70–71, Taf. 29/1. 1371 PETROVSZKY 2006b, 267, no. 954, Abb. 416. 1367 177 108. Buciumi (Pl. LII/108) 1. Fort 1968, Barracks 5; 2. MIAZ CC 224/68; 3. L: 81 mm; Wmax. terminal: 33.5 mm; Dhandle: 26 mm; hhandle: 4 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored; 6. Cast in two separate pieces (the terminal: full-cast; the handle: hollow-cast), incised; 7. Tubular handle ending in a protome shaped like a ram’s head; the facial features are carefully represented, the appearance of the horns is rendered by incisions; on the head, between the horns, the leece is illustrated by dents made during casting, whereas on the neck it is rendered by incised circles; the contact zone between the protome and the tubular handle is marked by three parallel ribs; the other end of the handle is moulded and was pierced on both sides, probably in order to facilitate the insertion of rivets; 8. -; 9. CHIRILĂ ET ALII 1972, 93, no. 1, Pl. LXXXIX/1a–1d, XC/1a–1b; GUDEA 1997b, 115, Fig. 32; ȘTEFĂNESCU 2004, 423, 427, Pl. IV/2, 428, no. 14. 109. Gilău (Pl. LIII/109, XCVIII/109a-b) 1. Fort 1956, surface II, southern side, the agger of the stone fort (Gilău III); 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 51.5 mm; Wmax. terminal: 17.6 mm; Wmax. handle: 17.3 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, uniform green patina; 6. Cast in two separate pieces (the terminal: full-cast; the handle: hollow-cast), incised; 7. Fragmentary handle, slightly rectangular and round on the interior; it terminates in a protome taking the form of a dog’s head; the facial features are hardly visible because of its intense use; the animal’s mouth is opened and the teeth, eyes and fur are rendered by incisions; the two ears are horizontally placed, on either side of the head; the area that separates the protome from the actual handle is decorated with circles with dotted centres also made by incision; 8. he end of the 2nd century AD – the irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD; 9. MACREA ET ALII 1959, 453–454, Fig. 1/4. 110. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. LIII/110) 1. Fort 2001; 2. CMBN 22077; 3. L: 44 mm; W: 25 mm; hmax..: 1.4 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration, dark green spots; 6. Cast; 7. Splayed rim with broken edge and part of the wall from a vessel whose shape cannot be determined; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 70–72 (no. 19), 83, Pl. 6/19. 111. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. LIII/111, XCVIII/111a-b) 1. Fort 2001; 2. CMBN 19897; 3. L: 51.1 mm; W: 61.1 mm; h.: 1.2–3 mm; Wh: 22 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, brownish with light green spots, traces of soil; 6. Hammered, riveted; 7. hree pieces of bronze sheet held together by 21 rivets; it is possible that they originate from the body of a bronze vessel which was repaired multiple times; 8. -; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 70–72 (no. 20), 83, Pl. 6/20. 112. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. LIII/112, XCVIII/112a-b) 1. Fort 2002, retentura dextra, depth: -0.90 m, large earthen fort; 2. CMBN 22075; 3. L: 44.7 mm; hmax.: 4.4 mm; Lattachment: 18.6 mm; Wattachment: 30 mm; Wh: 8 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, golden light green; ile marks can be seen on the backside of the attachment; 6. Cast, incised; 7. Possible handle with the inferior part ending in an attachment shaped like a vine leaf and decorated with ine incisions; the upper part continues with an S-shaped suspension element, with broken end; 8. Hadrian – the last decades of the 2nd century AD?; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 70–72 (no. 21), 83, 88, Pl. 6/21, 11/21a-b. 113. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. LIV/113, XCVIX/113) 1. Fort 1996, praetentura dextra, in the area of barracks IV, depth: -1.90 m, from the ill of the ditch belonging to the small earthen fort; 2. CMBN n. i.; 3. H: 70 mm; h: 10–12.5 mm; Wh: 51 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored (it was broken in three and pieced together during the restoration), dark brown patina with green spots; 6. Cast; 7. Semi-circular handle, approximately oval in cross-section, but with a straight upper part; it displays a depressed area meant to enable its attachment to the rim of the vessel; the inferior end is highly curved and has a rhomboidal shape; 8. Trajan – Hadrian; 9. MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 70–72 (no. 22), 84, Pl. 7/22. 114. Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. LIV/114, XCVIX/114a-b) 1. Unknown, private collection; 2. CMBN 20390; 3. H: 31.4 mm; Lplate: 34.8 mm; Wplate: 33 mm; hplate: 6.3 mm; Dapprox. ring: 30 mm; hmax.ring: 7.4 mm; Wh: 67 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots; 6. Cast in two separate pieces, joined with a rivet; 7. Possible attachment made from two pieces of metal: a horizontal, slightly curved rectangular sheet with all edges curved inside and a ring 178 attached to the horizontal base with the help of a rivet; traces of soldering can be seen on the backside of the piece; 8. -; 9. NEMETI 2001, 98, no. 30, 102, Pl. III/2; ȘTEFĂNESCU-ONIȚIU 2008b, 216, 226, Pl. IV/1; MUSTAȚĂ 2012, 70–72 (no. 23), 84, 88, Pl. 7/23, 11/23a-b. 115. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LIV/115, XCVIX/115a-b) 1. Unknown; discovered in 1979, acquired from Petre Deneș; 2. MIAZ CC 78/1979; 3. H: 34.5 mm; Lplate: 38 mm; Wplate: 36 mm; hplate: 7 mm; Dapprox. ring: 30 mm; hmax.ring: 7 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, unrestored, uneven patina, light green with brown spots, traces of soil; 6. Cast in two separate pieces, joined with the help of a rivet; 7. Possible attachment made from two pieces of metal: a horizontal, slightly curved rectangular sheet with concave edges and a ring which displays a middle groove attached to the horizontal base with the help of a rivet; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 588, no. 19, Pl. CLXXIX/19. 116. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LIV/116, XCVIX/116) 1 Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 193/58; 3. L: 39.5 mm; W: 18.5 mm; h: 4.2 mm; D: 7.7 mm; Wh: 18 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered in green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. Possible jug handle, round in cross-section; only a part of it is preserved, most likely the inferior one, which displays a vegetal decoration with grapes; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 692, no. 8, Pl. CCXXX/8. 117. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LV/117, C/117a-b) 1. Unknown, Wesselényi-Teleki Collection; 2. MIAZ CC 175/58; 3. L: 45.8 mm; W: 45 mm; h: 1.3 mm; Wh: 13 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, restored, patina removed during the restoration process, when the piece was covered with green coloured varnish; 6. Cast; 7. Possible basin attachment; the body is shaped like a seashell and lined with vertical grooves; the suspension loop, which would have continued on the upper part of the piece, is no longer preserved; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 674, no. 8, Pl. CCXXI/8. 118. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LV/118, C/118a-b) 1. Unknown, discovered in 1943; 2. MNITR n. i.; 3. L: 48 mm; Wmax.: 42.7 mm; h: 2 mm; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Complete, restored, uneven patina, ranges from light to dark green; 6. Cast; 7. Possible vessel lid; one of the ends was folded over the body of the piece; the other end exhibits a hole with a rivet inside; 8. -; 9. GUDEA 1989, 705, no. 32, Pl. CCXL/32. 119. Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LV/119, C/119) 1. he fort on Pomet hill 1989, Trench 94, C3 (cistern), depth: -0.92 m, the demolition layer of the principia; 2. MIAZ CC169/89; 3. L: 80 mm; W: 68 mm; h: 2–2.5 mm; Dbase: 47 mm; Drim: 120 mm; Dcentral perforation: 5.5–7 mm; Wh: 68 g; 4. Copper alloy; 5. Fragmentary, unrestored, uneven patina, light green-grey, traces of soil; 6. Cast, traces of lathe inishing; 7. Possible vessel base; on the exterior side a base ring surrounded by three concentric incisions followed by another two close to the edge can be seen; the interior side is lat, without any signs of lathe working; the wall, preserved only in a small proportion, is almost vertical and does not appear to have a broken upper part since it inishes with a lat rim; 8. Probably after the abandonment of the fort?; 9. Unpublished. he lack of clear analogies determined the inclusion of fourteen of the studied fragments in the category of pieces whose provenance from Roman bronze vessels is uncertain. Identifying the irst three fragments, discovered at Bologa (no. 107, Pl. LII/107, XCVIII/107a-b), Buciumi (no. 108, Pl. LII/108) and Gilău (no. 109, Pl. LIII/109, XCVIII/109a-b) with handles belonging to bowls with tubular handle ending in zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome poses some problems. Only a fragment from the handle found at Bologa is preserved and its faceted shape is not a suiciently strong argument to this efect. he piece from Buciumi ended with a ram’s head does not appear to be fragmentary. he tubular end is moulded and presents a hole which indicates that the item was ixed, possibly on a wooden support, with the help of a nail. he idea that the piece had originally been a vessel handle which was later reused does not appear valid, because, as previously mentioned, the end does not display any cut or tear marks, and its thickened area is not typical for the handles of the vessels belonging to this type. he shape of the terminal of the piece from Gilău prevents its attribution to a vessel handle since the object does not appear to be broken and was most likely used as a handle for another kind of artefact. 179 he fragments from Ilișua/Arcobadara (no. 110, Pl. LIII/110; no. 111, Pl. LIII/111, XCVIII/111a-b) could come from the body of some vessels (no. 111 from the wall of a repaired bronze sheet vessel), but the high degree of fragmentation does not really allow an identiication. No analogies are known for the handle no. 112 (Pl. LIII/112, XCVIII/112a-b) also discovered at Ilișua/Arcobadara. he curved form of the leaf-shaped inferior end, as well as the presence of a soldering alloy on its backside, point to the fact that it was applied on a curved surface, possibly on the wall of a small-sized vessel, but, in the lack of parallels, this attribution cannot be sustained. he same doubts surround another handle discovered at the site (no. 113, Pl. LIV/113, XCIX/113). To my knowledge, there is no bronze vessel provided with such a handle. he possibility that the piece originates from a bronze lamp cannot be disregarded so long as the superior end of the handle would have been ixed on its margin and would not have remained elevated, a ixing method suggested by the groove visible on the handle’s superior extremity. he two objects from Ilișua/Arcobadara and Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 114, Pl. LIV/114, XCIX/114a-b; no. 115, Pl. LIV/115, XCIX/115a-b) are supplied with a lat, rectangular base with curved margins and a ring emplaced perpendicularly on it, exhibiting certain similarities with the feet of the hemispherical Tassinari S1110-S1120 type basins1372. Apart from the chronological issues, there are, however, signiicant diferences: the pieces from Dacia have a lat base, not curved, and no signs of use can be seen on the exterior side of the rings, thus making their identiication with vessel feet unlikely. he traces of soldering alloy visible especially on the backside of the piece from Ilișua/Arcobadara (Pl. XCIX/114a) point to the fact that they were applied on lat surfaces. he only potential option would be an attachment with rectangular base and a perpendicular ring, like the one attached to the lid of a cauldron with narrow and cylindrical neck of the type V1100 found at Pompeii1373. he purpose of this attachment was to allow the lifting of the lid without touching it, with the help of a chain attached to the ring. Considering that the type is only represented by one specimen, the discussion regarding the identiication of the two pieces from Dacia remains open. In the absence of analogies the fragment from Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 116, Pl. LIV/116, XCIX/116) cannot be included with certainty in the category of vessel handles. Identifying the shell-shaped object found at the same site (no. 117, Pl. LV/117, C/117a-b) with an attachment, possibly from a basin, an idea prompted by the broken rod placed on the upper side of the piece which could have been continued with a bent hanging ring, is likewise problematic. Considering the analogies from Vindonissa1374, piece no. 118 from Moigrad/Porolissum (Pl. LV/118, C/118a-b) could be a lid whose extremity was later bent, originating from a bronze sheet spouted jug with separately cast handle; the rivet seen on the surface could be linked to the dolphin-shaped knob. In both cases, such an attribution is hindered by the absence of a hinge or a tear that would indicate its presence. Another object discovered at Moigrad/Porolissum (no. 119, Pl. LV/119, C/119) was also included in this category. Recognising it as a vessel base is uncertain, because the preserved part of the wall does not seem to have been cut or torn, but it is slightly rounded and has the appearance of a rim. TASSINARI 1993, I. 93, II. 200–201, S1110, S1120; BOŽIČ 2002, 419–421.he type is dated to the late Republican period and its presence in the Dacian province would assume a much too longer period of usage. 1373 TASSINARI 1993, I. 102–103, 140, Tav. CLXXVIII/1–2, II. 275, no. 9771. 1374 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985, 175, 17, no. 95, Taf. 11/95. 1372 180 IV. The bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis. The analysis of the discovery contexts he 119 pieces forming the basis of this research originate from ten deinite sites, as well as from thirteen other ind spots and private collections or from unknown places of discovery. Referring to the number of analysed objects, the majority come from Moigrad/Porolissum (46: 38.6%), followed by Ilișua/Arcobadara (23: 19.3%), Buciumi (11: 9.2%), Turda/ Potaissa (9: 7.5%), Gherla (8: 6.7%), Gilău (6: 5%), Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (5: 4.2%), Bologa (3: 2.5%), Cuzdrioara (3: 2.5%), Orheiu Bistriței (3: 2.5%), Florești-Șapca Verde (1: 0.8%) and Dacia Porolissensis in general (1: 0.8%) (Graph 1). If the fragments which could not be ascribed to a certain type are excluded, or those classiied as incerta, it appears that, in most cases, the typological variety of the material corresponding to each place of provenance is directly proportional with the number of identiied specimens. hus, from this point of view as well, Moigrad/Porolissum occupies the irst place, followed by Ilișua/Arcobadara, Buciumi, Gherla, Gilău, Turda/Potaissa, ClujNapoca/Napoca, Cuzdrioara, Orheiu Bistriței, Bologa, Florești-Șapca Verde and Dacia Porolissensis in general (Graph 2). However, the picture suggested by the two graphs mentioned above must be treated with caution. At the present state of research, it seems that this situation was inluenced rather by the condition of the ield investigations and by the fate of the archaeological material discovered in the course of the 19th century. From the start, it is not certain that the group of vessels from Cuzdrioara deinitely originates from the territory of Dacia Porolissensis, nor that the pieces from the Imre Botár Collection were undoubtedly found at Potaissa1375. With respect to the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection, although Porolissum appears to have been the main archaeological site from which the inds were gathered, assigning the material to the civilian or the military areas is impossible. In addition to these, there is a series of smaller groups of objects, such as the collection of Silviu Papiriu Pop from Buciumi, which also includes pieces from Porolissum, that of Nicolae Pătru Popescu, a school T For the composition of the Imre Botár Collection which, aside from Potaissa, also comprises pieces from other areas (Moldovenești, Cheia, the antiquities market), see ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, 390. 1375 182 Dacia Porolissensis 1 (1%) Turda/Potaissa (unknown) 1 (1%) Turda/Potaissa (Imre Botár Collection) Turda/Potaissa ("Dealul Zânelor") 3 (3%) 1 (1%) Turda/Potaissa (Sândului Valley) 2 (2%) Turda/Potaissa ("Dealul Cetății": northern slope) 1 (1%) Turda/Potaissa (fortress) 1 (1%) Orheiu Bistriței (fort) 3 (3%) Moigrad/Porolissum (unknown) 6 (5%) Moigrad/Porolissum (Wesselényi-Teleki Collection) 18 (15%) Moigrad/Porolissum (vicus) 6 (5%) Moigrad/Porolissum(Pomet fort) 16 (13%) Ilișua/Arcobadara (Cristeștii Ciceului) 4 (3%) Ilișua/Arcobadara (fort) 19 (16%) Gilău (fort) Gherla (unknown) 6 (5 %) 1 (1%) Gherla (fort) Florești-Șapca Verde 7 (6%) 1 (1%) Cuzdrioara 3 (4%) Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (V. Deleu Street) Buciumi (bath-house) 5 (4%) 1 (1%) Buciumi (fort) Bologa (fort) 10 (8%) 3 (3%) Graph 1. The distribution of bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis according to their provenance. Dacia Porolissensis 1 Turda/Potaissa 2 Orheiu Bistriței 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Moigrad/Porolissum 2 Ilișua/Arcobadara 1 Gilău 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 7 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gherla 2 Florești-Șapca Verde 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cuzdrioara 1 1 1 Cluj-Napoca/Napoca 1 1 1 Buciumi 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bologa 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 (E 160) 2.2 (E 160/161) 2.2 (E 161) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6 7 8 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 13 14 15 Graph 2. The types identified from Dacia Porolissensis according to their provenance. teacher from Jac1376, or a number of collections comprising pieces theoretically found on the surface of the fort at Ilișua/Arcobadara1377. Apart from these limitations, another factor that hinders this endeavour is the signiicant amount of items uncovered by archaeological excavations, which lack a clear archaeological context. For this reason, in many cases only the dating yielded by the types themselves could be taken into consideration, without being able to place the analysed specimens on a site plan. Moreover, right from the beginning the idea that a comparison between sites would actually relect the ancient realities had to be abandoned. he situation is caused both by the fact that not all the material unearthed by archaeological investigations is published, and by the way in which ield research was carried out. Generally, if we consider the area under study (Dacia Porolissensis), there is a rather important discrepancy between the amplitude of the ield research undertaken at Porolissum compared with the remaining sites. If, in the case of some forts such as Buciumi and Ilișua/Arcobadara, the investigations focused on large surfaces converging mainly in the area of the barracks, in other cases (Moigrad/Porolissum-Pomet, Bologa) trenches were executed with the purpose of establishing the internal planimetry, and not for the in-depth research of structures. hus, putting side by side the groups of material deriving from these sites must be viewed with reservations, especially if one wishes to discuss the issue in term of the presence or absence of certain types. Bearing in mind the above mentioned circumstances, in what follows I will try, whenever possible, to highlight the main characteristics of the bronze vessels identiied at each site, taking into account the chronology disclosed by the discovery contexts and the diferent primary functions of the types. Such an analysis is only possible for the pieces from Buciumi, Cluj-Napoca/Napoca, Ilișua/Arcobadara, 1376 1377 GUDEA 1989, 37. NEMETI 2001. 183 Moigrad/Porolissum and Orheiu Bistriței; the remaining ind spots are considered together in a separate subchapter. IV.1. Buciumi hanks to the lengthy archaeological research carried out between 1963 and 1976 and which focused on the surface investigation of speciic structures, the Roman fort at Buciumi is one of the most wellknown sites of this kind from Roman Dacia1378. Chronologically speaking, two main phases were identiied: the fort with earthen enclosure, having two detected sub-phases (1a: AD 106/107 – 114/115 and 1b: AD 114/115 – the beginning of the 3rd century), and the fort with stone wall (the beginning of the 3rd century – the abandonment of the province)1379. he majority of the pieces identiied as fragments from bronze vessels belong to drinking and serving sets, most were discovered in barracks, and concentrate in the period of the fort with earthen enclosure (Table 1). he earliest bronze vessels from Buciumi are a lid from a bronze sheet spouted jug (no. 32) used for boiling water, found in the irst habitation layer of barracks 5, and a casserole handle with crescent-shaped piercing on the terminal (no. 2), identiied in the second phase of barracks 2. In both cases, we are dealing with pieces whose production ceased towards the end of the 1st century AD1380, so they arrived in Dacia with their owners. Most likely, the same category also includes the casserole handle with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 5), surfaced from barracks 51381 but without further information regarding the discovery context, and, possibly, the bronze vessels from which the two feet were preserved (nos. 87, 88), especially no. 88, found in the irst layer of barracks 5. he Eggers 160 strainer (no. 17) which appeared in the 1b phase of barracks 4 could have been acquired up until the middle of the 2nd century AD1382. After this period, beginning with the last decades of the 2nd century AD and no later than the middle of the 3rd century AD, is the moment when the steep-walled Eggers 79/83 basin (no. 65) arrived in the fort. From the perspective of the discovery context, this vessel, most likely used for washing, belongs to the fort with stone wall. One can notice the low number of discoveries which go beyond the middle of the 2nd century AD with reference to their production date when compared to the rest of the sites from Dacia Porolissensis; at the present moment a clear explanation for this phenomenon cannot be put forward. he picture derived from the bronze vessels is somewhat in contradiction to SETS FOR DRINKING AND SERVING DISCOVERY CONTEXT Fort with earthen enclosure (phase 1a: AD 106/107– 114/115) Fort with earthen enclosure (phase 1b: AD 114/115 – beginning of the 3rd century) Fort with stone wall (irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD – after AD 213) Fort (unknown period) Bath-house Barracks 5 Barracks 2 Barracks 4 Casserole foot (no. 88)? Casserole with crescent shaped piercing on the terminal (no. 2). Casserole foot (no. 87)? Eggers 160 strainer with lat handle (no. 17). PERSONAL CARE - Lid from a “Pompeii” type spouted jug (no. 32). - - - - Porta principaEggers 79/83 basin attachment (no. 65) lis dextra 1379 1380 1381 1382 Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 3). - Chamber F - Lid from a Bolla I spouted jug (no. 39). ISAC 2001d, 113; MARCU 2009, 36. GUDEA 1997b, 19–61. See subchapters III.1.2, III.3.4. See subchapter III.13. See subchapter III.2.2. 184 - Barracks 5 - Table 1. The bronze vessels from the fort at Buciumi. 1378 COOKING that drawn by the terra sigillata vessel import. For the latter, a reverse situation can be observed from a quantitative point of view: until the middle of the 2nd century AD the number of items is small, whereas in the second half of that century a massive importation is noticeable1383. No supplementary information is known about the discovery context of the lid from a Bolla I type bronze sheet spouted jug (no. 39) uncovered in chamber F of the bath-house. Based on typology, it too can be placed after the middle of the 2nd century AD1384. IV.2. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca he group of bronze vessels from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca analysed in this work exclusively comprises the pieces brought to light by the archaeological excavations conducted on Victor Deleu Street between the years 1992 and 20011385. Aside from the traces of habitation from the medieval and modern periods (11th–12th, 14th–15th and 17th–18th centuries), the ield research executed in the mentioned premises resulted in identifying a part of the ancient city’s residential area. he site’s stratigraphy indicates a continued occupancy from the time of Trajan to the abandonment of the province. hree wooden and two stone phases were established, and these correspond to the following stages: the settlement of the irst groups of colonists who, judging from the archaeological material, arrived from Noricum and Pannonia (irst wooden phase: Trajanic period); wooden structures from the vicus phase (second wooden phase: Trajan – Hadrian), two aligned wooden constructions which prove the existence of a street grid (third wooden phase: Hadrian – Antoninus Pius); the building of two stone houses (C1 and C2) (irst stone phase: the middle of the 2nd century AD – Septimius Severus) and their rebuilding (the second stone phase: Septimius Severus – the abandonment of the province) 1386. Each stone phase was repaired at least once during its existence, and for the second stone phase of building C21387 this circumstance could be rather safely chronologically determined: two loors were identiied in chamber b, separated by a destruction layer with heavy burn marks. he irst loor was broken into and a ceramic vessel containing 1268 denarii (last issues made by Severus Alexander) was hidden underneath1388. On the new loor overlying the destruction layer, coins issued by Philippus Arabs were found1389. It was surmised that the hiding of the monetary hoard and the destructions sufered by this area of the Roman city might be connected to the conlicts between Maximinus hrax and the northern Barbarian populations, which had an impact on the city in the middle of the 3rd century AD1390; this hypothesis will have to be conirmed by future research to be undertaken in the ancient city1391. Out of the ive bronze vessels found at this site, the casserole fragment with circular piercing on the handle terminal (no. 4) lacks a clear discovery context (Table 2). Concerning one of the two iron balsamaria (no. 84), this was identiied in the north-western proile, in a layer corresponding to the second sub-phase of the second stone phase, chronologically placed after the middle of the 3rd century AD (Fig. 25, Table 2). he rest of the vessels, namely the Millingen type jug (no. 30), the Bolla I type jug handle (no. 34) and the second iron balsamarium (no. 85), were discovered together, as part of a group of metal objects identiied on the loor that was broken into in order to hide the monetary hoard from chamber b of building C2 (Fig. 25, Table 2). Along with the three vessels, two bronze candlesticks, a ISAC 2001d, 118. See subchapter III.3.5. 1385 For the excavation reports, see COCIȘ ET ALII 1995; COCIȘ ET ALII 1996; COCIȘ ET ALII 1997; COCIȘ ET ALII 1998; COCIȘ ET ALII 1999; COCIȘ ET ALII 2002. See also: RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2007, 97–98; GĂZDAC ET ALII 2010, 7–8. 1386 COCIȘ ET ALII 1995; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2007, 98; OPREANU 2009, 393. 1387 he construction works on the site began in 1991, without any archaeological surveillance. hus, a signiicant part of the Roman levels, especially in the area of building C1, were destroyed. For this reason, observing a coherent stratigraphic sequence was possible only for building C2 (COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, 637). 1388 For the monograph of the monetary hoard, see GĂZDAC ET ALII 2010. 1389 COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, 638. 1390 OPREANU 2009, 134. 1391 GĂZDAC ET ALII 2010, 15. 1383 1384 185 Fig. 25. General plan of the excavations on Victor Deleu Street, Cluj-Napoca (second stone phase) (redrawn ater COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, fig. 7 with further modifications). 186 bronze statuette representing a ram and several bronze plates with igural decoration were also uncovered1392. As previously mentioned, these events were dated towards the middle of the 3rd century AD. It is diicult to establish whether this is a case of intentional gathering and hiding of these objects, or they were placed in a box or cupboard which was left behind in a moment of peril. In any case, it is certain that the initial owner did not get the chance to recover them, and the contents of the “deposit” rather allude to the metallic inventory of a private home which might have been kept in a cabinet or in a chest1393. Such a hypothesis is also supported by the discovery context. Besides the group of bronze objects and the iron balsamarium, on the loor were also spotted three iron lamps and a series of ceramic vessels which can be pieced together (jugs, mortaria, kantharoi)1394, situation seemingly pointing to the existence of a cupboard, possibly itted with shelves on the upper part, or of a plain shelf, and also to the use of chamber b as storage space for the domestic inventory. DISCOVERY CONTEXT V. Deleu Street (building C2, second stone phase, sub- phase Chamber b 1: irst half of the 3rd century AD) V. Deleu Street (building C1, second stone phase: second half rd of the 3 century AD) V. Deleu Street (the irst upper layer) DRINKING AND SERVING SETS PERSONAL CARE COOKING - Millingen type spouted jug (no. 30). Bolla I spouted jug with Iron globular balsamar- handle (no. 34). ium (no. 85). - Iron globular balsamarium (no. 84). Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 4). - - Table 2. The bronze vessels from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. Considering the moment when the bronze vessels reached Napoca, the casserole fragment is the earliest, and, taking into account that the production of the type stops towards the end of the 1st century AD1395, it can be assumed that the piece was brought by its owner and not purchased from the Dacian market. he two bronze sheet jugs with the handle cast in one with the mouth deinitely arrived after the middle of the 2nd century AD1396, and possibly also the two iron balsamaria, although the small number of inds of this type known at the present moment does not allow one to devise a clear chronological interval for their period of production1397. he jug with trefoil mouth of Millingen type is diicult to place from this point of view, since the type itself was relatively long-lived. It can be assumeed that this is not one of the early variants, and the most recent moment when it could have been acquired can be placed towards the end of the 2nd century AD. he bronze vessels recovered from V. Deleu Street represent but a small sequence in the context of the discussion referring to the bronze vessels from Napoca. Hopefully, future discoveries will enable more detailed observations. Nevertheless, they are extremely important to the analysis because they mark one of the few situations in which their use in the civilian, private environment, relating especially to personal body care activities, and in a determined chronological interval can be identiied. IV.3. Ilișua/Arcobadara1398 According to their provenance, the bronze vessels from Ilișua/Arcobadara analysed in this study can be grouped in three distinct categories. he irst group comprises the pieces uncovered during the he material comprising this deposit so far remains unpublished. See COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, 637–638. For a detailed discussion regarding the possibilities of interpreting such discovery contexts, see KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN 1998. 1394 COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, 637; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2007, 429, no. 614, Pl. C/614. 1395 See subchapter III.1.3. 1396 See subchapter III.3.5. 1397 See subchapter III.11.4. 1398 An individual analysis regarding the bronze vessels from Ilișua/Arcobadara was published separately (MUSTAȚĂ 2012). 1392 1393 187 excavations conducted by Károly Torma after the middle of the 19th century in the area between Ilișua de Jos (Alsóilosva/Ilosva) and Cristeștii Ciceului (Csicsókeresztúr), group which ended up in the storage of the National Museum of Transylvanian History in Cluj-Napoca. he second group is represented by the objects discovered on the surface of the fort, included in private collections. he third and most important group is constituted by the items resulted from the systematic archaeological excavations inside the fort, commenced in 1978 (Table 3). he specimens from the irst group entered the collections of the Museum from Cluj without any data regarding their discovery context. For this reason, since Károly Torma’s excavations targeted the fort, the corresponding bath-house located outside of it, areas from the vicus, as well as a series of towers1399, the places from where they might have surfaced cannot be identiied with certainty. In the published excavation report, which presents a detailed description of the ield research, two spots are mentioned in which bronze vessels were identiied. he irst of these is chamber c from the praetorium, where, according to the description, were found the neck of a jug, a base and a “bowl” (probably fragmentary), together with small fragments, probably from the body, although it was not possible to tell if they were part of the same vessel1400. he second is located in chamber D from the bath-house, considered a caldarium, in which, amongst bits of molten bronze, a fragment which might come from a “cauldron” was found. According to the author, it was used for boiling water because of the lime deposits seen on the inside1401. Out of the analysed material, only two objects theoretically agree with Torma’s description: the Canterbury type jug from which only the neck and rim are preserved (no. 28) and the vessel base which was included in the category of bronze vessels without a certain typological classiication (no. 96). However, such an identiication must be regarded with caution because, except for Torma’s description, there are no other clues to support it. he rest of the mentioned fragments could not be matched with the still preserved items. DRINKING AND SERVING SETS Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal, Gödåker type (no. 12). Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal, Gödåker type (no. 11). Basin handle (no. 67) DISCOVERY CONTEXT Barracks I Small earthen fort (Trajan-Hadrian) Barracks V Large earthen fort (Hadrian – last decades of the 2nd century AD) Fort (unknown period) Fort (private collections) Praetorium Praetentura dextra, barracks Praetentura sinis- Handle form a globular tra, agger amphora (no. 48). PERSONAL CARE - - COOKING - Lid from a Bolla I spouted jug (no. 43). - - Retentura dextra - - Strainer/dipper Eggers 161(no. 20). Praetentura sinistra, Barracks V Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 7). - - - - - - Attachments from Petrovszky XVI,1 basins (nos. 62, 63) Between Ilișua de Jos and Cristeștii Ciceului (from the excavations of Károly Torma) Strainer/dipper Eggers 160 (no. 19). Canterbury type jug (no. 28) Lids from Bolla II spouted jugs? (nos. 44–45). Lid from Bolla I spouted jug (no. 42). Lid from Bolla I spouted jug (no. 41). Table 3. Bronze vessels from the fort at Ilișua/Arcobadara. TORMA 1865, 12–14, II. tábla; PROTASE ET ALII 1997, 5, Pl. VI. TORMA 1865, 59: „Bronzkorsó — gutturnium, réztál s kisded rézedény darabok. Találtam a praetorium c. szobájában. Miután azonban a korsónak csak nyakát s alját, a többi edénynek pedig csak egy-egy részletét találtam meg, eredeti alakját egyiknek sem lehet kiegészíteni.” 1401 TORMA 1865, 23. 1399 1400 188 Concerning the material recovered from the fort, the earliest identiied pieces belong to sets for preparing and serving drinks: the handle form a globular amphora (no. 48) which very likely was out of use prior to the building of the agger of the large earthen fort, the handle from a casserole with circular piercing on the handle terminal (no. 7) and the two fragments from casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal of Gödåker type (nos. 11, 12) discovered in the early phases of barracks I and V pertaining to the small earthen fort. Considering the production period of these types1402 and the early discovery contexts, it can be assumed that the pieces arrived at Ilișua in the luggage of some of the soldiers from the unit stationed in the small earthen fort1403. A certain reservation must be maintained in the case of the variants of the Gödåker type from which fragment nos. 11 and 12 derive since its production period appears to have continued until, at most, AD 120, and thus a local acquisition cannot be ruled out. Taking into account the moment of production, the period until de middle of the 2nd century AD includes the Eggers 160 strainer or dipper fragment (no. 19) and the Canterbury type spouted jug (no. 28) resulted from Károly Torma’s excavations. After the middle of that century starts the period in which a number of bronze vessel types used for heating water (lids from Bolla I and II bronze sheet spouted jugs) arrived at Ilișua, currently the largest number compared to the remaining sites from Dacia, as well as vessels for cooking or sieving foodstuf (Eggers 161 strainer/dipper no. 20). If the basin handle discovered in the praetorium of the large earthen fort (no. 67), which cannot be attributed to a certain type, is excluded, these are the latest bronze vessels uncovered as a result of systematic excavations. he private collections created from the material gathered from the surface of the fort include two steep-walled basin attachments (nos. 62, 63) that could have ended up in the fort in the interval between the end of the 2nd century AD and, at the latest, the middle of the next century. IV.4. Moigrad/Porolissum he bronze vessels from Moigrad/Porolissum represent the largest group of objects included in this analysis. he pieces come from the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection, from the archaeological excavations started after 1977 in the perimeter of the fort on Pomet hill, and from old and new ield research carried out in the vicus. To these a number of chance inds from Pomet hill and other objects of unknown provenance can be added (Table 4). As mentioned before in this chapter, although it is likely that the pieces from the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection originate from the site at Moigrad/Porolissum, the area of the town and of the bath-house being suggested1404, the fact that it is impossible to locate these objects topographically prevents their usage as a comparison group with the situation from the fort or from the vicus. he earliest bronze vessels that arrived at Porolissum with the irst newcomers are, in this case as well, the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal seen in the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection (nos. 8, 9)1405 and, potentially, on Pomet hill (nos. 15, 90), that is if these latter fragments can be safely attributed to the form. he handle form a bronze spouted jug used for boiling water (no. 33) from the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection can also be assigned to this early period1406. Until the See subchapters III.1.3, III.1.4, III.4.1. At the present state of research, the identiication of the military unit which built the small earthen fort at Ilișua remains problematic. A series of tile stamps discovered however in the bath-house, and not inside the fort, attest to the fact that cohors II Britannica (cohors II Britannorum: see MARCU 2009, 84–85) and a detachment of the XIIIth Gemina legion took part in the construction works. During Hadrian’s reign ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana is transferred here from Pannonia Inferior at it will remain at Ilișua until the abandonment of the province (GUDEA 1997, 53–54; PROTASE ET ALII 1997, 55; GAIU 2006, 213–214; MARCU 2009, 84–85). 1404 Kind information ofered by conf. dr. István Bajusz and prof. dr. Nicolae Gudea (at the moment when the collection was created, Pomet hill was covered with trees and the agricultural works were undertaken in the area of the city). See also ISAC 2001e, 98. 1405 See subchapter III.1.3. 1406 See subchapter III.3.4. 1402 1403 189 DISCOVERY CONTEXT Fort on Pomet hill (fort with earthen enclosure: beginning of the 2nd – beginning of the 3rd century AD) Fort on Pomet hill (fort with stone wall: irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD (after 213) DRINKING AND SERVING SETS Eggers 36 bucket attachment (variant) (no. 71). Principia Next to the via principalis, before porta principalis dextra Principia Porta principalis sinistra Fort on Pomet hill The area of the (unknown period) principia Fort on Pomet hill (chance Via principalis inds) - Vicus Building OL 1 Building OL 4 Building N2 Wesselényi-Teleki Collection Unknown Next to building N 11 - - PERSONAL CARE COOKING - Bolla I spouted jug lid (no. 46). Eggers 160 strainer/dipper (no. 22). - - Casserole fragment (no. 15). Eggers 36 bucket attachment (no. 73). Casserole foot (no. 90)? - - - - - - Bucket attachment shaped like a human mask (no. 69). Bell shaped bucket attachment (no. 74). Eggers 160/161dipper (no. 23). - Bowl with high handles (no. 58). Eggers 161 strainer (no. 24). Bolla I jug handle (no. 37). Attachment from a bowl with tubular handle (no. 56) Bolla I spouted jug lid (no. 47). Eggers 161 strainer (no. 25). Jug base (no. 53). “Pompeii” type Casseroles with circular piercing Attachment from an undecorated globular spouted jug handle on the terminal (no. 8–9). balsamarium (no. 82). (no. 33). Casserole fragments (nos. 13–14). Casserole foot (no. 89)? Eggers 160 strainer/dipper (no. 21). Jug handle fragment (no. 52). Eggers 36 bucket attachment (no. 72). Basin attachment (no. 68) Bucket/balsamarium attachment (no. 76–78)? Handle from a spouted Bolla I spouted jug handle (no. 38). jug with elongated spout (no. 31) Canterbury type bowl (no. 55). Anthropomorphic bustshaped vessel (no. 86). Table 4. The bronze vessels from Moigrad/Porolissum middle of the 2nd century AD the following types can be placed: the Eggers 160 strainers or dippers from the fort and from the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection (nos. 21, 22), the Eggers 160/161 dipper (no. 23) found in building OL I from the vicus, the handle from a bowl with high handles and, possibly, the bucket from which the attachment with female mask was preserved (no. 69), the last two items being chance inds from Pomet hill1407. For the period after the middle of the same century one can count the Eggers 161 strainers (nos. 24, 25) uncovered both in the fort, and in the vicus, the Canterbury bowl with tubular handle (no. 55) from an unknown ind spot, the Eggers 36 buckets (nos. 71, 72, 73) which appear in both phases of the fort, the lids and handles from Bolla I bronze sheet spouted jugs (nos. 37, 38, 46, 47) identiied in the principia of the fort with earthen enclosure 1407 See subchapters III.2.2, III.8, III.10.1. 190 and also in the vicus1408. he bell-shaped bucket (no. 74) accidentally found on Pomet hill can be placed towards the end of the 2nd century AD1409. Because of the high fragmentation, lack of information regarding the discovery contexts and, sometimes, the lengthy production period of some of the types, a series of vessels identiied on the site could not be placed with certainty in the mentioned time frames. hese are the jug with elongated spout (no. 31), the bowl with tubular handle originally itted with the attachment uncovered in building OL 4 from the vicus (no. 56), the globular balsamarium attachment from the Wesselényi-Teleki Collection (no. 82) and the anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel (no. 86)1410. Generally speaking, it can be noticed that the types used in drinking and serving sets predominate, followed by those used for cooking (after the middle of the 2nd century) and toiletry. Regarding the last functional category, Porolissum is the site where most of the vessels from Dacia Porolissensis used for this purpose were identiied. Interestingly, one can remark the lack of types whose production period ends at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century AD from the early levels of the fort with earthen enclosure, especially since, with few exceptions, they are encountered in the rest of the analysed forts. In general, the small number of vessels which went out of use throughout the 2nd century AD can be noted. his phenomenon is diicult to explain so long as extensive iled research has not been carried out on Pomet hill1411, the barracks area is little known, and the number of bronze vessels identiied by the archaeological excavations is generally low. Another observation can be made with respect to the relatively low number of bronze vessels discovered in the vicus in comparison with those from the fort, if all of the chance inds are included. It is not clear if this situation actually relects the greater economic power the soldiers had in contrast with the population from the vicus, or it ensues from the fact that important lots of archaeological material from the old excavations in the fort area and from the vicus were never published, were not preserved to date, or were only partially preserved1412. he later recently argued establishment and development of the area of the vicus located in front of porta praetoria and along the Roman road leading to the customs’s house, starting at the earliest in the last decades of the 2nd century AD1413 does not come into contradiction with the chronology ofered by the bronze vessels. As it can be seen in Table 4, we deal with types produced starting with the middle of the 2nd century AD, which remained in circulation for longer periods of time. IV.5. Orheiu Bistriței he metallic objects deposit from Orheiu Bistriței, which also includes three vessels dealt with in this paper, namely a casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 10), a jug with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot (no. 50) and a steep-walled Eggers 81 basin (no. 64), was long known to specialists as the Dipșa deposit. According to the original publication, which only analysed the bronze vessels1414, these were discovered in 1930 on the occasion of construction works executed at Dipșa, as communicated by an engineer from Bistrița. he three vessels were considered products manufactured in the irst half of the 1st century AD in Italic workshops, items which remained in use until the end of the same century. Such an assignment determined their classiication as imports arriving in Dacia before the conquest, being suggested that they were probably hidden during the Dacian-Roman wars1415. Consequently, ever since then the vessels were included in the repertoire of imports from pre-Roman Dacia1416, without being reassessed. See subchapters III.2.2, III.3.5. III.3.6, III.6, III.10.2. See subchapter III.10.3. 1410 See subchapters III.3.3, III.6, III.11.2, III.12. 1411 GUDEA 1997c, 17–18. 1412 GUDEA 1989, 21–24, 37; GUDEA 1997c, 14–16. 1413 OPREANU, LĂZĂRESCU 2016. 1414 GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971. 1415 GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971. 1416 GLODARIU 1974, 237, no. 15, Pl. XXXII/B 15a-c; GLODARIU 1976, 31, table 3/15, 197, no. 15, Pl. 38/B 15a-c; GLODARIU 1979, Pl. 109/6. 1408 1409 191 he initial data was corrected thanks to C. Gaiu who, on the basis of the information kept in the annual of the Evangelic Gymnasium from Bistrița, proved that the bronze vessels, together with a series of iron objects (tools, weapons, domestic implements) and a coin from Antoninus Pius, were discovered at Orheiu Bistriței following works undertaken for the renovation and enlargement of the Evangelic church. hey were donated to the collection of the Evangelic Gymnasium by the priest Johann Dienesch in 1909; towards the end of the Second World War, the collection was dispelled and a part of the items ended up in the possession of a priest from Dipșa1417. On the occasion of the new discussion, the iron items from the deposit (a ploughshare, an axe and four scythes), kept in the collection of the Museum in Bistrița, were published. Taking into account the placement of the church, located in the north-eastern corner of the fort, it was determined that the group of iron objects comes either from the corner tower or from one of the barracks from the praetentura sinistra1418. Concerning the three bronze vessels, the mentioned author considers that the jug was produced in the 1st century AD and he attributes the casserole to the Eggers 144 type. Based on these assignments and on the coin from Antoninus Pius, the moment when they were hidden was cautiously assumed to be connected to the Marcommanic wars1419. More recently, an even earlier dating of the deposit was proposed, during the conlicts of Antoninus Pius with the Dacians1420. DISCOVERY CONTEXT Fort SERVING AND DRINKING SETS Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 10). Jug with handle shaped like a human foot (no. 50). Eggers 81 basin (no. 64). COOKING PERSONAL CARE - - Table 5. The bronze vessels from the Orheiu Bistriței deposit. he composition of the deposit, comprising both bronze vessels and various categories of iron objects, indicates that this is a metal accumulation, very likely put together in perilous times and meant to be recovered at some point, possibly with the purpose of recycling1421. Out of the metal hoards discovered so far on the territory of Roman Dacia1422, bronze vessels were identiied only in the case of that from Mărculeni1423. In both cases we deal with fragmentary recipients which were out of use in the view of a future recycling1424. From a chronological point of view, the oldest piece from the Orheiu Bistriței hoard is the casserole with circular piercing on the handle terminal, which displays signs of intense and extensive use, was repaired at least twice, and remained in service for over a century1425. he type’s chronology indicates that it was brought into Dacia by its owner and not as a result of commercial activities. he jug with the handle shaped like a human foot, produced in one of the workshops from the western provinces, arrived at Orheiu Bistriței sometime during the 2nd century AD1426. In turns, the chronology of the Eggers 81 steep-walled basins does not allow the piece to be dated earlier than the end of the 2nd century AD. As mentioned before1427, at the present state of research, the production of the steep-walled basins appears GAIU 2005, 215–216; PROTASE 2007, 108; BENEA 2008, 36. GAIU 2005, 217–219, 224–225, Fig. 3–4; PROTASE 2007, 108, 135, Fig. 5, 145–147, Fig. 19–21. 1419 GAIU 2005, 218–220; PROTASE 2007, 108. 1420 BENEA 2008, 41. 1421 GAIU 2005, 220; BENEA 2008, 36. 1422 See BENEA 2008, 33–43 for a detailed analysis of metal hoards from the territory of Roman Dacia and for a classiication according to their composition. 1423 GLODARIU ET ALII 1970, 217–218, 228–230; BENEA 2008, 36. 1424 It is not clear to what degree this observation also applies to the steep-walled basin from Orheiu Bistriței. As previously mentioned (see subchapter III.9.3) there are doubts if it was broken in Antiquity or only at the moment of discovery, the last hypothesis being supported by the authors of the initial publication (GLODARIU, DĂNILĂ 1971, 93). 1425 See subchapter III.1.3. 1426 See subchapter III.5.2. 1427 See subchapter III.9.3. 1417 1418 192 to have started around AD 160/180, and most of the pieces surface in contexts dated to the 3rd century AD. For this reason, the connection between the hoarding phenomenon from Orheiu Bistriței and the Marcomannic wars must be regarded with reservations, since it is not certain that the type reached Dacia so quickly. Taking into account the circumstances of the ind, there are no certainties that the coin issued by Antoninus Pius comes from the same discovery context and, even if it was found together with the rest of the objects, it only supplies a terminus post quem for the dating of the deposit. On purely typological grounds, considering that the information regarding the discovery context is unknown, the moment when the hoard was hidden can be placed, at the earliest, between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century AD. Although, according to their primary function all three vessels are assigned to the category of recipients used in drinking and serving sets (Table 5), it is hard to believe that they were used together, at least in a inal stage, and therefore I consider that they should not be interpreted as a set. In the irst place, their association with a series of iron objects clearly shows that, at the moment of concealment, the intention was to protect some metal objects which were to be subsequently recovered, only because of the inherent value of the metals. he successive repairing the casserole went through points to the fact that in the inal stage it could not have served as a vessel for preparing wine, just as the jug could not have been used as a serving vessel since it was probably missing its handle, if this was not part of the deposit and it was lost, like several other object, after the discovery. IV.6. The remaining sites: Bologa, Cuzdrioara, Florești-Șapca Verde, Gherla, Gilău, Turda/ Potaissa he archaeological excavations that unfolded between 1967 and 1976 in the Roman fort at Bologa1428 led to the discovery of two pieces which were deinitely identiied as bronze vessels: a bowl with lat handle (no. 57) and a lid from a balsamarium with globular body (no. 83). he low number of pieces should not be surprising as long as the ield research did not pursue the unearthing of large surfaces, but only the revealing of the fort’s internal planning, with the help of a several trenches1429. he discovery context of the bowl with lat handle points to its use in one of the barracks from the praetentura sinistra (barracks 3), in the irst phase of the fort’s existence (small fort with earthen enclosure). his phase was related to the garrisoning of cohors I Ulpia Brittonum1430 and was dated on the basis of the archaeological material in the interval between Trajan and Hadrian (coins, terra sigillata, Norico-Pannonian brooches)1431. he balsamarium lid found in barracks 13 from the retentura sinistra, in a layer probably dated to the 2nd century, was also involved in activities connected with body care. If regarding the latter piece, the impossibility of devising a clear stratigraphy for the barracks from the fort’s retenura1432 prevents the identiication of a certain period during which it was used, the chronology of the bowl with lat handle1433 indicates that it reached Bologa together with the troop. Both pieces were possibly used in the bath-house, located at a distance of 40–50 m northwards from the northern wall of the fort’s precinct1434. For that matter, the identiication of the bowl with lat handle in this early context is very important at the level of the entire province because, besides the rarity of these pieces in Roman Dacia1435, it is the only one that has a clear discovery context. For the main results of the excavations at Bologa, see GUDEA 1977; GUDEA 1997a; GUDEA 1997d, 39–42; MARCU 2009, 26–36, 269–270, Pl. 1–2. 1429 GUDEA 1997a, 13. 1430 GUDEA 1997a, 18; GUDEA 1997d, 41; MARCU 2009, 34–35: the author does not rule out the possibility that a unit of Gaesati took part in the fort’s construction in the Trajanic period, unit which would later be organised by Hadrian as cohors I Aelia Gaesatorum milliaria. 1431 GUDEA 1997a, 19. 1432 GUDEA 1997a, 24. 1433 See subchapter III.7. 1434 GUDEA 1997a, 52–54: the chronology of the construction is not clear and there is no certainty that it already existed at the time the irst troops were quartered at Bologa. 1435 See subchapter III.7. 1428 193 As mentioned earlier in this volume1436, there are reserves regarding the “Dacian” origin of the three bronze vessels acquired at Cuzdrioara. here is no information available concerning the provenance of the pieces, or the way they were “collected”. On the other hand, one cannot completely exclude this prospect because, as seen in the case of the casserole from the Orheiu Bistriței hoard1437, it is possible that some pieces were employed for a longer period as compared with the average service interval. he casserole with thin, concave walls and handle ending in stylized swan heads (no. 2) and the strainer/ dipper with volute-decorated handle (no. 16) were produced in the same workshop, relatively in the same time frame1438; therefore, one could conceivably assume they share a common provenance. he lid bearing a dedication to Mars (no. 49)1439 comes from a type of jug whose chronology does not exclude the possibility of it arriving in Roman Dacia together with the irst waves of residents, only later to be dedicated. he possibility that the pieces come from the territory of pre-Roman Dacia cannot be ruled out, even though the Petrovszky II, III casseroles are rare, being represented by a single specimen from Ardeu1440, while Petrovszky X, 2–3 straining sets, as far as the current knowledge is concerned, had not been reported until now. However, such a scenario cannot be completely valid in the case of the jug with lid. Based on its dedication, its presence on the territory of pre-Roman Dacia might be explained not as resulting from commercial relations, but from the looting activities committed by Barbarian populations living north of the Danube into the territory of the Roman Empire1441. he casserole with circular piercing on the handle terminal from Florești-Șapca Verde (Polus Center)1442 (no. 5) was discovered on the loor of one of the chambers of the large-sized building located in sector A of the site1443. Currently, the information regarding the chronology and function of this structure is still unpublished so one cannot comment on the period when the piece was in service. On the grounds of the data disclosed by typology1444, in this instance too we are dealing with an item arriving in Dacia at the same time as its owner. DISCOVERY CONTEXT Fort Unknown DRINKING AND SERVING SETS Bucket handle (no. 75). - PERSONAL CARE COOKING Petrovszky XVI,1 basin attachments (nos. Bolla I spouted jug handle 60, 61)? (no. 35) and Bolla I/II (no. 36). Hemispherical basin attachment Bolla I spouted jug lid (no. 40). (no. 66). Hemispherical basin handle (no. 59). - Table 6. The bronze vessels from the fort at Gherla. he harsh conditions in which the rescue excavation inside the fort at Gherla took place, caused by the building of the Woodworking Plant on that area1445, did not allow a detailed recording of the archaeological contexts in which the material was uncovered1446. For this reason, the following observations will be exclusively grounded in typological considerations. he hemispherical basin used for washing, to which handle no. 59 was attached, could have been acquired up until the end of the fourth decade of the 2nd century AD1447, but its provenance is unknown and there is no irm reason to think that it was found in the fort. he other pieces collected from the See subchapters III.1.1, III.2.1, III.5.1. See subchapter IV.5. 1438 See subchapters III.1.1, III.2.1. 1439 See subchapter III.5.1. 1440 GHEORGHIU 2005, 168, 488, Fig. 214. 1441 he presence of bronze vessels with votive inscriptions inside the north European Barbaricum is attested and it was explained as resulting from the plundering of cult places within the Empire: see note 834. 1442 I wish to thank Valentin Voișian from the National Museum of Transylvanian History in Cluj-Napoca for allowing me to include the piece in this study. 1443 ALICU 2008, 10, 31, no. 94. 1444 See subchapter III.1.3. 1445 PROTASE ET ALII 2008, 19–23, 136–137; MARCU 2009, 70. 1446 GĂZDAC 1995, 401. For the fate of the archaeological material from Gherla, see also ARDEVAN 2010. 1447 See subchapter III.9.1. 1436 1437 194 surface of the fort (Table 6) cannot be assigned to a period before the middle of the 2nd century AD. he bronze sheet spouted jugs (nos. 35, 36, 40) employed for boiling water and the bucket from which handle no. 75 derives arrived in the province very likely after the middle of the 2nd century AD1448, while the steep-walled basins with attachments ending in stylized bird heads (nos. 60, 61) did so towards the end of the same century1449. Still a late dating, namely the 3rd century AD, is ascribed to the hemispherical basin probably employing the attachment no. 661450. he absence from the group of vessels from Gherla of earlier bronze vessels (casseroles, straining sets), attested in the other sites from Dacia Porolissensis, must be accidental. It was caused by the background conditions of the ield research, and thus it does not relect certain peculiarities of the site as compared with the rest, especially considering that other categories of imports dated to the irst half of the 2nd century AD, e.g. terra sigillata, are to be found here1451. he small number of vessels identiied at Gilău is explained by the fact that the site has not yet beneited from a monograph dedicated to the material unearthed by the archaeological excavations conducted here. As such, in this study only the pieces resulted from the old excavations carried out in 1951 by M. Rusu and in 1956 by a larger team led by M. Macrea1452 were included, as well as the bronze objects discovered between 1976 and 1981 and published in a series of individual studies1453. he four bronze vessels that were identiied (Table 7) are connected to the fort’s enlargement and its rebuilding in stone (Gilău II and III phases) at the time when it was garrisoned by ala Siliana1454. At this stage, no vessel that could be related to the “small earthen fort” (Gilău I phase) and to cohors I Pannoniorum veterana pia idelis equitata1455 has been identiied, an interesting situation since the quantity of terra sigillata from this phase is also very low1456. he casserole handle with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 6) arrived at Gilău most likely in the luggage of its owner, who came with the ala from Pannonia Inferior1457. he remaining items could have been obtained from the local market in Dacia: the Eggers 160 strainer/dipper (no. 18) until the middle of the 2nd century1458, whereas after this interval the bucket belonging to a variant of the Eggers 36 type (no. 70)1459 can be placed, and towards the end of the century the balsamarium with globular body and relief decoration (no. 81)1460. DRINKING AND SERVING SETS DISCOVERY CONTEXT Large earthen fort (Gilău II: AD 117/118 – end of the 2nd century) Stone fort (Gilău III: end of the 2nd – irst three quarters of the 3rd century AD) Layer subsequent to the burning corresponding to the “small fort” (area of the future building A) Principia (room g, phase III: irst half of the 3rd century AD) Via decumana, the section towards via sagularis, outside the southern tower Curtain tower on the southern side PERSONAL CARE COOKING Casserole with circular piercing on the terminal (no. 6). - - Eggers 36 bucket attachment (variant) (no. 70). - - - Globular blasamarium with relief-decorated body (no. 81). Eggers 160 strainer/dipper (no. 18). - - Table 7. The bronze vessels from the fort at Gilău. See subchapters III.3.5, III.3.6, III.10.4. See subchapter III.9.2. 1450 See subchapter III.9.5. 1451 PROTASE ET ALII 2008, 93–95, 102. 1452 RUSU 1956; MACREA ET ALII 1959. 1453 DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987; ISAC 2000; ISAC 2001. 1454 ISAC 1997, 15–21, 34–72; MARCU 2009, 78. 1455 ISAC 1997, 14–15, 21–34; MARCU 2009, 77–78. 1456 ISAC 2001c, 80–81. 1457 Ala Siliana is transferred to Dacia from Pannonia Inferior, where it is last mentioned in March/April 119 AD (MARCU 2009, 78). 1458 See subchapter III.2.2. 1459 See subchapter III.10.2. 1460 See subchapter III.11.1. 1448 1449 195 he information regarding the bronze vessels discovered at Turda/Potaissa stem exclusively from the discoveries made throughout the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century that entered various private collections. Out of these, only the ones registered in István Téglás’s notes1461 are accompanied by indications about the approximate area from which they had surfaced (Table 8). As mentioned before, it is not certain that the pieces from Imre Botár’s Collection1462 were all discovered at Potaissa. Except for the Canterbury type spouted jug (no. 29), and maybe the two bronze sheet attachments (nos. 79, 80), the remaining items belong to drinking and serving sets. If the two bucket/balsamarium attachments (nos. 79, 80) which might theoretically originate from types produced after the irst half of the 2nd century AD1463 are not taken into account, although their exact classiication remains in doubt, we are mostly dealing with pieces produced until the middle of the 2nd century AD1464. he only specimen that was found in the legionary fortress is the strainer/dipper handle of Eggers 160/161 type (no. 26). DISCOVERY CONTEXT Legionary fortress “Dealul Cetății” (the northern slope) The ridge of Sândului Valley “Dealul Zânelor” Imre Botár Collection Unknown DRINKING AND SERVING SETS Eggers 160/161 strainer/dipper (no. 26). PERSONAL CARE 1462 1463 1464 - Bucket/balsamarium attachment (no. 80)? Bucket foot (no. 92)? Casserole foot (no. 91)? Eggers 160/161 strainer/dipper (no. 27). Relief decorated jug handle (no. 51). Canterbury type spouted jug (no. 29) - BAJUSZ 1980; BAJUSZ 2005; BĂRBULESCU 1994, 141. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979; BĂRBULESCU 1994, 141. See subchapter III.10.4. See subchapters III.2.2, III.3.1, III.5.3. 196 - Bucket/balsamarium attachment (no. 79)? Table 8. The bronze vessels from Turda/Potaissa. 1461 COOKING - - V. Conclusions espite basing the analysis of the bronze vessels form Dacia Porolissensis on a relatively small number of pieces, most of them fragmentary and in some cases missing any information about their ind spot or even their place of provenance, the data disclosed by the typological and chronological study, together with the possibility to place a part of the material according to its discovery context, determined the following conclusions. he bronze vessels examined in this volume can be assigned to 31 types. In addition to these, there are also some fragments that could not be ascribed to a speciic type, only to a shape, the vessel feet which were treated separately, the fragments whose typological framing is problematic, as well as those which is not certain they derive from bronze vessels (Pl. CVI). If one only considers the pieces that could be typologically assigned with conidence, the picture delivered by Graph 3 clearly shows the predominance of the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal (1.3, 1.4), of the Eggers 160 and 160/161 straining sets (2.2), of the provincial variants of the bronze sheet spouted jugs used for boiling water (3.5, 3.6), of the diferent types of steep-walled basins (9.2, 9.3, 9.4), and of the Eggers 36 buckets and their variants (10.2). hese are followed by the Eggers 161 straining sets (2.2) employed in the kitchen, by the bowls with tubular handle (6), by the Canterbury type spouted jugs (3.1) and those of “Pompeii” type (3.4) and by the iron balsamaria (11.4). he remaining types which could be identiied are represented by a single specimen. Of course, this image is purely quantitative and it does not bear signiicance on the chronology of the bronze vessels’ inlow and usage in Dacia Porolissensis. In contrast, if the production period of the identiied types is taken into account, period that implicitly determines the interval in which they could have been acquired, it is possible to isolate multiple stage of inlow for this import category into Dacia Porolissensis. he establishment of these stages is conditioned by the present state of knowledge regarding the Roman bronze vessel industry, and also by the known information concerning the production period of each type. Precisely for these reasons, so long as some of the analysed types are missing clear-cut production dates, the presented image might undergo future adjustments, in accordance with the progress made in the research of individual types. he irst stage of ingress (Fig. 26) is connected to the irst waves of population (civilian and military) reaching Roman Dacia. he fact that the types D 1 1 15 14 2 13 2 12.1 1 2 1 1 5 5 2 32 11 7 2 2 1 1 11.4 1 1 1 1 22 11.3 1 11.2 1 11.1 1 10.41 1 10.3 1 10.2 1 1 10.1 1 9.5 1 9.4 1 9.3 1 9.2 1 1 3 3 1 8 1 7 1 1 6 2 5.4 2 5.3 1 5.2 1 5.1 1 4.1 1 3.6 1 3.5 1 3.4 1 3.3 1 3.2 1 3.1 1 2 1 1 2 1 9.11 1 1 32 1 3 1 2 7 5 2 3 5 2 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 2.2 (E 161) 1 2 2.2 (E 160/161) 1 2 2.2 (E 160) 1 2.1 1 1.5 2 1 1 3 1.4 2 1.3 1 1.2 1 1.1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 6 1 8 10 12 Bologa Buciumi Cluj-Napoca/Napoca Cuzdrioara Florești-Șapca Verde Gherla Gilău Ilișua/Arcobadara Moigrad/Porolissum Orheiu Bistriței Turda/Potaissa Dacia Porolissensis Graph 3. The provenance of the types identified in Dacia Porolissensis. 198 14 16 beginning of the 2nd century AD AD 140/160 Fig. 26. The inflow stages of bronze vessels into Dacia Porolissensis. AD 160/180 unknown 160/180 middle of the 2ⁿᵈ century 140/160 beginning of the 2ⁿᵈ century 0 1.1 2.2 E 160/161 3.6 8 10.3 5 1.2 2.2 E 161 4.1 9.1 11.1 10 1.3 3.1 5.1 9.2 11.2 15 1.4 3.2 5.2 9.3 11.3 20 1.5 3.3 5.3 9.4 11.4 25 2.1 3.4 6 10.1 12.1 30 2.2 E 160 3.5 7 10.2 Graph 4. The types of bronze vessels identified in Dacia Porolissensis, arranged according to the ingress period. assigned to this wave were mostly produced up until the end of the 1st century AD and crop up in discovery contexts most often dated to the irst decades of the 2nd century AD rules out the possibility of their purchase from the Dacian market as a result of commercial relations with other areas of the Empire. hey must be interpreted as items included in the luggage of individuals arriving here in the aftermath of the Roman conquest. he types safely attributed to this moment represent more than a quarter of the pieces from Dacia Porolissensis which can be assigned to a speciic type (Graph 4). hese comprise the casseroles with crescent shaped piercing on the handle terminal (1.2), those with circular piercing on the handle terminal (1.3), including the Gödåker type (1.4), the bronze sheet “Pompeii” type spouted jugs (3.4), the amphorae with globular body (4.1) and the bowls with lat handles (7). As mentioned before, it is not clear to what degree the three early types which appear in the group of objects acquired from Cuzdrioara can be taken into consideration. Also, the Gödåker casseroles and the bowls with lat handles must be included in this category with caution, since their production might have ended only around AD 1201465. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that both pieces from Dacia Porolissensis identiied as Gödåker type casseroles were discovered in layers pertaining to the small earthen fort from Ilișua/ Arcobadara1466, their association with this irst group seems plausible. Another point in favour of their inclusion here lies in the fact that, despite the later ending of their production date, the Gödåker type casseroles are represented by a much smaller number of discoveries when compared to the rest of the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal. he situation of the bowls with lat handle is similar. hey are illustrated by a single specimen discovered in the irst habitation layer of the fort at Bologa, and the number of such discoveries from Roman Dacia is generally very low1467, at least at the present state of research. From a functional point of view, the types associated with this wave were mostly used in sets for preparing and serving drinks. he pair of “Pompeii” type spouted jugs was employed for warming water and the bowl with lat handle was part of the toilet set used at the baths. he types belonging to this irst inlow stage are absent from the fort at Gherla, are not present between the studied vessels from Turda/Potaissa, while amongst the material from Moigrad/ Porolissum they are represented only by objects coming from private collections. As far as the current 1465 1466 1467 See subchapters III.1.4, III.7. See subchapter III.1.4. See subchapter III.7. 199 knowledge allows, such a situation can only be explained by the nature of the ield research and by the degree in which the archaeological material was published. he second group of bronze vessels includes those types with production periods coming to a halt shortly before, or around the middle of the 2nd century AD (Fig. 26, Graph 4). he group chiely comprises Eggers 160 and 160/161 straining sets (2.2), Canterbury type spouted jugs (3.1), jugs with relief-decorated handles (5.3), bowls with high handles (8), hemispherical basins with base and ixed handles (9.1) and, possibly, buckets with attachments shaped like human masks (10.1). Seeing that many of these types are deined by production intervals already starting in the 1st century AD1468, there are no certainties that they are entirely the result of an active commerce taking place in Roman Dacia. Some of them could have also arrived here with their owners, but, since deinite information regarding their discovery contexts is not known, the production intervals do not allow a more exact temporal determination. I do not absolutely exclude the assignment of the Canterbury type jug (no. 29) from Turda/Potaissa to the irst wave, since this is an Italic product, and neither of the jug with relief-decorated handle (no. 51) from the Imre Botár Collection. Also, the buckets with attachments shaped like human masks, represented in Dacia Porolissensis by a single attachment from Moigrad/Porolissum, have to be included with caution in this interval because it is not possible to assign this item to a speciic type and the dating of later types (Eggers 27–28) does not prevent an acquisition after the middle of the 2nd century AD1469. From a functional perspective, the types from this group were also employed largely in sets for preparing and serving drinks, but also in sets used for washing the hands or for washing in general. A third stage of ingress can be placed after the middle of the 2nd century AD (Fig. 26, Graph 4), when the analysed area is reached by the Eggers 161 straining sets (2.2), by the Bolla I and II bronze sheet spouted jugs for water boiling (3.5, 3.6), by the bowls with tubular handles ending in anthropomorphic protomes pertaining to the Canterbury type (6) and by the Eggers 36 buckets together with their variants (10.2)1470. Although, as stated in the type analysis, some variants of the Bolla I spouted jugs were produced starting with the last decades of the 1st century AD, I consider that the pieces found in Dacia Porolissensis must be connected to the beginning of their export towards Pannonia, followed by a presumed local production that does not start before the middle of the 2nd century AD1471. For the time being I keep to this point of view, since none of the investigated specimens originate from a discovery context prior to this date. he last wave that can be observed on the basis of the information yielded by typology starts during the last decades of the 2nd century AD (Fig. 26, Graph 4). It deinitely comprises the various types of steep-walled basins (9.2, 9.3, 9.4) and the bell-shaped buckets (10.3)1472. Probably also after this interval the balsamarium with relief-decorated body (11.1) arrives at Gilău1473, and, possibly, the pair of iron balsamaria at Napoca, although the assignment of the latter to this group is uncertain because there is little known information so far1474. Besides these stages of inlow, there are certain types which, either because of their long production periods, or of the impossibility to isolate them due to the scarce data, cannot be irmly chronologically framed (Fig. 26, Graph 4). he Millingen type spouted jugs with trefoil mouth (3.2) must have entered the province in the course of the 2nd century AD1475. he jugs with elongated spout (3.3) and the jugs with the handle terminal shaped like a human foot (5.2) can be included in the same interval1476. Based on the discovery context, the balsamarium with lid no. 83 must have arrived at Bologa during the same See subchapters III.2.2, III.3.1, III.5.3, III.8, III.9.1, III.10.1. See subchapter III.10.1. 1470 See subchapters III.2.2, III.3.5, III.3.6, III.6, III.10.2. 1471 See subchapter III.3.5. 1472 See subchapters III.9.2, III.9.3, III.9.4. 1473 See subchapter III.11.1. 1474 See subchapter III.11.4. 1475 See subchapter III.3.1. 1476 See subchapters III.3.3, III.5.2. 1468 1469 200 century, possibly in the irst half1477. Since there is no information regarding the discovery contexts in the case of the balsamarium with globular body (no. 82) and the bust-shaped anthropomorphic vessel (no. 86) from Moigrad/Porolissum, they cannot be assigned to any of these stages. As mentioned before, the bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis are imported goods. here is no indication that would point to a potential local production. he production centres in which they were manufactured are the ones that were in function during the existence of the Dacian province. he analysed pieces vastly derive from the western provinces of the Empire, from workshops that were active in Gaul and in the Rhine area, although a more precise location cannot be provided in most of the cases1478. he western commercial bias of Dacia Porolissensis with regard to this import category is only natural and it relects the changes afecting the Roman bronze vessel industry after the middle of the 1st century AD, when the Italic workshops gradually cease their production, which is subsequently continued in the provincial environment. he only products undoubtedly identiied as Italic, except for the Cuzdrioara group, predominantly belong to the irst wave of inlow deined above and refer to objects which were still in use at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century AD. hese are the casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal (Petrovszky V, 1) represented among the studied material by the casserole from Orheiu Bistriței (no. 10), by the Canterbury type spouted jug from Turda/Potaissa1479, by the “Pompeii” type bronze sheet spouted jugs identiied at Buciumi and Moigrad/Porolissum1480 and by the handle from an amphora with globular body found at Ilișua/ Arcobadara1481. Probably, a part of the Petrovszky V, 2 and V, 3 casseroles with circular piercing on the handle terminal, as well as some of the Eggers 160 (Petrovszky X, 6) straining sets were also produced in the workshops functioning in the Italian Peninsula, but the Italic specimens cannot be discerned from those stemming from the incipient Gaulish industry1482. In the matter of the later types, the buckets with bell-shaped body and the attachments decorated with Bacchic scenes are considered products fashioned in some of the workshops that carried out their activity in the northern Italian Peninsula starting with the end of the 2nd century AD1483. A potential incoming of products fabricated in the workshops located south of the Danube (Moesia and hrace), products attested in Dacia Superior by the two buckets from Zlatna/Ampelum1484, might be taken into account on the basis of the bronze sheet attachments that might come from such buckets1485 and on the basis of the basin attachment from Gherla (no. 66)1486. Unfortunately, the issue of supplying Dacia Porolissenis with imported products such as these cannot be solved as long as the general picture of the Roman bronze vessel import into the entire Roman province of Dacia is not available. To date, certain peculiarities of supplying the northern part of the province with such products as compared with the rest cannot be deined although, as it will be seen, the massive presence of the military was a decisive factor from this point of view. Directly provisioning Dacia Porolissensis with imports through Pannonia Inferior, using the road that links Aquincum with Porolissum, crossing the Tisza plain, with a possible variant (Intercisa-Resculum/Ruconium-Napoca)1487, seems logical because the merchants would have saved a lot of time. However, it is not clear to what degree these routes correspond to the ancient realities, at least when it comes to the Roman bronze vessels, seeing that they are exceptional discoveries in the in-between Barbaricum area1488. Admitting this See subchapter III.11.3, IV.6. See the discussion concerning the workshops in subchapter II.3.2. 1479 See subchapter III.3.1. 1480 See subchapter III.3.4. 1481 See subchapter III.4.1. 1482 See the discussion in subchapter III.1.3. 1483 See subchapter III.10.3. 1484 See notes 1066 and 1085. 1485 See subchapter III.10.4. 1486 See subchapter III.9.5. 1487 See FODOREAN 2006, 335; VISY 2010, 85–86, 91, Pl. I/2; GABLER 2011; GABLER 2016 (with a detailed discussion of all the known information about the possible routes that link Pannonia Inferior to central and northern Dacia). 1488 See MATEI, STANCIU 2000; GINDELE 2010; GABLER 2011, 46, note 42 (with a synthesis of the main categories 1477 1478 201 commercial route was used, it cannot be decided if this happened from the beginning of the province, or if, at least in an initial period, one should also take into account a supply line along the imperial road or long the Mureș Valley (Lugio-Parthiscum-Micia) to Apulum1489, from where the goods could have been redistributed. Hopefully, the future analysis of larger groups of bronze vessels from the rest of Roman Dacia will at least partially solve these problems. If we view the distribution of the investigated material over periods from a quantitative perspective, it can be noticed that the number of bronze vessels arriving in Dacia Porolissensis and produced until the middle of the 2nd century AD is roughly equal to the situation following this chronological interval. Functionally speaking, in the period prior to the middle of the 2nd century AD the types used for preparing and serving drinks and those for personal care predominate, while in the next stage kitchen vessels are mostly attested, as well as certain types used for mixing wine and toiletry. he number of vessels employed in the kitchen (the Eggers 161 straining sets, the spouted jugs for boiling water), poorly represented in the previous period1490, increases after the middle of the 2nd century AD. he proportion of kitchen vessels is strictly conditioned by the chronology of the production periods and it relects a general process of formal and functional transformation which the bronze vessel industry goes through starting with the middle of the 2nd century AD. hus, starting with the third generation of bronze vessels deined by R. Petrovszky („Die dritte Gefäßgeneration”)1491, whose commencement can be placed at the middle of the 2nd century AD, a “decline” of the Roman bronze vessel industry was noted. From a technical point of view, this decline is characterized by only a partial recourse to the lathe and by products fashioned from raised or pressed bronze sheet. From now on, the emphasis is placed on the functional dimension, not on the aesthetic, and the workshops’ bias toward the shapes used in the kitchen at the expense of those employed in drinking sets is noticeable. his transformation can also be seen with respect to the vessels’ dimensions, which grow larger and larger. For the moment, an explanation for this development is unclear, because it is not known to what extent one can talk of a “barbarization” of the way they were used, or just of a replacement of the types composing the drinking sets with specimens manufactured from other materials1492. In this general context, the types used for cooking are poorly represented in Dacia Porolissensis. he values revealed by Graph 4 are high because of the large number of identiied bronze sheet spouted jugs. However, the vessels employed for cooking are few and, except for the bronze sheet spouted jugs, the only other representatives of this group are the Eggers 161 straining sets, attested solely by three specimens1493. he absence of cauldrons from the material under study should not be surprising, as this kind of discoveries is generally scarce in the military environment throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Analysing the distribution of bronze vessel types in the forts located on the limes of Upper Germany and Raetia, Ch. and C. Holliger showed that these recipients are rare1494. Moreover, only two cauldrons have been identiied so far on the limes sites from Noricum1495.hey were used to some extent in the forts from Dacia Porolissensis, although there is only indirect evidence for this. he inventory of the Evangelic College from Bistrița, which holds information on the initial composition of the hoard of metal objects discovered in the fort at Orheiu Bistriței, recounts a “tripod for suspending vessels over the ire” and a “device for hanging the cauldron over the ire”, today lost1496. In addition, there is a series of Roman imports into the Sarmatian environment). In the present state of the research a number of 19 sites with Roman bronze vessels have been identiied in Sarmatian Barbaricum, geographically distributed north of the Mureș River and, especially, close to the limes, opposite to Aquincum (BENE ET ALII 2016, 745–746, 748–750, 753, 755–757, Fig. 3–5, 7). 1489 FODOREAN 2006, 335; VISY 2010, 85–86, 91, Pl. I/2; GABLER 2011. 1490 See the catalogue entries nos. 32, 33 and subchapter III.3.4. Lid no. 32 deinitely comes from a jug used for boiling water, but the handle no. 33 could have been attached to a jug used also for serving. he function cannot be decided as long as it is unknown whether or not it was provided with a lid. 1491 PETROVSZKY 1993, 123–125. 1492 See the more detailed discussion in BERNHARD, PETROVSZKY 1990a, 35; PETROVSZKY 1993, 123–125. 1493 See the catalogue entries 20, 24, 25. 1494 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1987, 46–47. 1495 SEDLMAYER 2016, 383, Tab. 5. 1496 GAIU 2005, 216. 202 of iron grates discovered in the civilian and military environment from the rest of the Dacian province, which could have been used also in conjunction with metal cooking vessels (the fort at Feldioara1497, the hoard from Mărculeni1498). he explanation put forward by H. E. M. Cool for the scanty presence of cauldrons on domestic sites, namely that they were not utility objects, but were only occasionally used for cooking ritual meals1499, does not seem very probable to us. Surely, part of them could have been used for this purpose, but the large number of cauldrons cropping up in the inventory of Roman kitchens, e.g. Pompeii1500, in “deposits” resulted from the looting raids carried out by Barbarian populations in the western provinces of the Empire in the course of the 3rd century, all contradict a purely cult usage1501. he image on the consumption of bronze vessels on the limes of Upper Germany and Raetia throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD is in agreement with the material investigated here, because the approximate percentage of 50% claimed by the most frequently used vessels in the military milieu (casseroles, buckets, bronze sheet spouted jugs and basins)1502 is also conirmed for Dacia Porolissensis. he predominance of the bronze sheet spouted jugs and of the straining sets Eggers 160/161 and 161 has been also noticed in Noricum, on the sites located along the limes1503. However, the quantity of bronze sheet jugs is greater in the case of northern Dacia; the only explanation might be ofered by a potential direct supply of this territory with products manufactured in the presumed Pannonian workshop1504. Because the group of pieces on which this analysis is based vastly derives from military sites, it was not possible to draw a comparison between the civilian and military sites from Dacia Porolissensis. Hopefully, in the future, as the ield research will make progress with respect to the civilian settlements from this area, such a comparison will become possible. As a matter of fact, this discussion is only in its infancy at the level of the entire Roman Empire, seeing that the number of studies treating bronze vessel groups originating from the civilian milieu has only recently increased1505. For the moment, as long as we are missing the general picture of Roman bronze vessel import into the entire province of Dacia, a discussion referring to the absence of certain types used in the Empire in the course of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD (e.g. Hemmoor type buckets, basins with semi-circular lid and spout etc.) would be hasty. Especially since it is not certain that a rigorous study of the material from the rest of the province would not prove the contrary. For now, the lack of these products from some forts such as Romita or Românași, cannot be explained otherwise than by the nature of the ield research. After investigating the bronze vessels from Dacia Porolissensis it can be concluded that during the Roman period this area enjoyed a relatively constant inlow of such imported products. From a quantitative point of view, the intensity of the bronze vessel trade and implicitly the intensity of their usage are diicult to quantify for the time being. his is because the available information is in turns conditioned GUDEA 2008, 195, 306, Pl. XLV. GLODARIU ET ALII 1970, 217, 227, Fig. 29/2. 1499 COOL 2006, 48–50. 1500 See TASSINARI 1993, II, 250–294, shapes U and V. 1501 For a functional analysis of the Roman bronze vessels composing the booty of the Alamanni, sunk into the Rhine see PETROVSZKY, BERNHARD 2016. 1502 See HOLLIGER 1994, 213–214, Graphik II. 1503 SEDLMAYER 1999, 383, Tab. 5. 1504 See subchapter III.3.5. 1505 For attempts of this type, see HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989, 38–47; HOLLIGER 1994; SEDLMAYER 1999, 127, note 847; KAPELLER 2003, 98–100. On the basis of the comparison between bronze vessels found in the legionary fortress at Vindonissa and in the forts located on the limes of Upper Germany and Raetia on the one hand, and those discovered in the civilian environment (Baden/Aquae Helveticae, Kempten/Cambodunum, Nijmegen/Noviomagus) on the other, it was observed that the bronze vessels from civilian sites mostly belong to tableware and are more varied, whereas in the forts casseroles and bronze sheet jugs for boiling water predominate. hese observations are valid especially for the 1st century AD realities. An in-depth analysis of the bronze vessels types coming from both military and civilian sites, from the Late Republic to the beginning of the 2nd century AD has been recently undertaken by J. Gorecki. Regarding the military sites of the 1st century AD, a preference for the casseroles and buckets was observed (GORECKI 2016). Casseroles and jugs seem to be dominant on military sites from Roman Britain as well, while the percentage of the two shapes is reversed in urban milieu (LUNDOCK 2015, 126–127, Fig. 7.18, 7.19). 1497 1498 203 by the state of the ield research and the degree in which the material was published. For the present discussion a detailed analysis of the material recovered from the legionary fortress at Turda/Potaissa would be crucial: on the grounds of the relatively short chronological interval in which the site functioned, the analysis might contribute with decisive information concerning the supply of a legionary fortress with bronze vessels and not only, after the middle of the 2nd century AD. It is important to stress that the group subjected to study largely relects a military consumption and also that good quality bronze vessels were part of the everyday life of the soldiers stationed in Dacia Porolissensis, especially if it is taken into account that a signiicant number of objects with known discovery contexts come from the barracks. Also, it has to be underlined that these products were used right from the irst years of forts’ existence in activities that imply the adoption of a Roman way of life, like wine drinking or personal care. On the basis of the data disclosed by discovery contexts, it is hard to assess to what extent these items were used in sets, since the analysed material chiely relects the reality pertaining to the moment when they were taken out of use. However, there is no reason to totally discard such a usage as long as, for instance, the casseroles and the straining sets for drinks are attested in forts in the same chronological interval. Of course, this volume represents a irst step towards the study of this category of imports. I hope that it will give the specialists an impetus and that in the future important lots of material, both from Dacia Porolissensis and from the rest of the province, will come under study. 204 VI. Abbreviations and bibliography Ancient writers: CATO, DE AGR. Cato and Varro, On Agriculture, Translated by W. D. Hooper, H. B. Ash, LOEB Classical Library 283, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1934. CICERO, IN VERREM Cicero, he Verrine Orations II: Books 3–5, Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood, Loeb Classical Library 293, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1935. CICERO, PRO Cicero, Pro Quinctio. Pro Roscio Amerino. Pro Roscio Comoedo. On the Agrarian Law, ROS. AM. Translated by J. H. Freese, Loeb Classical Library 240, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1930. B. Woodcroft (ed.), he Pneumatics of Heron of Alexandria, translated by B. Woodcroft HERON, and J. G. Greenwood, London 1851. PNEUMATICA MARTIAL Martial, Epigrams: Books 11–14, Edited and Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb Classical Library 480, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1993. PETRONIUS, Petronius, Seneca, Satyricon, Apocolocyntosis, Translated by Michael Heseltine SATYRICON (Satyricon), W. H. D. Rouse, Revised by E. H. Warmington, Loeb Classical Library 15, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1913. PLINY, NH Pliny [he Elder], Natural History. Volume IX: Books 33–35, Translated by H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library 394. Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1952. SUETONIUS, Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, I, Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula, Translated DIVUS IULIUS by J. C. Rolfe, LOEB Classical Library 31, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1913. TACITUS, ANNALES Tacitus, Histories: Books 4–5. Annals: Books 1–3, Translated by Cliford H. Moore (Histories), John Jackson (Annals), Loeb Classical Library 240. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. TACITUS, GERMANIA Tacitus, Agricola. Germania. Dialogue on Oratory, Translated by M. Hutton (Germania), W. Peterson. Revised by R. M. Ogilvie, E. H. Warmington, Michael Winterbottom, Loeb Classical Library 35, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1914. Varro, On the Latin language: Books 5–7, Translated by Roland G. Kent, Loeb VARRO, DE LINGUA LATINA Classical Library 35, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1938. VITRUVIUS, DE ARH. Vitruvius, On Architecture, Volume I: Books 1–5, Translated by Frank Granger, Loeb Classical Library 333, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1931. Vitruvius, On Architecture, Volume II: Books 6–10, Translated by Frank Granger, Loeb Classical Library 280, Cambridge – Massachusetts – London 1934. Dictionaries and corpora of inscriptions: AE L’Année Épigraphique, Paris. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. DAREMBERG, SAGLIO C. Daremberg, E. Saglio (dir.), Dictionnaire des antiquités greques et romaines d’aprés les textes et les monuments, tome 1–5, Paris 1877–1919. ERNOUT, A. Ernout, A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire de mots, MEILLET 2001 reprint after the 4th edition (1959) with additions and corrections from J. André, Paris 2001. IDR Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae, București-Paris. ILAlg II 3 H.- G. Plaum, X. Dupuis, Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie. II, 3. Inscriptions de la confédération cirtéenne, de Cuicul et de la tribu des Suburbures, Paris 2003. MIGNE, PL J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, XXXIII, Paris, 1865. OPEL I B. Lőrincz, F. Redő (ed.), Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum. Vol. I: ABA – BYSANVS, Budapest 1994. OPEL III B. Lőrincz, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum (OPEL). Vol. III: LABAREVS – PYTHEA, Wien 2000. RIB R. G. Colligwood, R. P. Wright, he Roman Inscriptions of Britain. I. Inscriptions on Stone, Oxford 1965. RIU 5 J. Fitz, U. Jákváry, G. Takács, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns (RIU). 5. Intercisa, Budapest 1991. Publications regarding the discussed subjects: ABDOU DAOUD 1998 D. Abdou Daoud, Evidence for the production of bronze in Alexandria. In: EMPEREUR 1998, 115–124. ALARCAO 2000 A. Alarcao, Museu Monográico de Conimbriga. Catalogue, Lisbon 2000. ALEXANDRESCU 2005 C.-G. Alexandrescu, Eine Siegerehrungsszene auf einem römerzeitlichen Grab bei Slokoshtitsa, Bez. Kjustendil. In: C. Mușețeanu, M. Bărbulescu, D. Benea (eds.), Corona laurea. Studii în onoarea Luciei Țeposu-Marinescu, București 2005, 13–29. ALFÖLDYÁ. Alföldy-Găzdac, Bronzuri romane din Dacia în colecţia Muzeului Naţional Maghiar GĂZDAC 2003 din Budapesta/Bronzes from Roman Dacia in the Collection of the Hungarian National Museum Budapest, EphNap 13, 2003, 149–185. ALFÖLDYÁ. Alföldy-Găzdac, Roman bronzes from Dacia in the Hungarian National Museum in GĂZDAC 2005 Budapest. In: C. Mușețeanu, M. Bărbulescu, D. Benea (eds.), Corona laurea. Studii în onoarea Luciei Țeposu-Marinescu, București 2005, 31–66. ALICU 2008 D. Alicu (coord.), Polus. Istorie pierdută – Istorie regăsită, Cluj-Napoca 2008. ALICU ET ALII 1979 D. Alicu, C. Pop, V. Wollmann, Figured Monuments from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, BAR. International Series 55, Oxford 1979. ALICU ET ALII 1994 D. Alicu, S. Cociș, C. Ilieș, A. Soroceanu, Small inds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa I, Sarmizegetusa Monograph 4, BMN 9, Cluj-Napoca 1994. ALLISON 1999 P. M. Allison, Labels for ladles: interpreting the material culture of Roman households. In: P. M. Allison (ed.), he archaeology of household activities, London 1999, 57–77. ALLASON-JONES, L. Allason-Jones, R. Miket, he catalogue of small inds from South Shields Roman fort, MIKET 1984 Monograph series (Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne) 2, Newcastle upon Tyne 1984. ALLISON 2006 P. M. Allison, he Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Volume III: he Finds, a contextual study, Oxford-New York 2006. ANDRIȚOIU 2006 I. Andriţoiu, Necropolele Miciei, Timișoara 2006. ANKNER 1993 D. Ankner, Röntgenluoreszenzanalytische Untersuchung an Teller und Platten. In: KÜNZL 1993, 447–456. ANTIQUE L. Petculescu (ed.), Antique Bronzes in Romania. Exhibition catalogue, Bucharest BRONZES 2003 2003. ARDEȚ 2003 L. C. Ardeț, Un fragment de caserolă din bronz descoperită la Tibiscum, Banatica 16/1, 2003, 305–308. ARDEȚ 2004a A. Ardeț, Bronze pieces recently discovered in Tibiscum. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 29–36. 206 ARDEȚ 2004b L. C. Ardeț, Figurative bronze pieces discovered at Tibiscum, Gaganae and Berzobis. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 37–41. ARDEȚ, ARDEȚ 2004 A. Ardeț, L. C. Ardeț, Tibiscum. Așezările romane, Cluj-Napoca 2004. ARDEVAN 2010 R. Ardevan, Soarta materialului arheologic roman de la Gherla. In: V. Rusu-Bolindeț, T. Sălăgean, R. Varga (eds.), Studia archaeologica et historica in honorem magistri Dorin Alicu, Cluj-Napoca 2010, 86–96. ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979 R. Ardevan, A. A. Rusu, Botár Imre și colecția sa de antichități, ActaMP 3, 1979, 387–409. ARDEVAN ET R. Ardevan, V. Suciu, D. Ciugudean, Tezaurul monetar roman „Apulum VII”, BMA ALII 2003 20, Alba Iulia 2003. R. G. Arns, B. E. Crawford, Resonant Cavities in the History of Architectural Acoustics, ARNS, CRAWFORD 1995 T&C 36/1, 1995, 104–135. AUBERT 1993 J. – J. Aubert, Workshop managers. In: W. V. Harris (ed.), he inscribed economy. Production and distribution in the Roman Empire in the light of instrumentum domesticum. he proceedings of a conference held at he American Academy in Rome on 10–11 January 1992, JRA supp. ser., 6, 1993, 171–181. AUGUSTONI, C. Augustoni, T. Anderson, „A Mercure Auguste pur un montant de trois deniers et ANDERSON 2001 demi”. Le graito sur la coupe en bronze de Châbles FR-Les Saux, JSGU 84, 2001, 177–182. AZNAR ET ALII 1990 M. Aznar, L. Gaztelu, C. Yllán (coord.), Los bronces romanos en España, Ministero de Cultura, Madrid 1990. BABELON, E. Babelon, J. – A. Blanchet, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque BLANCHET 1895 Nationale, Paris 1895. BAJUSZ 1980 I. Bajusz, Colecția de antichități a lui Téglás István din Turda, ActaMP IV, 1980, 367– 394, Pl. I-VII. BAJUSZ 2005 I. Bajusz (sz.), Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések, I/1–2, Sapientia Könyvek 42, Kolozsvár 2005. BANGHARD, K. Banghard, J. Gorecki, Bronzener Doppelhenkelkrug aus Dettenheim-Liedolsheim GORECKI 2007 (Lkr. Karlsruhe). Ein Beitrag zum spätrepublikanischen Metallgeschirr, SJ 54, 2004 (2007), 119–150. BÁNKI 1972 Zs. Bánki, Az Istváni Király Múzeum gyűjteménye. Római kori igurális bronz, ezüst és ólom tárgyak – La collection du Musée Roi Saint Étienne. Object romains igurés en bronze, argent et plomb, Bulletin du Musée Roi Saint Étienne – Az István Király Múzeum Közleményei B 30, Székesfehérvár 1972. BARATTE 1993 F. Baratte, Obsevations complémentaires à propos de deux objets en fer du trésor de Vienne, AKB 23, 1993, 223–229. BARATTE ET ALII 1984 Fr. Baratte, L. Bonamour, J.-P. Guillaumet, S. Tassinari, Vases antiques de métal au Musée de Chalon-sur-Saône, RAEC suppl. 5e, Dijon 1984. BARBARENSCHATZ Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer, Geraubt und im Rhein versunken. Der 2006 Barbarenschatz, 1. Aulage, Stuttgart 2006. BARTLOW HILLS 1842 ***, 1. A letter fron John Gage Rokewode, Esq., F.R.S., Director, to Hudson Gurney, Esq., F.R.S., Vice President, with an account of the inal excavations made at the Bartlow Hills, Archaeologia 29, 1842, 1–4, Pl. I. BATIGNE, C. Batigne, A. Desbat, Un type particulier de “cruche”: les bouilloires en céramique DESBAT 1996 d´époque romaine (Ier – IIIe siécles), Société Française d´Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, Actes du congrès de Dijon, 16–19 mai 1996, Marseille 1996, 381–393. BAUCHHENSS 2006 G. Bauchhenss, Aus Heiligtümer geraubt: Votive und Sakraleobjekte. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 151–155. BAYLEY 1990 J. Bayley, he Production of Brass in Antiquity with particular reference to Roman Britain. In: P. T. Craddock (ed.), 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 50, London 1990, 7–27. BAYLEY 1995 J. Bayley, Spoon and Vessel Moulds from Castleford, Yorkshire. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 105–111. 207 BAYLEY, BUDD 1998 J. Bayley, P. Budd, he clay moulds. In: H. E. M. Cool, C. Philo (eds.), Roman Castleford. Excavations 1974–85. Volume I. he Small Finds, Yorkshire Archaeology 4, Exeter 1998, 195–222. BAYLEY ET ALII 2002 J. Bayley, G. Campbell, M. Canti, D. Dungworth, Metalworking at Catterick. In: P. R. Wilson, Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958–1997, Part II, CBA Research Report 128, York 2002, 164–166. BĂLUŢĂ 1986 C. L. Băluţă, Monumente epigraice de la Apulum, Apulum 23, 1986, 119–146. BĂLUȚĂ 1989 C. L. Băluţă, Monumente sculpturale de la Apulum (Monuments de sculpture d’Apulum), Apulum 25, 1989, 251–268. BĂRBULESCU 1994 M. Bărbulesu, Potaissa. Studiu monograic, Dissertationes Mvsei Potaissensis I, Turda 1994. BĂRBULESCU 2004 M. Bărbulescu, Les bronzes antiques de Roumanie. Collections et recherches. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 49–55. BĂRBULESCU, M. Bărbulescu, M. Pîslaru, Ritualuri la înmormântare. In: M. Bărbulescu (coord.). PÎSLARU 2003 Funeraria Dacoromana. Arheologia funerară a Daciei romane, Cluj-Napoca 2003, 19–43. BEAGRIE 1989 N. Beagrie, he Romano-British Pewter Industry, Britannia 20, 1989, 169–191. BECK ET ALII 1985 F. Beck, M. Meniu, T. Berthoud, L.-C. Hurtel, Métallurgie des bronzes. In: J. Hours (coord.), Recherches gallo-romains I, Notes et documents des musées de France 9, Paris 1985, 69–139. BENDER 1992 S. Bender, Zum Buntmetallkessel des sogenannten Seuso-Schatzes, AKB 22, 1/1, 1992, 119–124. BENDER 2000 S. Bender, Paarbildung bei römischen Schalen mit lachem horizontalen Grif (‚Kasserollen’). In: KÖLN 2000, 469–483. BENDER ET ALII 2013 S. Bender, Z. Marković, R. Petrovszky, R. Stupperich, Neue Forschungen zu den Trau-Kasserollen. In: A. Zeeb-Lanz, R. Stupperich (Hrsg.), Palatinatus Illustrandus. Festschrift für Helmut Bernhard zum 65. Geburtstag, MENTOR 5, Wiesbaden 2013, 69–92. BENE ET ALII 2016 Zs. Bene, E. Istvánovits, V. Kulcsár, Some characteristic type of Roman imports in Sarmatian Barbaricum in the Carpathian Basin (caskets decorated with metal mounts, bronze vessels, mirrors). In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 743–760. BENEA 2008 D. Benea, Metalurgia și prelucrarea ierului în Dacia. In: D. Benea (coord.), Dacia în sistemul socio-economic roman. Cu privire la atelierele meșteșugărești locale, BHAUT 9, Timișoara 2008, 11–95. BENEA, HICA 2004 D. Benea, I. Hica, Damnatio memoriae în arhitectura romană târzie de la Dunărea de Jos, Timișoara 2004. BERG 2015 R. Berg, Bathing the inirm: water basins in Roman iconography and household contexts. In: Ch. Krötzl, K. Mustakallio, J. Kuuliala (eds.), Inirmity in Antiquity and Middle Ages. Social and cultural approaches to health, weakness and care, Farnham 2015, 201–221. BERKE 1990 S. Berke, Römische Bronzegefässe und Terra Sigillata in der Germania Libera, Münster 1990. H. Bernhard, R. Petrovszky, Die Bronzegefässe. In: BERNHARD ET ALII 1990, BERNHARD, 34–40. PETROVSZKY 1990a BERNHARD, H. Bernhard, R. Petrovszky, Überlegungen zur Datierung, Herkunft und PETROVSZKY 1990b Zusammensetzung des Hortfundes. In: BERNHARD ET ALII 1990, 44-46. BERNHARD H. Bernhard, H. – J. Engels, R. Engels, R. Petrovszky (Hrsg.), Der römische Schatzfund ET ALII 1990 von Hagenbach, Mainz, 1990. BESSAC 2004 J. – C. Bessac, Le tournage antique d’éléments arhitecturaux. In: M. Feugère, J.-C. Gérold (dir.), Le tournage, des origines à l’an Mil. Actes du colloque de Niederbronn, octobre 2003, Monographies Instrumentum 27, Montagnac 2004, 187–200. BEVAN 1999 L. Bevan, Ecstatic celebrants: Bacchic metalwork from the Roman Midlands, Transactions 38, 1996–1997 (1999), 6–11. 208 BIANCHI 1974 BIANCHI 1985 BIDWELL 1980 BIENERT 2007 BISHOP 1996 BISHOP, COULSTON 1993 BÖCKING ET ALII 2004 BODOR 1986 BODOR 1988 BOLLA 1979 BOLLA 1986 BOLLA 1989 BOLLA 1991 BOLLA 1994 BOLLA ET ALII 1986 BOLLA ET ALII 1991 BOLLINGBERG, LUND HANSEN 1993 BONDOC 2000 BONDOC, DINCĂ 2003 BONDOC, GUDEA 2009 BÓNIS 1968 BÓNIS 1978 BÓNIS 1981 BÓNIS 1982 BÓNIS 1983 BONNAMOUR 1977 L. Bianchi, I rilievi funerari con banchetto della Dacia romana, Apulum 12, 1974, 159–181. L. Bianchi, Le stele funerarie della Dacia. Un’esspressione di arte romana periferica, Roma 1985. P. T. Bidwell, Roman Exeter: Fortress and Town, Exeter 1980. B. Bienert, Die römischen Bronzegefäße im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier, Trierer Zeitschrift 31, Trier 2007. M. Bishop, Finds from Roman Aldborough. A catalogue of small inds from the RomanoBritish town of Isurium Brigantum, Oxbow Monograph No. 65, Oxford 1996. M. C. Bishop, J. C. N. Coulston, Roman military equipment from the Punic Wars to the fall of Rome, London 1993. H. Böcking, J.-C. Gérold, R. Petrovszky, Drehen und Drücken. Zu Herstellungstechniken römischer Metallgefässe. In: M. Feugère, J.-C. Gérold (dir.), Le tournage, des origines à l’an Mil. Actes du colloque de Niederbronn, octobre 2003, Monographies Instrumentum 27, Montagnac 2004, 211–220. A. Bodor, Contribuţii la istoria orașului Napoca și a monumentelor sale sculpturale în piatră I, ActaMN 22–23, 1985–1986, 185–200. A. Bodor, Contribuţii la istoria orașului Napoca pe baza monumentelor sale sculpturale în piatră II, ActaMN 24–25, 1987–1988, 193–221. M. Bolla, Recipienti in bronzo d’età romana in Lombardia. 1. Brocca rinvenuta a Carobbio degli Angeli, RAComo 161, 1979, 23–50, ig. 1, tav. I-V. M. Bolla, 1. Casseruola, attingitoio e situla da Viadana. In: BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 195–209. M. Bolla, „Blechkannen”: Aggiornamennti, RASMI 53–54, 1989, 95–118, Tav. XLVI-LIX. M. Bolla, Le situle “a corpo ovoide”. In: M. Bolla, Ch. Boube, J. -P. Guillaimet, Les Situles. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 11–18. M. Bolla, Vasellame romano in bronzo nelle Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche di Milano, RASMI Suppl. 11, 1994, 1–123, tav. I-XCVIII. M. Bolla, M. Castoldi, L. Terenziani, Recipienti in bronzo d’età romana in Lombardia, Scritti in ricordo di Graziella Massari Gaballo e Umberto Tocchetti Pollini, Milano 1986. M. Bolla, Ch. Boube, J. – P. Guillaumet, Les situles. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 7–22. H. J. Bollingberg, U. Lund Hansen, Spurenelementvergleich zwischen einigen Westlandund Östlandkesseln aus Neupotz, Deutschland und Skandinavien. In: KÜNZL 1993, 457–469. D. Bondoc, Bronzuri igurate romane. Muzeul Olteniei Craiova I, Craiova 2000. D. Bondoc, D. R. Dincă, Bronzuri igurate romane. Muzeul Romanaţului Caracal (Bronzuri igurate romane de la Romula)/Roman igurines of bronze. he Museum from Caracal (Roman igurines of bronze from Romula), Craiova 2003. D. Bondoc, N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Răcari. Încercare de monograie (he Roman Auxiliary Fort from Răcari. An Attempt of Monograph), Interferenţe etnice şi culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr. 14, Cluj-Napoca 2009. É. Bónis, Emaillierte Palästra-Geräte aus Brigetio, FA 19, 1968, 25–58. É. Bónis, Rekonstruktionsversuche aus dem Fundinventar der römerzeitlichen Bestattungswagens von Szomor-Somodorpuszta, FA 29, 1978, 103–124. É. Bónis, Das kaiserzeitliche „Wagengrab” 1 von Káloz, FA 32, 1981, 95–144. É. Bónis, Das kaiserzeitliche „Wagengrab” nr. 3 von Környe, FA 33, 1982, 117–161. É. Bónis, Der kaiserzeitliche Bronzefund von Zomba, FA 34, 1983, 93–122. L. Bonnamour, Vases en bronze d’époque romaine trouvés dans la Saône. In: LYON 1977, 19–29, ig. 1–4. 209 BONNAMOUR 2000 L. Bonnamour, Archéologie de la Saône. 150 ans de recherches. Le leuve gardien de la mémoire, Paris 2000. BONNET ET ALII 1989 J. Bonnet, Ph. De Carbonnières, L. Faudin, P. Forni, G. Garriga, N. Morand-Van Haecke, Ph. Velay, Les bronzes antiques de Paris, Musée Carnavalet, Paris 1989. BOUCHER 1971 S. Boucher, Vienne. Bronzes antiques, Inventaire des Collections Publiques Françaises 17, Paris 1971. BOUCHER, S. Boucher, H. Oggiano-Bitar, Le tresor des bronzes de Bavay, Revue de Nord. Hors OGGIANO-BITAR 1993 Série, Collections archéologie 3, Lille 1993. BOUCHER, S. Boucher, S. Tassinari, Bronzes antiques du Musée de la civilization gallo-romaine à TASSINARI 1976 Lyon I. Inscriptions, statuaire, vaisselle, Lyon 1976. BOUCHER 2010 h. Boucher, Attaches de suspension de bassin de type Argentomagus, Instrumentum 31, 2010, 20–23. BOŽIČ 2002 D. Božič, Il vasellame bronzeo romano: grandi bacili e piccoli mestoli-colini. In: UDINE 2002, 419–428. BOZU 2001 O. Bozu, Obiecte din bronz descoperite în așezarea romană de la Mehadia, județul Caraș-Severin. (II), AnB 9, 2001, 147–163. BOZU 2008 O. Bozu, Catalogul pieselor romane și daco-romane din Colecția Muzeului Banatului Montan/Catalogue of the Roman and Dacian-Roman Age Collection of the Mountainous Banat Museum, Reșița 2008. BRAUN 2001 C. Braun, Römische Bronzebalsamarien mit Reliefdekor, BAR International Series 917, 2001. BRAVAR 2002 G. Bravar, Bronzi romani dei Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste. In: G. Cuscito, M. Verzár-Bass (a cura di), Bronzi di età romana in Cisalpina. Novità e riletture, Antichità Altoadriatiche 51, Trieste 2002, 481–509. BREŠČAK 1982 D. Breščak, Antično bronasto posodje Slovenije (Roman bronze vessels in Slovenia), Situla 22/1, 1982, 1–59, T. 1–27. BRIDGER 1993 C. Bridger, Die Metallgefäße. In: H.-J. Schalles, Ch. Schreiter (Hrsg.), Geschichte aus dem Kies. Neue Funde aus dem Alten Rhein bei Xanten, Publikation zur Ausstellung im Regionalmuseum Xanten vom 6. Juni bis 31. Oktober 1993, Köln 1993, 65–81. BRONZES ANTIQUES ***, Bronzes antiques découverts à Besançon, Musée des Beaux-Arts et d´Archéologie BESANÇON 1981 de Besançon, Collections du Musée I, Besançon 1981. BRONZES ROMAINS Musée Catonal d´Archéologie et d´Histoire (ed.), Bronzes romains de Suisse, Lausanne LAUSANNE 1978 1978. BUCOVALĂ 1968 M. Bucovală, Noi morminte de epocă romană timpurie de la Tomis (Nouvelles tombes du début de l’epoque romaine a Tomi), Pontica 1, 1968, 269–306. BUCOVALĂ 1972 M. Bucovală, Vase romane de bronz descoperite la Dervent, jud. Constanţa (Vases romains en bronze trouvés à Dervent; Römische Bronzegefässe in Dervent, Kreis Constanţa), Pontica 5, 1972, 117–136. BUDAY 1909 Á. Buday, Porolissumból, EM 26, 1909, 26–35. BUDAY 1914 Á. Buday, Porolissumból/De Porolissum, DolgENM 5, 1914, 67–86. BUJARD 2005 J. Bujard, Les objets métallique d´Umm Al-Walid (Jordanie). In: ***, La vaisselle de bronze paléobyzantine. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 14–15 novembre 2003, AnTard 13, 2005, 135–140. BURKHALTER 1998 F. Burkhalter, La production des objets en métal (or, argent, bronze) en Égypte hellénistique et romaine à travers les sources papyrologiques. In: EMPEREUR 1998, 125–133. CAHENA. Cahen-Delhaye, Une buire romaine en bronze découverte à Saint-Mard, Helinivm DELHAYE 1970 10, 1970, 120–135. CARANDINI 1977 A. Carandini, Alcune forme bronze conservate a Pompei e nel Museo Nazionale di Napoli. In: M. Annecchino, A. M. Bisi Ingrassia, A. Carandini, G. Cerulli Irelli, M. Fano, D. Manacorda, C. Panella, C. Pavolini, E. Pozzi Paolini, G. Pucci, N. Valenza Mele, L´instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei nella prima età imperiale, Quaderni di Cultura Materiale 1, Roma 1977, 163–168, tav. LXXVI-LXXXVII. 210 CASSANI 2002 G. Cassani, Blechkannen dall´Italia Nordorientale. In: CUSCITO, VERZÁR-BASS 2002, 511–524. CASTOLDI 1979 M. Castoldi, Recipienti in bronzo d’età romana in Lombardia. 2. La coppa ageminata di Muralto, RAComo 161, 1979, 57–65, ig. 2, tav. VI-VIII. CASTOLDI 1986 M. Castoldi, 2. Il secchiello di Via Lanzone, Milano. In: BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 209–214. CASTOLDI 1991 M. Castoldi, Origini e oicine del vasellame in bronzo tardorepubblicano. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 139–142. CASTOLDI 1994 M. Castoldi, Recipienti in bronzo d´età Romana provenienti da Milano. In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART)1994, 117–127. CASTOLDI 2002 M. Castoldi, I recipienti in bronzo in Italia Settentrionale tra III e V secolo d. C.. In: CUSCITO, VERZÁR-BASS 2002, 289–308. CASTOLDI 2004 M. Castoldi, Recipienti in bronzo dal territorio dell’antica Brixia tra età tardorepubblicana ed età augustea. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 85–95. CASTOLDI, M. Castoldi, A. Storti, Bottigle in bronzo tardoromane da Milano: analisi chimice, STORTI 1992 metallograiche e radiograiche. In: E. Antonacci Sanpaolo (a cura di), Archeometallurgia: ricerche e prospettive. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Archeometallurgia, BolognaDozza Imolese, 18–21 ottobre 1988, Bologna 1992, 347–361. CAVALIER 1988 O. Cavalier, Le tresor d´Apt. Un ensemble de vaisselle métallique gallo-romaine, Fondation du Musée Calvet, Avignon 1988. CĂTINAȘ 2011 A. Cătinaș, Représentations de la scène du festin funéraire sur les monuments de Potaissa. In: I. Piso, V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, R. Varga, S. Mustaţă, E. Beu-Dachin, L. Ruscu (eds.), Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan sexagenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca 2011, 89–98. CHARDRONP. Chardron-Picault, La fabrication du laiton à Autun, durant la période romaine: prePICAULT 1997–1998 mières recherches, Société Éduenne 56/2, 1997–1998, 171–181. CHAUDRONP. Chaudron-Picault, L’artisanat des alliages à base de cuivre de Vertault-Vertillum PICAULT 2005 (Côte-d’Or), RAE 176, 2005, 135–147. P. Chardron-Picault, M. Pernot, Un quartier antique d´artisanat métallurgique à Autun. CHARDRONLe site du Lycée militaire, Documents d´archéologie française 76, Série Archéologie PICAULT, préventive, Paris 1999. PERNOT 1999 CHIRILĂ ET ALII 1972 E. Chirilă, N. Gudea, V. Lucăcel, C. Pop, Das Römerlager von Buciumi. Beiträge zur Untersuchung des Limes der Dacia Porolissensis, Cluj 1972. CHRISTENSEN 2005 A. E. Christensen, he basin from Østby in Østford, a note on the manufacturing process. In: H. – J. Häßler (Hrsg.), Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur nordwesteuropäischen Frühgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der altsächsischen Kultur im heutigen Niedersachsen, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 15, Oldenburg 2005, 485–486. CIMA DI PUOLO 1990 M. Cima Di Puolo, Roma tra repubblica e imperio: la difusione del lusso. In: PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 39–49. CIONGRADI 2006 C. Ciongradi, Ein neuen Altar für Silvanus aus Dacia Porolissensis. Studien über die arae in Dakien, ZPE 157, 2006, 213–224. CIONGRADI 2007 C. Ciongradi, Grabmonument und sozialer Status in Oberdakien, BMN 26, ClujNapoca 2007. CIUGUDEAN 2003 D. Ciugudean, Vasul de bronz. In: ARDEVAN ET ALII 2003, 11–19, 161–166, Fig. 4–9. CIUGUDEAN, H. Ciugudean, C. L. Băluţă, Epigrafe de la Apulum, Apulum 26, 1990, 207–212. BĂLUŢĂ 1990 CIVILTÀ 1970 ***, Civiltà romana in Romania, Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, via Nazionale, febbraio – aprile 1970, Roma 1970. CLOSE-BROOKS 1980 J. Close-Brooks, A Roman iron lask from Newstead, PSAS 109, 1977–1978 (1980), 372–374. COARELLI 1961 F. Coarelli, Nuovi elementi per la cronologia di Bergam: cinque recipienti bronzei in forma di busto, ArchClass 13, 1961, 168–179, tav. LXXV-LXXVI. 211 COCIȘ 2007 COCIȘ ET ALII 1995 COCIȘ ET ALII 1996 COCIȘ ET ALII 1997 COCIȘ ET ALII 1998 COCIȘ ET ALII 1999 COCIȘ ET ALII 2002 COCIȘ ET ALII 2009 COMSTOCK, VERMEULE 1971 COOL 2002 COOL 2006 COOLEY, COOLEY 2004 COSTEA 1995 COSTEA 2004 CRADDOCK 1977 S. Cociș, Un nou atelier de ibule din Dacia Porolissensis/A new workshop of brooches from Dacia Porolissensis. In: S. Nemeti, F. Fodorean, E. Nemeth, S. Cociș, I. Nemeti, M. Pîslaru (eds.), Dacia Felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata, Cluj-Napoca 2007, 402–413. S. Cociș, V. Voișian, A. Paki, M. Rotea, Raport preliminar privind cercetările arheologice din strada Victor Deleu în Cluj-Napoca I. Campaniile 1992–1994, ActaMN 32/I, 1995, 635–652. S. Cociș, A. Paki, V. Voișian, Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj. Strada Victor Deleu. In: CCA. Campania 1995. A XXX-a Sesiune Națională de rapoarte arheologice, Brăila, 2–5 mai 1996, București 1996, 35–36. S. Cociș, V. Voișian, A. Paki, Zs. Molnár, Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj. Str. V. Deleu. In: CCA. Campania 1996. A XXXI-a Sesiune Națională de rapoarte arheologice, București, 12–15 iunie 1997, București 1997, 14. S. Cociș, V. Voișian, A. Paki, Cluj-Napoca, str. V. Deleu. In: CCA. Campania 1997. A XXXII-a Sesiune Națională de rapoarte naționale arheologice, Călărași, 20–24 mai 1997, București 1998, 17. S. Cociș, Zs. Molnár, A. Paki, V. Voișian, Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj. In: CCA. Campania 1998. A XXXIII-a Sesiune Națională de rapoarte arheologice, Vaslui, 30 iunie–4 iulie 1999, București 1999, 31. S. Cociș, I. Nemeti, V. Voișian, F. Fodorean, Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj. Strada Victor Deleu. In: CCA. Campania 2001. A XXXVI-a Sesiune Națională de rapoarte arheologice, Buziaș, 28 mai–1 iunie 2002, București 2002, 107. S. Cociș, D. Tamba, R. Zăgreanu, Piese sculpturale din castrul roman de la Sutoru, RB 23, 2009, 53–67. M. Comstock, C. Vermeule, Greek, Etruscan & Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston 1971. H. E. M. Cool, Craft and industry in Roman York. In: P. Wilson, J. Price (eds.), Aspects of industry in Roman Yorkshire and the North, Oxford 2002, 1–11. H. E. M. Cool, Eating and drinking in Roman Britain, Cambridge 2006. A. E. Cooley, M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii. A Sourcebook, London 2004. F. Costea, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Brașov, Cumidava 15–19, 1995. F. Costea, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Brașov, Brașov 2004. P. T. Craddock, he Composition of the Copper Alloys used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilisations 2. he Archaic, Classic and Hellenistic Greeks, JAS 4/1, 1977, 103–123. CRADDOCK 1978 P. T. Craddock, he Composition of the Copper Alloys used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilisations 3. he Origins and early use of Brass, JAS 5/1, 1978, 1–16. CRADDOCK 1990 P. T. Craddock, Zinc in Classical Antiquity. In: P. T. Craddock (ed.), 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 50, London 1990, 1–6. CRADDOCK P. T. Craddock, A. M. Burnett, K. Preston, Hellenistic Copper-Base Coinage and ET ALII 1980 the Origins of Brass In: W. A: Oddy (ed.), Scientiic Studies in Numismatics, British Museum Occasional Papers no. 18, London 1980, 53–64. CROCE DA P. Croce da Villa, Bronzi di recente rinvenimento da Iulia Concordia e dal suo territorio. VILLA 2002 In: CUSCITO, VERZÁR-BASS 2002, 179–189. CRUMMY 1995 N. Crummy, he Roman small inds from excavations in Colchester 1971–9, Colchester Archaeological Report 2, 2nd edition, Colchester 1995. CSIR DEUTSCHLAND G. Bauchhenss, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Deutschland II/3. II/3 Denkmäler des Iuppiterkultes aus Mainz und Umgebung, Mainz 1984. CSIR DEUTSCHLAND H. G. Frenz, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Deutschland II/4. II/4 Denkmäler römischen Götterkultes aus Mainz und Umgebung, Mainz 1992. CSIR DEUTSCHLAND W. Boppert, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Deutschland II/10. II/10 Römische Steindenkmäler aus Worms und Umgebung, Mainz 1998. 212 CSIR DEUTSCHLAND M. Mattern, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Deutschland II/12. II/12 Römische Steindenkmäler vom Taunusß und Wetteraulimes mit Hinterland zwischen Heftrich und Grosskrotzenburg, Mainz 2001. CSIR DEUTSCHLAND M. Mattern, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Deutschland II/13. II/13 Römische Steindenkmäler aus Hessen südlich des Mains sowie vom bayerischen Teil des Mainlimes, Mainz 2005. CSIR GREAT E. J. Phillips, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain I/1. BRITAIN I/1 Corbridge Hadrian’s Wall East of the North Tyne, Oxford 1977. CSIR GREAT B. W. Cunlife, M. G. Fulford, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great BRITAIN I/2 Britain I/2. Bath and the rest of Wessex, Oxford 1982. S. Rinaldi Tui, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain I/3. CSIR GREAT BRITAIN I/3 Yorkshire, Oxford 1983. CSIR GREAT L. J. F. Keppie, B. J. Arnold, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great BRITAIN I/4 Britain I/4. Scotland, Oxford 1984. CSIR GREAT R. J. Brewer, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain I/5. Wales, BRITAIN I/5 Oxford 1986. CSIR GREAT J. C. Coulston, E. J. Phillips, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great BRITAIN I/6 Britain I/6. Hadrian’s Wall West of the North Tyne, and Carlisle, Oxford 1988. CSIR GREAT J. Huskinson, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain I/8. Roman BRITAIN I/8 Sculpture from Eastern England, Oxford 1994. CSIR GREAT M. Henig, CSIR. Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain I/9. Roman BRITAIN I/9 Sculpture from the North West Midlands, Oxford 2004. CSIR ÖSTERREICH I/3 M. – L. Krüger, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Österreich I/3. Die igürlichen Reliefs: Teil I. Die Reliefs des Stadtsgebietes von Carnuntum, Wien 1970. CSIR ÖSTERREICH I/4 M. – L. Krüger, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Österreich I/4. Die Reliefs des Stadtsgebietes von Carnuntum. II. Teil: Die dekorativen Reliefs (militärische Ausrüstungsgegenstände, tierische oder vegetabile Ornamente), Wien 1972. CSIR ÖSTERREICH G. Piccottini, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Die Dienerinnen- und II/3 Dienerreliefs des Stadtsgebietes von Virunum, Wien 1977. CSIR UNGARN VIII Ch. Ertel, S. Palágyi, F. Redó, CSIR. Corpus der Skulpturen der römischen Welt. Ungarn VIII. Die Skulpturen des Stadtgebietes von Salla und Mogetiana sowie des Balaton(Palattensee-) Oberlandes in der Komitaten Zala und Veszprém, Budapest 1999. CUNLIFFE 1984 B. Cunlife, Roman Bath discovered, Over Wallop 1984. CURLE 1911 J. Curle, A Roman frontier post and its people. he fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose, Glasgow 1911. CUSCITO, VERZÁRG. Cuscito, M. Verzár-Bass (a cura di), Bronzi di età romana in Cisalpina. Novità e BASS 2002 riletture, Antichità Altoadriatiche 51, Trieste 2002. DAHLIN Ǻ. Dahlin Hauken, he Westland cauldrons in Norway, Stavanger 2005. HAUKEN 2005 DAICOVICIU 1940 C. Daicoviciu, Neue Mitteilungen aus Dazien. Funde und Einzeluntersuschungen, Dacia 7–8, 1937–1940, 299–336. DAICOVICIU 1969 C. Daicoviciu (Hrsg.), Römer in Rumänien. Ausstellung des Römisch-Germanischen Museums Köln und des Historischen Museums Cluj, Köln 1969. DAICOVICIU 1970 H. Daicoviciu (ed.), Civiltá Romana in Romania. Pallazzo delle Esposizioni, via Nationala, febraio-aprile 1970. Catalogo della mostra, Roma 1970. DARMON 1994 J. – P. Darmon, Recueil général des mosaïques de la Gaule II. Province de Lyonnaise 5. Partie nord-ouest, Gallia suppl. Xe, Paris 1994. DE DECKER, D. De Decker, K. Szabó, L´utilisation de l´antimoine comme alliage dans les bronzes SZABÓ 2000 antiques procède-t-elle d´une intention délibérée? In: A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.), Ancient Metallurgy between Oriental Alps and Pannonian Plain, Worshop – Trieste, 29–30 October 1998, Trieste 2000, 165–169. 213 K. De Decker-Szabó, D. Decrouez, K. Ramseyer, Vases commes symboles. Représentations igées sur les monuments en pierre. In: V. Gaggadis-Robin, A. Hermary, M. Reddé, C. Sintes (éds.), Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux: techniques, styles et iconographie, Actes du Xe Colloque International sur l’Art Provincial Romain, Arles et Aix-en-Provence, 21–23 mai 2007, Arles 2009. DEHN 1964 W. Dehn, Zu den Lenzburger Kannen, Germania 42, 1964, 73–76, Taf. 10–11. DEIMEL 1987 M. Deimel, Die Bronzekleinfunde vom Magdalensberg, Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 9, Klagenfurt 1987. DELLI PONTI 1973 G. Delli Ponti, I bronzi del Museo Provinciale di Lecce, Lecce 1973. DEN BOESTERD 1956 M. H. P. den Boesterd, he Bronze Vessels in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen, Description of the Collections in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen V, Leiden 1956. DEN BOESTERD, M. H. P. den Boesterd, E. Hoekstra, Spectrochemical Analyses of the Bronze Vessels in HOEKSTRA 1966 the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen, OMRO 46, 1966, 100–127. DEONNA 1933 W. Deonna, Quelques monuments antiques du Musée de Genève. III. Vaisselle et instruments antiques provenant de Martigny (Valais), Genava 11, 1933, 51–73. DESCHLER-ERB 1996 E. Deschler-Erb (mit Beiträgen von A. Kaufmann-Heinimann), Die Kleinfunde aus Edelmetall, Bronze und Blei. In: E. Deschler-Erb (Hrsg.), Die Funde aus Metall. Ein Schrank mit Lararium des 3. Jahrhunderts, Ausgrabungen im Unteren Bühl. Beiträge zum römischen Oberwinterthur-Vitudurum 7, Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 27, Zürich – Egg 1996, 13–139. DIACONESCU 2013 Al. Diaconescu, „Clasicismul” în plastica minoră din Dacia romană, BMN XLIII, Cluj-Napoca 2013. DIACONESCU, Al. Diaconescu, C. Opreanu, Bronzuri romane din castrul de la Gilău, SCIVA 38/1, OPREANU 1987 1987, 52–71. DOPPELFELD 1967 O. Doppelfeld (Hrsg.), Römer am Rhein. Ausstellung der Römisch-Germanischen Museums Köln. Kunsthalle Köln. 15. April bis 30. Juli 1967, Köln 1967. DRACK 1955 W. Drack, Eine keltische Schnabelkanne vom „Lenzburger Typus” aus Naix-aux-Forges (Meuse), Germania 33, 1955, 243–244. DRESCHER 1959 H. Drescher, Untersuchungen zur römischen Löttechnik, TBA I, Mainz 1959, 65–77, Taf. 13–17. DRESCHER 1963 H. Drescher, Nachbesserungen und Reparaturen an keltischem und römischem Metallgeschirr. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der kurzen oder langen Umlaufzeit, NNU 32, 1963, 41–53. DROBERJAR 1998 E. Droberjar, L´Italia Settentrionale e l´imperio di Marobuduo. Testimonianze sulle reciproche relazioni in base al vasellame bronzeo e alle ibule, QFA 8, 1998, 31–48. DROBERJAR 1999 E. Droberjar, Dobřichov-Pičora. Ein Brandgräberfeld der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen (Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Marbod-Reichs), Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 23, Pragae 1999. DUBOS 1989 J. Dubos, Le travail du bronze à l’époque romaine. In: BONNET ET ALII 1989, 431–434. DUNBABIN 1993 K. M. D. Dunbabin, Wine and Water at the Roman Convivium, JRA 6, 1993, 116–141. DUNBABIN 1999 K. M. D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge 1999. DUNBABIN 2003 K. M. D. Dunbabin, he Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality, Cambridge 2003. DUNCAN-JONES 1982 R. Duncan-Jones, he economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative studies, 2nd edition, Cambridge – London – New York – New Rochelle – Melbourne – Sydney 1982. DUNGWORTH 1997 D. Dungworth, Roman Copper Alloys: Analysis of Artefacts from Northen Britain, JAS 24, 1997, 901–910. DUVAUCHELLE 2005 A. Duvauchelle, Les outils en fer du Musée Romain d’Avenches, Documents du Musée Romain d’Avenches 11, Avenches 2005. EDGAR 1903 C. C. Edgar, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Greek moulds, Cairo 1903. DE DECKER-SZABÓ ET ALII 2009 214 EGGERS 1951 EGGERS 1968 EIDEN 1995 EKHOLM 1934 EKHOLM 1935 EMPEREUR 1998 ENGELS 1991 ERDRICH 1995 ERICE LACABE 2006 ERICE LACABE 2007 ÉSPERANDIEU, ROLLAND 1959 ÉTIENNE ET ALII 2002-2003 EUZENNAT 1957 FAIDERFEYTMANS 1979 FERRIS ET ALII 2000 FEUGÈRE 1984–1985 FEUGÈRE 1991a FEUGÈRE 1991b FEUGÈRE 1994 FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991 FIRMANI 1985 FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973 FLORESCU 1930 FLORESCU, MICLE 1979 FLÜGEL 1993 FLÜGEL 1994 FLÜGEL 1998 H. J. Eggers, Die römische Import im freien Germanien. Atlas der Urgeschhichte, I-II, Hamburg 1951. H. J. Eggers, Römische Bronzegefässe in Britannien, JRGZM 13, 1966 (1968), 67–164. L. Eiden, Neue Aspekte zur Herstellungstechnik von etruskischen Schnabelkannen am Beispiel der Pellinger Schnabelkanne, TZ 58, 1995, 143–160. G. Ekholm, Om romarnes handel på Nordeuropa (Über die römischen Hadelsbeziehungen mit Nordeuropa), Fornvännen, 1934, 349–365. G. Ekholm, Gallisk-skandinaviska förbindelser under äldre kejsartid (Relations GalloScandinaves au temps du Haut Empire), Fornvännen, 1935, 193–205. J. – Y. Empereur (ed.), Commerce et artisanat dans l´Alexandrie hellénistique et romain. Actes du Colloque d´Athènes organisé par le CNRS, le Laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon et L´École française d´Athénes, 11–12 décembre 1988, BCH suppl. 33, 1998. R. Engels, Zur Herkunft der Votivbleche auf Grund der Namen. In: BERNHARD ET ALII 1990, 14–19. M. Erdrich, Zur Herstellung von Hemmoorer Eimer: In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 33–38. R. Erice Lacabe, La sítula de Caesaraugusta-Zaragoza y los apliques tipo III de Delgado, AEspA 79, 2006, 271–280. R. Erice Lacabe, La vajilla de bronce en Hispania, Sautuola XIII, 2007, 197–215. E. Ésperandieu, H. Rolland, Bronzes antiques de la Seine-Maritime, Gallia, suppl. 13, Paris 1959. R. Étienne, I. Piso, Al. Diaconescu, Les fouilles de Forum Vetus de Sarmizegetusa. Rapport general, ActaMN 39–40/1, 2002–2003, 59–154. M. Euzennat, Volubilis: vase plastique en bronze. In: G. Souville, Volubilis: le collecteur principal du decumanus maximus, BAM 2, 175–195, Pl. I-X. G. Faider-Feymans, Les bronzes romains de Belgique I, Mainz am Rhein 1979. I. M. Ferris, L. Bevan, R. Cuttler, he Excavation of a Romano-British Shrine at Orton´s Pasture, Rocester, Stafordshire, BAR British Series 314, 2000. M. Feugère, Le trésor de Chalain-d´Uzore (Loire), CAL 4–5, 1984–1985, 35–70. M. Feugère, Les amphores. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 47–52. M. Feugère, Autres formes. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 121–130. M. Feugère, La vaisselle gallo-romaine en bronze de Vertault (Côte-d’Or), RAE 45/1, 1994, 137–168. M. Feugère, C. Rolley (eds.), La vaissele tardo-républicaine en bronze, Actes de la tableronde CNSR organisée à Lattes du 26 au 28 avril 1990 par l’UPR 290 (Lattes) et le GDR 125 (Dijon), Centre de recherches sur les techniques gréco-romaines 13, Dijon 1991. M. A. S. Firmani, “Instrumentum domesticum” bronzeo nel Museo Cenedese a Vittorio Veneto, AN 56, 1985, 314–335. O. Floca, W. Wolski, Aedicula funerară în Dacia romană, BMI 42/3, 1973, 52–80. Gr. Florescu, I monumenti funerari romani della „Dacia Superior”, EphDac, 1930, 72–148. R. Florescu, I. Micle, Tezaure transilvane la Kunsthistorisches Museum din Viena, București 1979. Ch. Flügel, Die Bronzegefässe von Kemptem-Cambodunum, Cambodunumforschungen V, Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte 63, Kallmünz 1993, 53–114, Taf. 24–35. Ch. Flügel, Römische Bronzegefässe aus Arae Flaviae – Rottweil, FBW 19/1, 1994, 207–218. Ch. Flügel, Römische Reparaturen einer Bronzekanne aus dem Landkreis Neu-Ulm, BVBl 63, 1998, 315–316, Taf. 17. 215 FLÜGEL 2000 Ch. Flügel, Bronze- und Edelmetallverarbeitung. In: L. Wamser, Ch. Flügel, B. Ziegaus (Hrsg.), Die Römer zwischen Alpen und Nordmeer. Zivilisatorische Erbe einer europäischen Militärmacht, Mainz am Rhein 2000, 124–128. FLÜGEL, Ch. Flügel, C. – M. Hüssen, Römische Bronzegefäße aus der Donauaue bei Großmehring HÜSSEN 1996 Lkr. Eichstätt, SHVI 105, 1996, 9–15. FODOREAN 2010 F. Fodorean, Drumurile din Dacia romană, Publicațiile Institutului de Studii Clasice 7, Cluj-Napoca 2006. FOLGOLARI, G. Fogolari, G. Gambacurta (a cura di), Materiali veneti preromani e romani del sanGAMBACURTA 2001 tuario di Lagole di Calalzo al Museo di Pieve di Cadore, Roma 2001. FRANKEN 1998 N. Franken, Römische und spätantike Bronzen im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn, BJ 198, 1998, 49–99. FRERE 1972 Sh. Frere, Verulamium Excavations I, Reports of the Research Committe of the Society of Antiquaries of London 28, Oxford 1972. FROVA 1963 A. Frova, Vasi bronzei romani decorati, AL 8, 1963, 33–43. FÜLEP 1949 F. Fülep, Rómaikori kocsitemetkezés Vajtán, AÉrt 76/1–2, 1949, 40–51. FURGER 1997 A. Furger, Zwei Werkzeuge aus der Augster Insula 30 und ihre Rekonstruction. In: J. Tauber (Hrsg.), „Keine Kopie an Niemand!“. Festschrift für Jürg Ewald zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag, Archäologie und Museum 39, Liestal 1997, 31–37. FURGER 1998 A. Furger, Die Bronzewerkstätten in der Augster Insula 30, JAK 19, 1998, 121–140. A. R. Furger, J. Riederer, Aes und aurichalcum. Empirische Beurteilungskriterien für FURGER, RIEDERER 1995 Kupferlegierungen und metalanalytische Untersuchungen an Halbfabrikaten und Abfällen aus metalverarbeitenden Werksätten in Augusta Raurica, JAK 16, 1995, 115–180. GABLER 2011 D. Gabler, Utak Pannonia és Dácia között a „barbaricumon” át, DolgENM ÚS 3–5/13–15, 2008–2010 (2011), 43–54. GABLER 2016 D. Gabler, Verkehrsverbindungen zwischen Pannonien und dem „Barbaricum” im Spiegel römischer Funde. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 911–924. GAITZSCH 1980 W. Gaitzsch, Eiserne römische Werkzeuge. Studien zur römischen Werkzeugkunde in Italien und den nördlichen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum, BAR International Series 78 (i-ii), 1980. GAITZSCH 1985 W. Gaitzsch, Werkzeuge und Geräte in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Ein Übersicht, ANRW II/12.3, 1985, 170–204. GAIU 2005 C. Gaiu, Un depozit de antichități romane de la Orheiu Bistriței, Marmatia 8/1, 2005, 215–225. GAIU 2006 C. Gaiu, Ilișua – castrul traianic. In: E. S. Teodor, O. Țentea (eds.), Dacia Avgvsti Provincia. Crearea provinciei, Actele simpozionului desfășurat în 13–14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Național de Istorie a României, București, Publicațiile Centrului de Studii Militare Romane 1, București 2006. GALLIAZO 1979 V. Galliazo, Bronzi romani del Museo Civico di Treviso, Roma 1979. GAMBACURTA, G. Gambacurta, M. Brustia, Vasellame metallico ed oggetti vari. In: FOLGOLARI, BRUSTIA 2001 GAMBACURTA 2001, 247–274. GARBSCH 1980 J. Garbsch, 1980, Römische Büstengefäße, MFBVF 14 (without page numbers). GAUER 1991 W. Gauer, Die Bronzegefässe von Olympia. Mit Ausnahme der geometrischen Dreifüße und der Kessel des orientalischen Stils. Teil I. Kessel und Becken mit Untersätzen, Teller, Kratere, Hydrien, Eimer, Situlen und Cisten, Schöpfhumpen und verschiedenes Gerät, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Olympische Forschungen 20, Berlin – New York 1991. GĂZDAC 1995 C. Găzdac, Bronzuri romane de la Gherla, ActaMN 32/1, 1995, 401–430. GĂZDAC ET ALII 2010 C. Găzdac, S. Cociș, Á. Alföldy-Găzdac, L. Călian, he Roman Imperial Hoard “Deleu” from Cluj-Napoca, PAT 3, Cluj-Napoca 2010. A. Gerhartl-Witteveen, A. Koster (samenst.), Duur en Duurzaam: Romeins bronzen GERHARTLvaatwerk uit het Gelderse rivierengebied, Provinciaal Museum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen, WITTEVEEN, 31.5 – 28.9.1992 = Römische Bronzegefässe aus der geldrischen Flusslandschaft, KOSTER 1992 Regionalmuseum Xanten, 4.10 – 16.11.1992, Nijmegen 1992. 216 GHEORGHIU 2005 G. Gheorghiu, Dacii pe cursul mijlociu al Mureșului (sfârșitul sec. II a. Chr. – începutul sec. II p. Chr.), Cluj-Napoca 2005. GINDELE 2010 R. Gindele, Die Entwicklung der kaiserzeitlichen Siedlungen im Barbaricum im nordwestlichen Gebiet Rumäniens, Satu Mare 2010. GIUMLIA-MAIR 1993 A. Giumlia-Mair, Il caso di Industria, la metallurgia del bronzo e Plinio, QSAP 11, 1993, 76–97. GIUMLIA-MAIR 2001 A. Giumlia-Mair, Technical studies on the Roman copper-based inds from Emona, BBA 18, 2000, 5–42. GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005a A. Giumlia-Mair, Copper and Copper Alloys in the Southeastern Alps: an Overview, Archaeometry 47/2, 2005, 275–292. GIUMLIA-MAIR 2005b A. Giumlia-Mair, On surface analysis and archaeometallurgy, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B, 239, Amsterdam 2005, 35–43. GIUMLIA-MAIR, A. Giumlia-Mair, P. T. Craddock, Corinthium Aes. Das schwartze Gold der Alchimisten, CRADDOCK 1993 AW 24/5, 1993, 1–62. A. Giumia-Mair, Zs. Mráv, he aes corinthium vessels from Egyed, Hungary, FA LVI, GIUMLIA-MAIR, MRÁV 2014 2014, 73–102. GLODARIU 1974 I. Glodariu, Relații comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică și romană (sec. II î.e.n. – I e.n.), Cluj-Napoca 1974. GLODARIU 1976 I. Glodariu, Dacian trade with the Hellenistic and Roman world, BAR Supplementary Series 8, 1976. GLODARIU 1979 I. Glodariu, Bronzes italiques en Dacie préromaine. Pénétration et difusion. In: LAUSANNE 1979, 185–189, Pl. 109–112. GLODARIU ET I. Glodariu, A. Zrinyi, P. Gyulai, Le dépôt d’outils romains de Mărculeni, Dacia NS ALII 1970 14, 1970, 207–231. GLODARIU, I. Glodaru, Șt. Dănilă, Depozitul de vase romane de bronz de la Dipșa, Marmatia II, DĂNILĂ 1971 1971, 93–99. GORECKI 1994 J. Gorecki, Der Bronzekrug aus Eich, Kr. Alzey-Worms. In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART) 1994, 173–182. GORECKI 2000 J. Gorecki, Metallgefässproduktion in Pompei? In: KÖLN 2000, 445–467. GORECKI 2006 J. Gorecki, Eine Gefäßgarnitur bestehend aus Weinkrug und Blechkanne. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 112–113. GORECKI 2011 J. Gorecki, Die römischen Metallgefäße. In: M. Mączyńska, Der fruhvolkerwanderungszeitliche Hortfund aus Łubiana, Kreis Kościerzyna (Pommern), BRGK 90, 2009 (2011), 154–194. GORECKI 2016 J. Gorecki, Römische Metallgefäßspektren aus ausgewählten militärischen Fundkomplexen diesseits und jenseits von Rhein und Donau von der Zeit der späten Republik bis zum Beginn des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 177–214. F. Humer, G. Kremer (Hrsg.), Götterbilder-Menschenbilder. Religion und Kulte in GÖTTERBILDER– MENSCHENBILDER Carnuntum, Wien 2011. 2011 GRALFS 1988 B. Gralfs, Metallverarbeitende Produktionsstätten in Pompeji, BAR International Series 433, Oxford 1988. GRALFS 1994 B. Gralfs, Metallverarbeitende Werksätten im Nordwesten des Imperium Romanum, Antiquitates 8, Hamburg 1994. GRAMATOPOL 1982 M. Gramatopol, Dacia antiqua. Perspective de istoria artei și teoria culturii, București 1982. GRASSI 2011 E. Grassi, Ricerche di archeometallurgia in Italia settentrionale: il caso di Milano in età romana. In: C. Giardino (a cura di), Atti del workshop: Archeometallurgia – dalla conoscenza alla fruizione, Università degli Studi di Lecce (22–25/5/2006), Bari 2011, 161–168. 217 GRASSI 2015 GRAUE 1974 GRYGIEL 2017 GUDEA 1977 GUDEA 1978 GUDEA 1979 GUDEA 1989 GUDEA 1997a GUDEA 1997b GUDEA 1997c GUDEA 1997d GUDEA 2008 GUDEA, LUCĂCEL 1975 HANEMANN 2006 HÁRSHEGYI, VÁMOS 2009 HAYNES 1984 HELTTULA 1994 HERMANS 1971 HEYL 1996 HILGERS 1969 HOFFILLER 1904 218 E. Grassi, Roman metalworking in northern Italy between archaeology and archaeometry: two case studies. In: A. Hauptmann, D. Modarressi-Tehrani (eds.), Archaeometallurgy in Europe III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, Deutsches BergbauMuseum Bochum (June 29 – July 1, 2011), Der Anschnitt 26, 2015, 155–164. J. Graue, Die Gräberfelder von Ornavasso. Eine Studie zur Chronologie der späten Latène- und frühen Kaiserzeit, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 1, Hamburg 1974. M. Grygiel, Ein einzigartiger römischer Import aus dem Gräberfeld in Jadowniki Mokre, Kr. Tarnow. In: J. Andrzejowski, C. von Carnap-Bornheim, A. Cieśliński, B. Kontny (eds.), Orbis barbarorum. Studia ad archaeologiam Germanorum et Baltorum temporibus Imperii Romani pertinentia Adalberto Nowakowski dedicata, Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. Series Gemina VI, Warszawa – Schleswig 2017, 353–371. N. Gudea, Materiale arheologice din castrul roman de la Bologa, Apulum 15, 1977, 169–215. N. Gudea, Contribuţii la istoria economică a Daciei romane. Despre producţia ceramică, Apulum 16, 1978, 135–147. N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Inlăceni. Încercare de monograie, ActaMP 3, 1979, 149–273. N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord al imperiului I. Săpături și descoperiri arheologice până în anul 1977, ActaMP 13, 1989. N. Gudea, Das Römergrenzkastell von Bologa-Rescvlvm/Castrul roman de la BologaRescvlvm, Führer zu archäologischen Denkmäler aus Dacia Porolissensis/Ghid al monumentelor arheologice din Dacia Porolissensis 1, Zalău 1997. N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Buciumi/Das Römergrenzkastell von Buciumi, Führer zu archäologischen Denkmäler aus Dacia Porolissensis/Ghid al monumentelor arheologice din Dacia Porolissensis 2, Zalău 1997. N. Gudea, Das Römergrenzkastell von Moigrad-Pomet. Porolissum 1/Castrul roman de pe vârful dealului Pomet-Moigrad. Porolissum 1, Führer zu archäologischen Denkmäler aus Dacia Porolissensis/Ghid al monumentelor arheologice din Dacia Porolissensis 5, Zalău 1997. N. Gudea, Der dakische Limes. Materialien zu seiner Geschichte, JRGZM 44, 1997, 1–113. N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Feldioara. Încercare de monograie arheologică/Das Römerkastell von Feldioara. Versuch einer archäologischen Monographie, Interferențe etnice și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr. 11, Cluj-Napoca 2011. N. Gudea, V. Lucăcel, Inscripţii și monumente sculpturale în Muzeul de Istorie și Artă Zalău, Zalău 1975. B. Hanemann, Eisengerät von Haus, Hof und Herd. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 123–125. P. Hárshegyi, P. Vámos (eds.), Aquincumi látványraktár/Visual store at Aquincum, Budapest 2009. J. W. Haynes, Greek, Roman and Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum. A Catalogue, Toronto 1984. A. Helttula, Vessels for Mushrooms?, Arctos 28, 1994, 7–12. H. Hermans, he Craft of Metal Bowl Making in Roman Times: A heory, ROB 20–21, 1970–1971 (1971), 311–319. T. Heyl, Kanne und Grifschale, römisches Bronzegeschir vom Mittelrhein – ein Beitrag zur Romanisierung. In: K. Schäfer (Hrsg.), Caesar am Mittelrhein. Begleitheft zur Sonderausstellung im Stadtmuseum Andernach vom 7. Juni bis 1. September 1996, Andernacher Beiträge 12, Andernach 1996, 119–140. W. Hilgers, Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römische Gefässe nach den antiken Schriftquellen, Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbuch 31, Dusseldörf 1969. V. Hoiller, Antikne bronsane posude iz Hrvatske i Slavonije u Narodnom muzeju u Zagrebu, VHAD 7/1, 1904, 98–123. HOFFILLER 1911 HOFMANN 1959 HOFFMANN 1984 HOLLIGER 1994 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1987 HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1989 HORVÁTH 1981 HUMPHREY ET ALII 1999 ILIEVA 2004 ISAC 1997 ISAC 2000 ISAC 2001a ISAC 2001b ISAC 2001c ISAC 2001d ISAC 2001e ISINGS 1957 IVANOV, STOJANOV 1985 JACOBSON, WEITZMAN 1992 JACOBSTHAL 1935 JÍLEK 2016 JOST 2007 JOVANOVIĆ 2010 JUDE 1971 JUDE, POP 1973 JUNKELMANN 1997 V. Hoiller, Rimska bronsana posuda iz Gušća, VHAD 11/1, 1911, 313–314. B. Hofmann, La quincaillerie antique, 2ème partie, Notice technique no 15, Groupe d’Archéologie Antique du Touring Club de France, 1959. B. Hofmann, Metallvorbilder für Keramik. In: BERLIN 1984, 138–141. Ch. Holliger, Die Bronzegefäße aus dem Legionslager von Vindonissa und Baden (Aquae Helveticae). Ein Vergleich zwischen militärischen un zivilen Siedlungen. In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART) 1994, 211–215. Ch. Holliger, C. Holliger, Bronzegefässe aus Vindonissa. Teil 1, JGPV, 1984 (1985), 47–70. Ch. Holliger, C. Holliger, Bronzegefässe aus Vindonissa. Teil 2, JGPV, 1985 (1986), 5–44. Ch. Holliger, C. Holliger, Bronzegefässe aus Vindonissa. Nachträge und Tabellen, JGPV, 1986 (1987), 29–48. Ch. Holliger, C. Holliger, Bronzegefässe aus Baden-Aquae Helveticae, JGPV, 1988– 1989 (1989), 58–77. L. Horváth, A szőlősgyöröki római kori sír, CommArchHung, 1981, 59–81. J. W. Humphrey, J. P. Oleson, A. N. Sherwood, Greek and Roman Technology: a Sourcebook. Annotated Translations of Greek and Latin Texts and Documents, London and New York 1999. P. Ilieva, Roman objects of applied bronze plastic arts (in the repository of the Archaeological Institute with Museum at Soia), ArchBulg 8/1, 2004, 45–50. D. Isac, Castrele de cohortă și ală de la Gilău/Die Kohorten – und Alenkastelle von Gilău, Führer zu archäologischen Denkmäler aus Dacia Porolissensis/Ghid al monumentelor arheologice din Dacia Porolissensis 1, Zalău 1997. D. Isac, Das Gefäss mit agonistischen Darstellungen von Gilău, ActaMN 37/I, 2000, 201–221. D. Isac, Viață cotidiană în castrele Daciei Porolissensis. Studii și articole, Cluj-Napoca 2001, 189–202. D. Isac, Vasul cu reprezentări agonistice de la Gilău. In: ISAC 2001a, 189–202. D. Isac, Terra sigillata de la Gilău. In: ISAC 2001a, 79–97. D. Isac, Terra sigillata din castrul roman de la Buciumi. In: ISAC 2001a, 113–129. D. Isac, Terra sigillata de la Porolissum. In: ISAC 2001a, 98–112. C. Isings, Roman Glass from dated inds, Archaeologica Traiectina 2, Groeningen – Djakarta 1957. T. Ivanov, S. Stojanov, Abritvs. Its history and archaeology, Razgrad 1985. D. M. Jacobson, M. P. Weitzman, What was Corinthian Bronze?, AJA 96/2, 1992, 237–247. P. Jacobsthal, Zwei keltische Bronzekannen aus Lenzburg, Germania 19, 1935, 130–131. J. Jílek, Bronzegefäße aus der Römischen Kaiserzeit in Mähren: kritische Revision und chronologische Übersicht – Forschungstadt bis zum Jahr 2009. In: VOSS, MÜLLERSCHEESSEL 2016, 399–418. C. A. Jost, Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungen 2002–2004 im Limeskastell Niederberg bei Koblenz. In: A. hiel (Hrsg.), Forschungen zur Funktion des Limes. 3. Fachkolloquium der Deutschen Limeskommission 17./18. Februar 2005 in Weißenburg i. Bay, Band 2, Stuttgart 2007, 49–55. J. Jovanović, Rimsko brončano posuđe iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu (Roman bronze vessels from the Archaeological Museum in Split), VAPD 103, 2010, 191–232. M. Jude, Aedicula de la Luncani, Apulum 9, 1971, 545–552. M. Jude, C. Pop, Monumente sculpturale romane în Muzeul de Istorie Turda, Turda 1973. M. Junkelmann, Panis militaris: die Ernährung des römischen Soldaten oder der Grundstof der Macht, Mainz am Rhein 1997. 219 KALČEV 1994 KÁLMÁN 1906 KAPELLER 2003 KARASOVÁ 1998 KASPRZAK 2016 KAUFMANNHEINIMANN 1977 KAUFMANNHEINIMANN 1994 KAUFMANNHEINIMANN 1998 KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993 KISS 1983 KOÇEL ERDEM 2009 KOCH 1971 KOHLERTNÉMETH 1990 KOSTER 1997 KOVÁCS 2007 KRASKOVSKÁ 1978 KUNOW 1983 KÜNZL 1993 KÜNZL 1993a KÜNZL 1993b KÜNZL 1993c KÜNZL 1993d KÜNZL 1997 KÜNZL 2000 LANDELS 1967 LAVAZZA 1979 220 K. Kalčev, Bronzene Amphoren aus dem Territorium Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora, Bulgarien). In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART) 1994, 227–232. D. Kálmán, Kelta pénzverő – és öntőműhely Szalacskán, AÉrt 26, 1906, 416–436. A. Kapeller, La vaisselle en bronze d´Avenches/Aventicum, BAPA 45, 2003, 83–146. Z. Karasová, Die römische Bronzegefässe in Böhmen, Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 22, Praga 1998. A. Kasprzak, Eine Bronzekanne E 125 vom Gräberfeld Czarnówko, Kreis Lębork, in Pommern. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 321–331. A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz I, Augst und das Gebiet der Colonia Augusta Raurica, Mainz am Rhein 1977. A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz V, Neufunde und Nachtäge, Mainz am Rhein 1994. A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica. Herstellung, Fundzusammenhänge und sakrale Funktion igürlicher Bronzen in einer römischen Stadt, Forschungen in Augst 26, Augst 1998. H.-J. Kellner, G. Zahlhaas, Der Römische Tempelschatz von Weißenburg i. Bay., Mainz am Rhein 1993. Á. Kiss, Roman mosaics in Hungary, Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae 1, Budapest 1973. Z. Koçel Erdem, Finds from a plundered tumulus at Karaevli, Tekirdağ, in Turkish hrace, AnatAnt 17, 2009, 209–238. R. Koch, Kunst der Römerzeit, Heilbronner Museumshefte 1, Heilbronn 1971. M. Kohlert-Németh, Römische Bronzen II aus Nida-Heddernheim. Fundsachen aus dem Hausrat. Auswahlkatalog, Archäologische Rheie 14, Frankfurt am Main 1990. A. Koster, he bronze vessels 2. Acquisitions 1954–1996 (including vessels of pewter and iron), Description of the Collections in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen XIII, Nijmegen 1997. P. Kovács, Greek inscriptions in Pannonia. In: M. Mayer Olivé, G. Baratta, A. Guzmán Almagro (eds.), XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae: Provinciae Imperii Romani Inscriptionibus Descriptae, Barcelona, 3–8 Septembris 2002. Acta I, Monograies de la Secció Històrico-Arqueològica X, Barcelona 2007, 785–792. L. Kraskovská, Roman Bronze Vessels from Slovakia, BAR International Series 44, Oxford 1978. J. Kunow, Der römische Import in der Germania libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen. Studien zu Bronze- und Glasgefäßen, Göttinger Schriften zür Vor- und Frühgeschichte 21, Neumünster 1983. E. Künzl, Die Alamannenbeute aus dem Rhein bei Neupotz. Plünderungsgut aus dem römischen Gallien, Teil 1–4, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 34, 1–4, Bonn 1993. S. Künzl, Das Tafelgeschirr (D2-D121). In: KÜNZL 1993, 113–227. E. Künzl, Kochkessel und Kochgerät (E 1–108, 110–112, 136–168). In: KÜNZL 1993, 231–247. S. Künzl, Becken, Schüsseln, Teller (E 113–135). In: KÜNZL 1993, 248–254. E. Künzl, Die sakralen Objekte und Votive. In: KÜNZL 1993, 85–104. E. Künzl, Römische Tempelschätze und Sakralinventare: Votive, Horte, Beute, AnTard 5, 1997, 57–81. S. Künzl, Der zerbrochene Krug: Reparaturen an römischen Metallgefäßen. In: KÖLN 2000, 607–614. J. G. Landels, Assisted Resonance in Ancient heatres, G&R Second Series 14/1, 1967, 80–94. M. Lavazza, Recipienti in bronzo d’età romana in Lombardia. 3. Ripostiglio di monete da Bogno, RAComo 161, 1979, 71–79, ig. 3, tav. IX-XIII. LEBEL 1962 P. Lebel, Catalogue des collections archéologiques de Montbéliard III. Les bronzes igurés, Annales Littéraires de l´Université de Besançon 57 (Archéologie 15), Paris 1962. LEBEL 1963 P. Lebel, Catalogue des collections archéologiques de Lons-le-Saunier III. Les bronzes igurés, Annales Littéraires de l´Université de Besançon 62 (Archéologie 17), Paris 1963. LEBEL 1965 P. Lebel, Catalogue des bronzes igurés antiques du Musée de Langres, Mémoires de la Société Historique et Archéologique de Langres 5/8, Langres 1965. LECHTMAN, H. Lechtman, A. Steinberg, Bronze Joining: A Study in Ancient Technology. In: STEINBERG 1970 S. Doeringen, D. G. Mitten, A. Steinberg (eds.), Art and Technology. A Symposium on Classical Bronzes, Cambridge – London 1970, 5–33. LE CLOIREC 1996 G. Le Cloirec, Rennes: ateliers métallurgiques du Haut Empire, Instrumentum, 3, 1996, 15. LEGENDRE 1996 N. Legendre, Techniques de formage des chaudrons gallo-romains en alliage cuivreux: les découvertes d’Alspach (Haut-Rhin) et d’Hettange (Moselle), RAE 47, 1996, 67–77. LEHNER 1915 H. Lehner, Führer durch das Provinzialmuseum in Bonn I. Die antike Abteilung, Bonn 1915. LEIBUNDGUT 1976 A. Leibundgut, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz II, Avenches, Mainz am Rhein 1976. LEIBUNDGUT 1980 A. Leinbundgut, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz III, Westschweiz, Bern und Wallis, Mainz am Rhein 1980. LINDEBERG 1973 I. Lindeberg, Die Einfuhr römischer Bronzegefässe nach Gotland, SJ 30, 1973, 5–69. LORIDANT, F. Loridant, P. Bura, De l´eau? Du vin? Note sur des practiques funéraires (ablutions/ BURA 1998 libations). A propos d´une tombe à incinération découverte à hérouanne (Pas-duCalais), Société Française d´Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, Actes du congrès d´Istres, 21–24 mai 1998, Marseille 1998, 235–246. LUIK 2005 M. Luik, Alte und neue Bronzefunde von Köngen-Grinario, FBW 28/1, 2005, 261–291. LUIK 2016 M. Luik, Buntmetallgefäße der mittleren Kaiserzeit zwishen Rhein und Pyrenäen. Ein Forschungsüberblick. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 215–228. LUKASZEWICZ 1998 A. Lukaszewicz, Les activités commerciales et artisanales dans Alexandrie romaine à la lumière des papyrus. In: EMPEREUR 1998, 107–113. LUND HANSEN 1987 U. Lund Hansen, Römischer Import im Norden. Warenaustauschung zwischen dem Römischen Reich und dem freien Germanien während der Kaiserzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Nordeuropas, Nordiske Fortidsminder. Serie B 10, København 1987. LUND HANSEN 2005 U. Lund Hansen, he Roman bronze vessels and bells. In: E. Nylén, U. Lund Hansen, P. Manneke, he Havor Hoard. he Gold, the Bronzes, the Fort, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm 2005, 53–85. LUND HANSEN 2016 U. Lund Hansen, Kasserollen und Kelle- /Sieb-Garnituren als Indikatoren für Einsicht in den Übergang von der Älteren zur Jüngeren Römischen Kaiserzeit im Barbaricum. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 229–244. LUND HANSEN, U. Lund Hansen, H. Bollingberg, Analyses of Roman Bronze Vessels from Denmark. In: BOLLINGBERG 1995 NIJMEGEN 1995, 165–168. LUNDOCK 2015 J. Lundock, A study of the deposition and distribution of copper alloy vessels in Roman Britain, Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 9, Oxford 2015. MACREA ET ALII 1959 M. Macrea, M. Rusu, I. Winkler, Șantierul arheologic Gilău (r. și reg. Cluj), MCA 5, 1959, 453–459. MAJEWSKI 1964 K. Majewski, Brazowe balsamaria antropomoriczne w cesarstwie rzymskim (Balsamaires antropomorphes en bronze dans l´empire romain), Archeologia 14, 1963(1964), 95–126. MAN 2003 N. Man, Vase cu destinație speciale din așezarea romană de la Cristești, Marisia 27, 2003, 55–72. MAN 2010 N. Man, Art and religions on the eastern part of Dacia (with special regard on the Upper Mureș Area), Marisia 30, 2010, 95–114. MAN 2011 N. Man, Așezarea romană de la Cristești, BMM SArh 3, Cluj-Napoca 2011. 221 MARCU 2009 MARIËN 1980 MARINETTI 2001 MARINOIU 2009 MARTI 1996 MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002 MATEI, STANCIU 2000 MATTUSCH 2003 MELCHART 1985–1986 MENZEL 1960 MENZEL 1966 MENZEL 1969 MENZEL 1986 MESHEKOV, STAIKOVA 1998 MICHELI 1990 MICHELI 1991 MILES ROMANVS 1997 MINKOVA, JANKOV 2004 MITROFAN, ȚEPOSUMARINESCU 1970 MOGA 1978 MOGA 1985 MORLET 1957 MÜLLER 1997 MÜLLER 2006 MUNDELL MANGO 1990 MUSTAŢĂ 2009 MUSTAȚĂ 2010a MUSTAŢĂ 2010b 222 F. Marcu, Organizarea internă a castrelor din Dacia/he internal planning of Roman forts from Dacia, BMN 30, Cluj-Napoca 2009. M. E. Mariën, L´empreinte de Rome. Belgica Antiqva, Anvers 1980. A. Marinetti, Iscrizioni. In: FOLGOLARI, GAMBACURTA 2001, 337–370. V. Marinoiu, Villa rustica și necropola romană de la Bengești Ciocladia, județul Gorj, Buridava 7, 2009, 80–92. V. Marti, De l´usage des „balsamaires” anthropomorphes en bronze, MEFRA 108, 1996, 979–1000. V. Marti-Clercx, B. Mille, Nouvelles données sur la répartition des ateliers producteurs des vases anthropomorphes d´époque romaine: la nature peut-elle déterminer la provenance? In: UDINE 2002, 385–392. Al. V. Matei, I. Stanciu, Vestigii din epoca romană (sec. II-IV p. Chr.) în spațiul nord-vestic al României, Zalău-Cluj-Napoca 2000. C. C. Mattusch, Corinthian Bronze: Famous, but Elusive. In: C. K. Williams, N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, he Centenary: 1896–1996, Corinth 20, Athens 2003, 219–232. W. Melchart, Das Bronzegeschirrdepot von Flavia Solva, RÖ 13/14, 1985–1986, 223– 237, Taf. 22–25. H. Menzel, Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland I, Speyer, Mainz am Rhein 1960. H. Menzel, Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland II, Trier, Mainz am Rhein 1966. H. Menzel, Römische Bronzen aus Bayern (mit einem Beitrag von Aladár Radnóti), Augsburg 1969. H. Menzel, Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland III, Bonn, Mainz am Rhein 1986. J. Meshekov, L. Staikova, A rich hracian mound burial from the Roman period at the village of Slokoshtitsa, Kistendil district (south-western Bulgaria), ArchBulg 2/3, 1998, 51–67. M. E. Micheli, Il vasellame domestico. In: PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 103–129. M. E. Micheli, Il servizio da tavola, il ministerium: argentum escarium, argentum potorium. In: PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1991, 111–124. C. Pop (red.), Miles romanvs in Provincia Dacia. Catalogul expoziției naționale/Katalog der nationalen Ausstellung, Cluj-Napoca 1997. M. Minkova, D. Jankov, Traditons in bronze production in the territory of Augusta Traiana in Antiquity. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 319–322. I. Mitrofan, L. Ţeposu-Marinescu, O ediculă funerară de la Potaissa, ActaMN 7, 1970, 531–536. V. Moga, Descoperiri arheologice la Ampelum (Archaeological discoveries at Ampelum), ActaMN 15, 1978, 213–218. V. Moga, Vase din bronz descoperite la Apulum, Apulum 22, 1985, 71–75. A. Morlet, Vichy gallo-romain, Macon 1957. M. Müller, Die römischen Bronzegefässen von Haltern, AFW-L 9/A, 1997, 5–40. M. Müller, Die römischen Buntmetallgefässe von Oberaden. In: K. Roth-Rubi, B. Rudnick, G. Schneider, Ch. Ellinghaus, B. Tremmel, M. Müller (Hrsg.), Varia Castrensia. Haltern, Oberaden, Anreppen, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 42, Mainz am Rhein 2006, 305–315. M. Mundell Mango, Der Seuso – Schatzfund. Ein Ensemble westlichen und östlichen Kunstschafens, AW 21/1, 1990, 70–88. S. Mustaţă, Semi-inished or inal product?, Instrumentum 30, 2009, 24–25. S. Mustață, he Roman anthropomorphic bronze vessel from Strâmba (Turceni, Gorj county). Typological, functional and chronological aspects, Oltenia 17, 2010, 51–56. S. Mustață, Roman bronze appliqués with half-pierced loop. Semi inished or inal products?, EphNap 20, 2010, 191–204. MUSTAȚĂ 2011a MUSTAȚĂ 2011b MUSTAȚĂ 2012 MUSTAȚĂ 2013 MUSTAȚĂ 2015a MUSTAȚĂ 2015b MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012a MUSTAȚĂ ET ALII 2012b MUȘEŢEANU 2003 MUTZ 1972 MUTZ 1975 MUTZ 1977 NAGY 2012 NAGY, TÓTH 1990 NEMETH 1993 NEMETI 2001 NEMETI 2005 NENOVAMERDJANOVA 1994 NENOVAMERDJANOVA 1995 NENOVAMERDJANOVA 1998 S. Mustață, Remarks on the use and misuse of Latin terms in the study of Roman bronze vessels. In: C. Cosma (ed.), Studii de arheologie și istorie. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 70 de ani/Studies in archaeology and history. An anniversary volume to professor Nicolae Gudea on his 70th birthday, Interferențe etnice și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr. 20, Cluj-Napoca 2011, 233–239. S. Mustață, A Roman panther-shaped vessel handle from Porolissum (Moigrad, Sălaj County, Romania). In: I. Piso, V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, R. Varga, E. Beu-Dachin, S. Mustaţă, L. Ruscu (eds.), Scripta classica. Radu Ardevan sexagenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca 2011, 141-149. S. Mustață, Vasele de bronz romane de la Ilișua/Arcobadara, RB XXVI, 2012, 57–88. S. Mustață, Vasele de bronz romane din Dacia Porolissensis, PhD hesis, Cluj-Napoca 2013. S. Mustață, Pouring the water, ofering the wine. Instrumenta sacra depicted on votive altars from Roman Dacia. In: I. V. Ferencz, N. C. Rișcuța, O. Tutuilă (eds.): Representations, Signs and Symbols. Religion and Magic. Proceedings of Symposium on Religion and Magic, Deva March 27–29, 2014, Cluj-Napoca 2015, 317–336. S. Mustață, Roman bronze vessels from the archaeological notes of István Téglás. In: A. Dobos, D. Petruț, S. Berecki, L. Vass, Sz. P. Pánczél, Zs. Molnár-Kovacs, P. Forisek (eds.), Archaeologia Transylvanica. Studia in Honorem Stephani Bajusz, Opitz Archaeologica 8, Cluj-Napoca – Târgu Mureș – Budapesta 2015, 205–211. S. Mustață, S. Cociș, V. Voișian, A rough package for a ine content. Iron vessels from the Roman town of Napoca (Cluj-Napoca, Romania), Instrumentum 35, 2012, 26–29. S. Mustață, S. Cociș, V. Voișian, Instrumentum balnei from Roman Napoca. Two iron vessels discovered on the site form Victor Deleu street, EphNap 22, 2012, 235-251. C. Mușeţeanu, Bronze vessels in Dacia and Moesia Inferior. In: ANTIQUE BRONZES 2003, 50–52. A. Mutz, Die Kunst des Metalldrehens bei den Römern. Interpretationen antiker Arbeitsverfahren auf Grund von Werkspuren, Stuttgart 1972. A. Mutz, Beherrschren die Römer das Metalldrücken? In: MAINZ 1975, 278–282, Taf. 61–63. A. Mutz, Ein antikes handwerkliches Meisterstück. In: LYON 1977, 127–130 (Bild 1–15, Tabelle 1–5). M. Nagy, A Seuso-kincs Pannoniai kapcsolatai/Connections of the Seuso treasure to Pannonia. In: In: Zs. Visy (ed.), A Seuso kincs és Pannonia/he Sevso treasure and Pannonia. I Régészet/Archaeology, Pécs 2012, 49–63. M. Nagy, E, Tóth, he Seuso treasure. he Pannonian connection?, Minerva 1/7, 1990, 5–11. O. Nemeth, Vases antiques de metal trouvés dans la moyenne vallée de la Saône, + Illustrations, Mémoire de Maitrise d’Achéologie, Université des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Dijon, 1993 (sous la direction de Claude Rolley). S. Nemeti, Piese de bronz romane de la Ilișua/Des pièces romaines en bronze d’Ilișua, RB XV, 2001, 96–102. S. Nemeti, Sincretismul religios în Dacia romană, Publicațiile Institutului de Studii Clasice 5, Cluj-Napoca 2005. R. Nenova-Merdjanova, Bronze Cast Plates with Flat Handles from the Roman Province hrace. In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART) 1994, 305–309. R. Nenova-Merdjanova, Typology and Chronology of the Bronze Vessels used in the Palaestra and in the Baths from the Roman Provinces hrace and Moesia. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 51–58. R. Nenova-Merdjanova, he bronze jugs decorated with a human foot from the Roman provinces Moesia and hracia, ArchBulg 2/3, 1998, 68–76. 223 NENOVAMERDJANOVA 1999 R. Nenova-Merdjanova, Roman bronze vessels as part of instrumentum balnei. In: L. DeLaine, D. E. Johnson (eds.), Roman baths and bathing. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1992. Part I: Bathing and Society, JRA suppl. ser. 37, 1999, 130–134. NENOVAR. Nenova-Merdjanova, Images of Bronze against the Evil Eye (beyond the Typological MERDJANOVA 2000 and Functional Interpretation of the Roman Bronze Vessels for Oil). In: KÖLN 2000, 303–312. NENOVAR. Nenova-Merdjanova, Die Herstellung von Bronzegefäßen in Augusta Traiana. MERDJANOVA 2001 In: M. Wenden (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten hrakien I. 15 Jahren Ausgrabungen in Karasura, Internationales Symposium Čirpan/ Bulgarien 1996, Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 1, Weissbach 2001, 195–202. NENOVAR. Nenova-Merdjanova, Bronze vessels and the toilette in Roman times. In: MERDJANOVA 2002a CAMBRIDGE 2002/2, 200–204. NENOVAR. Nenova-Merdjanova, Tradition and inventiveness on the local production of bronze MERDJANOVA 2002b vessels in the Roman province hracia. In: UDINE 2002, 591–599. NENOVAR. Nenova-Merdjanova, Bronze production of Pautalia. In: L. Slokoska, A. Poulter MERDJANOVA 2002c (eds.), he Roman and he Late Roman City. he International Conference, Veliko Tarnovo 26–30 July 2000, Soia 2002, 378–382. NIBLETT 2001 R, Niblett, Verulamium. he Roman City of St. Albans, Stroud-Charleston 2001. NOLL 1980 R. Noll, Das Inventar des Dolichenusheiligtums von Mauer an der Url (Noricum), Der römische Limes in Österreich 30, Wien 1980. NORLINGH. Norling-Christensen, Kasseroller med tre huller eller tredelt hul i skaftet: træk af den CHRISTENSEN 1953 stiludvikling, der har ført til kasserollen med trekl øverbladformet skafthul (Saucepans with three holes or a triid hole in the handle: features of the development leading to saucepans with a trefoil hole in the handle), Aarbøger, 1952 (1953), 166–194. NOTTE 1989 L. Notte, Les seaux de Hemmoor en France et en Europe, Amphora 58, 1989, 1–44. NOVÁK 1942 J. Novák, Az ampelumi (Zalatna) „Fortuna Satularis és Jupiter szentély” bronzedényei, Közlemények 2/2, 1942, 232–245. NOVÁK 1944 J. Novák, Gyulafehérvári római leletek, Közlemények 4/1–2, 1944, 81–88. NUBER 1973 H. U. Nuber, Kanne und Grifschale. Ihr Gebrauch im täglichen Leben und die Beigabe in Gräbern der römischen Kaiserzeit, BRGK 53, 1972 (1973), 1–232, Taf. 1–31. NUBER 1988 H. U. Nuber, Antike Bronzen aus Baden-Württemberg, Schriften des Limesmuseums Aalen 40, Winnenden 1988. NUBER, H. U. Nuber, A. Radnóti, Römische Brand- und Körpergräber aus Wehringen, Ldkr. RADNÓTI 1971 Schwabmünchen. Ein Vorbericht, JBB 10, 1969 (1971), 27–49. OETTEL 1991 A. Oettel, Bronzen aus Boscoreale in Berlin, Berlin 1991. OGGIANO-BITAR 1984 H. Oggiano-Bitar, Bronzes igurés antiques des Bouches-du Rhône, Gallia suppl. 43, Paris 1984. OPREANU 2008 C. H. Opreanu, Houses in Towns and Small Towns of Roman Dacia. In: P. Scherrer (Hrsg.), Domus. Das Haus in den Städten der römischen Donauprovinzen. Akten des 3. Internationalen Symposiums über römische Städte in Noricum und Pannonien, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschriften 44, Wien 2008, 387–403. OPREANU 2009 C. H. Opreanu, Templul lui Devs Sol Invictus de la Napoca. Contribuție la topograia și istoria orașului antic/he temple of Devs Sol Invictus from Napoca. Contribution to the topography and history of the ancient town, SUBB-Historia 54/1–2, 2009, 127–140. OPREANU, C. H. Opreanu, V.-A. Lăzărescu, he evolution of the civilian settlement at Porolissum LĂZĂRESCU 2016 in the light of the new research, EphNap 26, 2016, 107–120. OTA 2012 R. Ota, De la canabele legiunii a XIII-a Gemina la Municipium Septimium Apulense, Alba Iulia 2012. PALÁGYI 2002 S. Palágyi, Ein neu entdecktes Balsamarium (Kopfgefäß) aus Pannonien. In: UDINE 2002, 438–444. 224 PEACOCK, WILLIAMS 1986 PERNOT 1991 D. P. S. Peacock, D. F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide, Longman Archaeology Series, London 1986. M. Pernot, Vaisselle et technologie des alliages base cuivre. In: FEUGÈRE, ROLLEY 1991, 131–137. PERNOT 1993 M. Pernot, Archéométallurgie de la mise en forme des alliages base cuivre. In: A. Richard (red.), Matières à faire, Actes de séminaires publics d’archéologie, année 1991, Besançon 1993, 94–98. PERNOT 2004 M. Pernot, Des bronziers au travail dans leur atelier. In: A. Lehoërf (dir.), L´artisanat métallurigique dans les sociétés anciennes en Méditerranée Occidentale. Techniques, lieux et formes de production, Collection de l´École Française de Rome 322, Rome 2004, 171–191. PERSE, PETROVSZKY M. Perse, R. Petrovszky, Ein Bronzegrif mit Meisterstempel aus einem römischen 1992 Gutshof bei Jülich. Bemerkungen zu den gestempelten Kellen und Sieben des typus Eggers 162, AKB 22, 1992, 403–420. PESCARU ET ALII 2010 A. Pescaru, V. Rădeanu, R. Pavel, N. C. Rișcuță, D. Țuțuianu, A. Bălos, M. Egri, Forme de habitat în punctul Hăbad. In: P. Damian (coord.), Alburnus Maior I, ed. a II-a, Cluj-Napoca 2010, 121–146. PETCULESCU 2003 L. Petculescu (ed.), Antique Bronzes in Romania. Exhibition Catalogue, Bucharest 2003. PEŠKA, TEJRAL 2002 J. Peška, J. Tejral (Hrgs.), Das germanischen Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Monographien 55/2, Teil 1–3, Mainz 2002. PETROVSZKY 1992 R. Petrovszky, Bemerkungen zu Stempeln auf Bronzegefässen, Specimina Nova, 1991 (1992), 69–91. PETROVSZKY 1993 R. Petrovszky, Studien zu römischen Bronzegefäßen mit Meisterstempeln, Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen 1, Buch am Erlbach 1993. PETROVSZKY 1993a R. Petrovszky, Book review: A. E. Riz, Bronzegefässe in der römisch-pompeianischen Wandmalerei, BJ 193, 1993, 509–514. PETROVSZKY 1994 R. Petrovszky, Die Bronzegefässe. In: G. Hellenkemper Sailes, H.-H. von Prittwitz und Gafron, G. Bauchhenß (Hrsg.), Das Wrack. Der antike Schifsfund von Mahdia, I, Köln 1994, 663–700. PETROVSZKY 1996 R. Petrovszky, Die Bronzegefäße von Mahdia. Nachträge und neue Überlegungen, Neue Forschungen zum Schifsfund von Mahdia, BJ 196, 1996, 321–336. PETROVSZKY 2000 R. Petrovszky, Eine Sonderform römischer Bronzegefässe – Die Krüge vom Typ Dambach. In: KÖLN 2000, 485–498. PETROVSZKY 2006a R. Petrovszky, Das Küchengeschirr. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 114–117. PETROVSZKY 2006b R. Petrovszky, Bronzegeschirr. In: F. Humer (Hrsg.), Legionsadler und Druidenstab. Vom Legionslager zur Donaumetropole. II. Katalogband, Horn 2006, 264–271. PETROVSZKY 2006c R. Petrovszky, Die Kasserollen. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 99–100. PETROVSZKY 2012 R. Petrovszky, Die römischen Metallgefäße. In: D. Quast, K. Demidziuk (Hrgs.), Prunkgräber der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit aus Wrocław-Zakrzów (ehemals Sakrau), Mainz am Rhein 2012 (in print). PETROVSZKY 2015 R. Petrovszky, Der römische Hortfund von Lingenfeld (Lkr. Germersheim, RheinlandPfalz). In: ZÜRICH 2015, 227–234. PETROVSZKY, R. Petrovszky, H. Bernhard, Versunken im Rhein – Typenspektren der „Beutehorte” im BERNHARD 2016 Vergleich. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 245–260. PETROVSZKY, R. Petrovszky, R. Stupperich, Die „Trau-Kasserollen“. Einige Bemerkungen zu den reliSTUPPERICH 2002 efverzierten Kasserollen E 151, MENTOR 1, Möhnesee 2002. D. Petruț, S. Mustață, he iconography of the waiting servants depicted on funerary PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010 reliefs from Roman Dacia, RB 24, 2010, 171–202. PICON 2007 M. Picon, Où sont les creusets de cémentation ayant servi à la fabrication de laiton? Instrumentum, 26, 2007, 10–11. 225 PICON ET ALII 1995 PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990 PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990a PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1991 PISO 1993 M. Picon, M. Le Nezet-Celestin, A. Desbat, Un type particulier de grands récipients en terre réfractaire utilisés pour la fabrication du laiton par cémentation. In: SFECAG. Actes du congrès de Rouen, 25–28 mai 1995, Marseille 1995, 207–215. L. Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli (a cura di), Il bronzo dei romani. Arredo e suppellettile, Roma 1990. L. Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli, Il bronzo. In: PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 5–32. L. Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli (a cura di), L’argento dei romani. Vasellame da tavola e d’apparato, Roma 1991. I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae I. Die senatorischen Amtstrager, Antiquitas. Reihe 1, Abhandlugen zur Alten Geschichte 43, Bonn 1993. PISO 2006 I. Piso, Le Forum Vetus de Sarmizegetusa I, București 2006. PITARAKIS 2005 B. Pitarakis, Une production caractéristique de cruches en alliage cuivreux (VIe-VIIIe siècle): typologie, techniques et difusion. In: ***, La vaisselle de bronze paléobyzantine. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 14–15 novembre 2003, AnTard 13, 2005, 11–27. PLANCK 1980 D. Planck, Köngen (Kreis Esslingen) 3, FBW 5, 1980, 173–186. PLANCK 1983 D. Planck, Rainau (Ostalbkreis), FBW 8, 1983, 326–335. PLESNIČAR GEC 2002 L. Plesničar Gec, he igural vessel from Emona. In: CAMBRIDGE 2002/II, 249–255. PLOUHINEC 1967 A. Plouhinec, Bronzes de Rezé, ABPO 74/1, 1967, 157–166. A. M. Pollard, C. Heron, Archaeological Chemistry, Cambridge 2008. POLLARD, HERON 2008 POP, MATEI 1978 C. Pop, AL. V. Matei, Bronzuri igurate romane în Muzeul de Istorie și Artă Zalău, ActaMP II, 1978, 77–83. POPA 2016 A. Popa, Bronzenes Wasch- und Badegeschirr am Rande der römischen Welt: Überlegungen zu einer Gruppe römischer Bronzegefäße jenseits der Provinzgrenzen Dacia und Moesia Inferior. In: VOSS, MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL 2016, 423–432. POPOVIĆ ET ALII 1969 Lj. B. Popović, D. Mano-Zisi, M. Veličković, B. Jeličić, Antička bronza u Jugoslaviji (Greek, Roman and Early-Christian bronzes in Yugoslavia), Beograd 1969. POPOVIĆ 2008 I. Popović, Relief decorated handles of ceramic paterae from Sirmium, Singidunum and Viminacium, Starinar 58, 2008, 119–134. POPOVICI, P. Popovici, R. Varga, AD VATABOS. Monograie arheologică a localității RăzboieniVARGA 2010 Cetate, Cluj-Napoca 2010. POULSEN 1992 E. Poulsen, Römische Bronzeeimer. Typologie der Henkelattachen mit Frauenmaske, Palmette und Tierprotome, AArch 62, 1991 (1992), 209–230. POULSEN 1995 E. Poulsen, Remarks on Roman bronze skillets with deep grooves under the base. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 59–67. POULSEN 2000 E. Poulsen, Bronze vessels from a north Italian center. In: KÖLN 2000, 435–444. POULSEN 2002 E. Poulsen, On moulds and models for ancient Roman small bronzes. In: UDINE 2002, 330–337. POZO 1988 S. F. Pozo, Balsamarios antropomorfos en bronce de época romana hallados en Hispania, AEspA 61/157–158, 1988, 275–297. POZO 2000 S. F. Pozo, La vajilla metálica – bronce y plata – tardorepublicana en la Provincia Baetica. In: KÖLN 2000, 417–434. POZO 2002 S. F. Pozo, La vajilla metálica de la Provincia Baetica. II. Los jarros broncíneos de época alto-imperial. In: UDINE 2002, 407–418. PRAMMER 1978 J. Prammer, Gäubodenmuseum Straubing. Römische Abteilung, München 1978. PRECHT 1991 G. Precht, Maschinelle Vorfertigung von Säule und Säulentrommeln. In: A. Hofmann, E. – L. Schwandner, W. Hoepfner, G. Brands (Hrsg.), Bautechnik der Antike. Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 15. – 17. Februar 1990 veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar für Klassische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin, Mainz am Rhein 1991, 178–183. PROTASE 1961 D. Protase, Noi monumente sculpturale romane din nordul Daciei, Apulum 4, 1961, 127–143. 226 PROTASE 2007 D. Protase, Castrul roman de la Orheiu Bistriței/Das römische Kastell von Orheiu Bistriței, RB XXI/1, 2007, 93–173. PROTASE ET ALII 1997 D. Protase, C. Gaiu, G. Marinescu, Castrul roman de la Ilișua, Bistrița 1997. PROTASE ET ALII 2008 D. Protase, N. Gudea, R. Ardevan, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Castrul roman de interior de la Gherla/Aus der Militärgeschichte des römischen Dakien. Das römische Binnenkastell von Gherla, BHAB XLVI, Timișoara 2008. PROTO 2002 F. Proto, I vasi a paniere e gli askoi dell´area vesuviana e la loro eventuale destinazione d´uso. In: UDINE 2002, 378–384. RABEISEN, E, Rabeisen, M. Menu, Métaux et alliages des bronziers d´Alesia. In: J. Hours (coord.), MENU 1985 Recherches gallo-romains I, Notes et documents des musées de France 9, Paris 1985, 143–181. RABOLD 1994 B. Rabold, Ein „Schmiedefund” aus der römischen Zivilsiedlung in Heidenheim/Brenz, DenkmPfBW 1, 1994, 13–18. RADNÓTI 1937 A. Radnóti, Vasi di bronzo romani nel Museo Profano del Vaticano, Biblioteca dell’Accademia d’Ungheria di Roma 4, Roma 1937. RADNÓTI 1938 A. Radnóti, Die römische Bronzegefässe von Pannonien, DissPann II/6, 1938. RADNÓTI 1957 A. Radnóti, Gefässe, Lampen und Tintenfässer aus Bronze. In: M. R. Alföldi, L. Barkóczi, J. Fitz, K. Sz. Póczy, A. Radnóti, Á. Salamon, K. Sági, J. Szilágyi, E. B. Vágó (Hrsg.), Intercisa II. (Dunapentele). Geschichte der Stadt in der Römerzeit, Archaeologia Hungarica. Series nova XXXVI, Budapest 1957, 173–224. RADNÓTI 1970 A. Radnóti, Methodischer Überblick der letzten 60 Jahre. In: NIJMEGEN 1970, 8 p. RAEV 1977 B. A. Raev, Les „Blechkannen” de province et leurs prototypes itliques. In: LYON 1977, 155–162. RAEV 1978 B. A. Raev, Die Bronzegefäße der römischen Kaiserzeit in hrakien und Mösien, BRGK 58/2, 1977(1978), 605–642, Taf. 9–45. RAEV 1984 B. A. Raev, Les chaudrons martelés: les traditions italiques dans les ateliers provinciaux. In: BERLIN 1984, 216–219. RAEV 1986 B. A. Raev, Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin, BAR International Series 278, 1986. RAMM 1976 H. G. Ramm, he church of St. Mary, Bishophill Senior, York: excavations, 1964, YAJ 48, 1976, 35–68. RATKOVIĆ 2004 D. Ratković, Bronze vessels from the military fort Diana. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 385–394. RATKOVIĆ 2005 D. Ratković, Бронзане посуде из римске народног Музеjа у Београду (Roman bronze vessels in the Roman Collection of the National Museum in Belgrade), Aнtикa / Antiquity 9, Belgrade 2005. REHREN 1999 h. Rehren, Small Size, Large Scale Roman Brass Production in Germania Inferior, JAS 26, 1999, 1083–1087. REICHART 1955 J. Reichart, Römisches Salbengefäß aus Bronze, Germania 33, 1955, 244–245, Taf. 26. REINACH 1894 S. Reinach, Antiquités nationales. Description raisonnée du Musée de Saint-Germainen-Laye. Bronzes igurés de la Gaule romaine, Paris 1894. REP.ARH.CLUJ 1992 I. H. Crișan, M. Bărbulescu, E. Chirilă, V. Vasiliev, I. Winkler, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Cluj, BMN 5, Cluj-Napoca 1992. RIEDERER 1993 J. Riederer, Die Metallanalyse von Funden aus Silber und Kupferlegierungen. In: KÜNZL 1993, 407–446. RIEDERER 1995 J. Riederer, Die Verwendung zinkhaltiger Kupferlegierungen in römischer Zeit. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 207–213. RIEDERER 2000 J. Riederer, Trace elements in Roman copper alloys. In: CAMBRIDGE 2002/I, 282–287. RIEDERER 2002 J. Riederer, he use of standardised copper alloys in Roman metal technology. In: UDINE 2002, 284–291. RIZ 1990 A. E. Riz, Bronzegefässe in der römisch-pompeianischen Wandmalerei, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom. Sonderschriften 7, Mainz am Rhein 1990. 227 ROIG 2003 J. F. Roig, Els vasos de bronze del pou Cartanyà. Un aixovar sacre de l´antiga Tarraco, RAP 13, 2003, 83–124. ROLLAND 1965 H. Rolland, Bronzes antiques de Haute Provence (Basses-Alpes, Vaucluse), Gallia supll. 18, Paris 1965. RUSSU 1966 I. I. Russu, Note epigraice. Seria IX: Inscripţii „rătăcitoare”, (Notes épigraphiques (IX série), ActaMN 3, 1966, 451–458. RUSU 1956 M. Rusu, Cercetări arheologice la Gilău, MCA 2, 1956, 687–716. RUSU 1979 A. Rusu, Bronzuri igurate romane în Muzeul Județean din Deva/Objets romains en bronze appartenant au Musée du Département de Hunedoara, Sargetia 14, 1979, 173–183. RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994 V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, Reprezentări de vase ceramice pe monumentele sculpturale din Dacia romană, EphNap 4, 1994, 113–148. RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1997 V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, Grife keramischer Paterae aus dem römischen Dakien, ActaMN 34/1, 1997, 325–388. RUSU-BOLINDEȚ V. Rusu-Bolindeț, Ceramica romană de la Napoca. Contribuții la studiul ceramicii din 2007 Dacia romană, BMN 25, Cluj-Napoca 2007. SAKAŘ 1970 V. Sakař, Roman imports in Bohemia, Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 14, Praga 1970. SANDRINI 2012 G. M. Sandrini, La borraccia da un pozzo romano di Opitergium, Instrumentum 35, 2012, 29–30. SANTROT ET J. Santrot, B. Derion, X. Dupuis, M. Fincker, Bronzes et fers de Dax, Landes, Gallia ALII 1996 53, 1996, 251–343. SCHÖNFELDER 2006 M. Schönfelder, Book review: Museum der Pfalz, Speyer (Hrsg.), Der Barbarenschatz. Geraubt und im Rhein versunken, Speyer – Stuttgart 2006, APA 38, 2006, 225–227. SCHNITZLER 1995 B. Schnitzler, Bronzes antiques d´Alsace, Inventaire des collections publiques françaises 37, Paris 1995. SEDLMAYER 1999 H. Sedlmayer, Die römischen Bronzegefäße in Noricum, Monographies Instrumentum 10, Montagnac 1999. SEITZ 2005 G. Seitz, Badewesen und Hygiene. Bedürfnis und Vergnügen. In: Archäologischen Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.): Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Begleitband zur Ausstellung des Landes BadenWürttemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober bis 8. Januar 2006, Stuttgart 2005. SERNEELS 1999 V. Serneels, Le petit outillage lithique. In: CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 183–185. SIEBERT 1999 A. V. Siebert, Instrumenta Sacra. Untersuchungen zu römischen Opfer-, Kult- und Priestergeräten, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 44, Berlin – New York 1999. SIMION 1984 G. Simion, Descoperiri noi în necropola de la Noviodunum. Raport preliminar, Peuce 9, 1984, 75–96, 482–502 (Pl. I-XVIII). SIMION 1995 G. Simion, Méthodes de datation et de localisation des centres de production des bronzes romains découvertes dans la région du Bas-Danube. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 215–228. SPAULDING 1911 L. C. Spaulding, he “Camillus” Type in Sculpture, Lancaster 1911. ŠPEHAR 2010 P. Špehar, A hoard of Roman bronze items from Viminacium, AKB 40/3, 2010, 425–439. STÎNGĂ 1998 I. Stîngă, Viața economică la Drobeta în secolele II-IV p. Chr., Bibliotheca hracologica 26, București 1998. STÎNGĂ 2003 I. Stîngă, Descoperiri arheologice recente în perimetrul orașului antic Drobeta, Drobeta 13, 2003, 103–113. STRONG 1979 D. E. Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London 1979. STUPPERICH 2006a R. Stupperich, Silberschälchen und Silberkännchen. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 106–107. STUPPERICH 2006b R. Stupperich, Silberbecher. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 108–109. STUPPERICH, R. Stupperich, M. homas, Figürliche Bronzen aus dem römischen Rheinzabern, THOMAS 2003 MENTOR 2, Möhnesee 2003. 228 STUTZINGER 1984 SUPKA 1913 SZABÓ 1979 SZABÓ 1980 SZABÓ 1981 SZABÓ 1982–1983 SZABÓ 1984 SZABÓ 1990 SZABÓ 1991a SZABÓ 1991b SZABÓ 1994 SZABÓ 1995 SZABÓ 1999 SZIRMAI 1993 ȘTEFĂNESCU 2004 ȘTEFĂNESCUONIȚIU 2008 ȘTEFĂNESCUONIȚIU 2008 TAMBA 2008 TARBELL 1909 TARDITI 1996 TASSINARI 1970a TASSINARI 1970b TASSINARI 1973 D. Stutzinger, Die Sammlung antiker Bronzegefäße des Römisch-Germanischen Museums in Köln – Materialanalysen und archäologische Daten. In: BERLIN 1984, 232–238. G. Supka, Hírek a régiségtárból, AÉrt 33, 1913, 280–281. K. Szabó, Tombeaux des environs de Intercisa, Alba Regia 17, 1979, 251–262. K. Szabó, Vaisselles de bronze sur la frontiere pannonienne (entre Vetus Salina et Lussonium). In: W. S. Hanson, L. J. F. Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979. Papers presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Part 2, BAR International Series 71/2, 1980, 715–728. K. Szabó, Emberi lábfejjel díszített füles bronzkorsók Pannoniából,(Pot pannonien en bronze, à anse ornée d´un pied humain), AÉrt 108/1, 1981, 52–64. K. Szabó, Pot à anse, en bronze, ornée d´un pied humain, provenant de Pannonie, Antiquités Nationales 14/15, 1982–1983, 86–96. K. Szabó, Balsamaires en bronze provenant de la Pannonie. In: SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR 1984, 99–113, Pl. LII-LV. K. Szabó, Római kori bronzedények a veszprémi Laczkó Dezső Múzeumban. In: Cs. D. Veress, M. Praznovszky (szerk.), Veszprémi Történelmi Tár II, Veszprémi Múzeumi Gyűjtemények 1, Veszprém 1990, 19–67. K. Szabó, Római kori lóherelevél-szájú. Talpas bronzkancsók (Römische Bronzetrifoliarkannen mit hohem Fuss), AÉrt 118/1–2, 1991, 3–15. K. Szabó, Gefässdarstellungen auf den Nebenseiten der Altäre. In: M. Praznovszky (Hrsg.), 2. Internationales Kolloquium über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschafens. Vorträge der Tagung in Veszprém (14. Mai – 18. Mai 1991), Veszprém 1991, 171–182. K. Szabó, Pots à embouchure lourde coulee d´une pièce avec l´anse. In: FREIBURG (STUTTGART) 1994, 399–403. K. Szabó, Situles de Pannonie. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 77–85. K. Szabó, Die Phialen mit Grif des Handwaschservices des sog. Alikaria – Typus. In: A. Vaday (ed.), Pannonia and Beyond. Studies in Honour of László Barkóczi, Antaeus 24, 1999, 462–491, 777–778. K. Szirmai, Eisengefässe in den spätrömischen aquincumer Gräbern. In: MADRID 1993, 421–427. A. Ștefănescu, Bronze paterae in Roman Dacia. In: BUCHAREST 2004, 421–429. A. Ștefănescu-Oniţiu, Câteva consideraţii privind producţia locală a paterelor de ceramică. In: D. Benea (red.), Studii de istorie economică a Daciei romane, BHAUT 10, Timișoara, 2008, 73–87. A. Ștefănescu-Oniţiu, Vasele de bronz din Dacia romană. Între import și producţie locală. In: D. Benea (coord.), Dacia în sistemul socio-economic roman. Cu privire la atelierele meșteșugărești locale, BHAUT 9, Timișoara 2008, 214–228. D. Gh. Tamba, Porolissum. Așezarea civilă (vicus militaris) a castrului mare. Observații în legătură cu așezările civile ale castrelor de trupe auxiliare din Dacia Porolissensis, Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman IV, Cluj-Napoca 2008. F. B. Tarbell, Catalogue of Bronzes, etc., in Field Museum of Natural History, Field Museum of Natural History Publication 130, Anthropological Seies 7/3, Chicago 1909. C. Tarditi, Vasi di bronzo in area Apula. Produzioni greche ed italiche di età arcaica e classica, Lecce 1996. S. Tassinari, Patères a manche orné d´un décor en relief. In: NIJMEGEN 1970, 3 p., ig. 1–4. S. Tassinari, Patères a manche orné, Gallia 28/1, 1970, 127–163. S. Tassinari, Etude de vaisselle de bronze romaine et gallo-romaine: Les pots à anse ornée d’un pied humain. In: P. –M. Duval (éd.), Recherches d’archéologie celtique et gallo-romaine 5, Haute études du monde gréco-romaine 3, Paris – Geneve 1973, 127–140. 229 TASSINARI 1975a TASSINARI 1975b TASSINARI 1993 TASSINARI 1995 TASSINARI 1996 TASSINARI 1998a TASSINARI 1998b TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984 TÉGLÁS 1902 TERENZIANI 1986 TISSERAND 2011 TOMAŠEVIĆ BUCK 2002 TORMA 1865 TOYNBEE 1996 TRESORS D´ORFEVRERIE 1989 TROTZIG 1991 TUDOR 1968 TUDOR 1978 ȚEPOSUMARINESCU 1982 UNTRACHT 1968 VASS 2016 VNUKOV ET ALII 230 S. Tassinari, La vaisselle de bronze romaine et provinciale au Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Gallia suppl. 29, Paris 1975. S. Tassinari, Pots à anse unique. Études du décor des anses d´un type de récipients en bronze d´Herculanum et de Pompei, CronPomp 1, 1975, 160–231. S. Tassinari, Il vasellame bronzeo di Pompei, Ministero per i beni culturali ed ambientali, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, Cataloghi 5, Roma 1993. S. Tassinari, Vaisselle antique de bronze, Collections du Musée Départemental des Antiquités de Rouen, Rouen 1995. S. Tassinari, Bouillir, mijoter et cuire, porter et mesurer: le role de la vaisselle métallique dans les cuisines de Pompei. In: M. Bats (dir.), Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise (Ier s. av. J.-C. – Iie s. ap. J.-C.). La vaisselle de cuisine et de table. Acte de Journées d´étude organisées par Centre Jean Bérnard et la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Provincie di Napoli e Caserta, Naples, 27–28 mai 1994, Collection du Centre Jean Bérnard 14, Naples 1996, 113–119. S. Tassinari, De l´object à l´atelier. Peut-on repérer sur les récipients en bronze des traits caractéristiques suisants pour individualiser des ateliers? In: G. Nicolini, N. DieudonnéGlad (dir.), Les métaux antiques: travail e restauration. Actes du colloque de Poitieres, 28–30 sept. 1998, Monographies Instrumentum 6, Montagnac 1998, 87–94. S. Tassinari, Les objets de fouille: l´exemple des recipients en bronze de Pompei. In: M. Németh (ed.), he Roman Town in a Modern City, Proceedings of the International Colloquium held on the occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the Aquincum Museum, 1994, Budapest, Aquincum Nostrum 2, Budapest 1998, 100–102. S. Tassinari, F. Burkhalter, Moules de Tartous: techniques et production d’un atelier de toreutique antique. In: BERLIN 1984, 87–106. G. Téglás, Fortuna Salutaris és Jupiter szentélye Ampelimban, vagyis a mai Zalatnán, AÉrt 22/1, 1902, 7–12. L. Terenziani, Vasetto decorato a rilievo delle Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche di Milano. In: BOLLA ET ALII 1986, 214–218. N. Tisserand, Les outils en fer du site de Vertault-Vertillum (Côte d‘or). In: P. ChardronPicault (éd.), Aspects de l’artisanat en milieu urbain: Gaule et Occident romain, Dijon 2010, 251–265. T. Tomašević Buck, Römische Authepsae, auch ein Instrument der ärztlichen Versorgung. In: CAMBRIDGE 2002/2, 213–232. K. Torma, Az Alsó Ilosvai római állótábor s műemlékei. Helyirati vázlat, EMEÉ 3/1, 1864–1865 (1865), 10–67, I-XIV t. J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 2nd edition, Baltimore 1996. *** Trésors d´orfèvrerie gallo-romains. Exposition, Musée du Luxemburg, Paris, 8 Férvrier–23 Avril 1989, Musée de la Civilisation Gallo-Romaine, Lyon, 16 Mai–27 Août 1989, Paris 1989. G. Trotzig, Craftmanship and function. A study of metal vessels found in Viking Age tombs on the island of Gotland, Sweden, he Museum of National Antiquities Stockholm. Monographs 1, Stockholm 1991. D. Tudor, Centrul militar roman de la Buridava, SMMIM 1, 1968, 17–29. D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, ed. a IV-a, București 1978. L. Ţeposu-Marinescu, Funerary Monuments of Dacia Superior and Dacia Porolissensis, BAR International Series 128, Oxford 1982. O. Untracht, Metal Techniques for Craftsmen. A Basic Manual for Craftsmen on the Methods of Forming and Decorating Metals, London 1968. L. Vass, Kat. 30. Olajtartó vasedény. In: Aquincum Museum (ed.), Wellness az ókorban – Fürdőkultúra Aquincumban. Tárgykatalógus, Budapest 2016, 15. S. Ju. Vnukov, S. A. Kovalenko, M. Ju. Treister, Moulages en platere de Kara-Tobe (Crimée), RA (NS) 1, 1990, 28-50. VOSS, MÜLLERSCHEESSEL 2016 H.-U. Voß, N. Müller-Scheeßel (Hrsg.), Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im Reich und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Internationales Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main, 19 – 22. März 2009, Teil I-II, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 22/1, Bonn 2016. VEL Vbi Erat Lvpa – Römische Steindenkmäler – http://www.ubi-erat lupa.org/site/ index.asp?show=menue/dummy_abfrage.shtml. VISY 2010 Zs. Visy, he connections between Pannonia and Dacia in a historical context. In: M. V. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Bâltâc, V. Rusu-Bolindeț, V. Bottez (eds.), Antiquitas Istro-Pontica. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne oferts à Alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca 2010, 83–92. VISY 2012 Zs. Visy, A Seuso-kincs ismert darabjai/he known objects of the Sevso treasure. In: Zs. Visy (ed.), A Seuso kincs és Pannonia/he Sevso treasure and Pannonia. I Régészet/ Archaeology, Pécs 2012, 7–22. VON KAISERN UND F. Humer (Hrsg.), Von Kaisern und Bürgern. Antike Kostbarkeiten aus Carnuntum, BÜRGERN 2009 Wien 2009. WAGNER ET ALII 2000 R. Wagner, G. Bery, J. Gorecki, H. – M. von Kaenel, D. G. Pearson, Searching ancient copper sources – a lead isotope study of Roman bronze vessels from Pompeii. In: KÖLN 2000, 615–616. WALKE 1965 N. Walke, Das römische Donaukastell Straubing-Sorviodurum, Limesforschungen. Studien zur Organisation der römischen Reichgrenze an Rhein und Donau 3, Berlin 1965. WELTE 2005 B. Welte, Römisches Badeutensil aus Bregenz: Eine Badeschale aus Brigantium. In: G. Grabherr, B. Kainrath, A. Larcher, B. Welte (Hrsg.), Vis Imaginvm. Festschrift für Elisabeth Walde zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck 2005, 557–566. WELTER, J. – M. Welter, R. Guibellini, How was Roman Bronzeware Manufactured? In: GUIBELLINI 2004 A. Lehoërf (dir.), L´artisanat métallurigique dans les sociétés anciennes en Méditerranée Occidentale. Techniques, lieux et formes de production, Collection de l´École Française de Rome 322, Rome 2004, 287–300. WERNER 1936 J. Werner, Zwei römische Bronzeeimer von Neuburg a. d. Donau, Germania 20/4, 1936, 258–261. WERNER 1938 J. Werner, Die römischen Bronzegeschirrdepots des 3. Jahrhunderts und die mitteldeutsche Skelettgräbergruppe. In: E. Sprockhof (Hrsg.), Marburger Studien, Darmstadt 1938, 259–267. WIELOWIEJSKI 1973 J. Wielowiejski, Die antiken Trinkgelage-Gebräuche bei den Völkern Osteuropas der römischen Kaiserzeit, ArchPol 14, 1973, 269–278. WIELOWIEJSKI 1977 J. Wielowiejski, Research on Roman metal vessels in the last thirty years (1946–1975), ArchPol 18, 137–172. WIELOWIEJSKI 1984a J. Wielowiejski, Bemerkungen über den Stand der Forschungen über römischen Bronzegefäße in Spanien. In: BERLIN 1984, 347–350. WIELOWIEJSKI 1984b J. Wielowiejski, Bericht des Plinius des Älteren über die Legierung der römischen Bronzegefässe im Lichte der chemischen Analyse. In: SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR 1984, 129–134. WIELOWIEJSKI 1985 J. Wielowiejski, Die spätkeltischen und römischen Bronzegefässe in Polen, BRGK 66, 1985, 123–320. WIELOWIEJSKI 1988 J. Wielowiejski, Studies of Roman metal vessels during the last decade (1976–1985), ArchPol 27, 1988, 15–67. WIELOWIEJSKI 1995 J. Wielowiejski, Zur Verbreitung und Funktion der römischen Bronzegefäße bei den nördlich des norisch-pannonischen Limes ansässigen Völkern. In: NIJMEGEN 1995, 97–102. WILLER 2006 F. Willer, Beobachtungen zur antiken Herstellungstechnik. In: BARBARENSCHATZ 2006, 176–181. 231 WILLERS 1901 WILLERS 1907 WILSON, WACHER 2002 WOLLMANN 1970 WOLLMAN 1996 ZANKER 1988 ZIENKIEWICZ 1993 ZIMMER 1982 ZSIDI 1991 H. Willers, Die römischen Bronzeeimer von Hemmoor. Nebst einem Anhange über die römischen Silberbarren aus Dierstorf, Hannover – Leipzig 1901. H. Willers, Neue Untersuchungen über die römische Bronzeindustrie von Capua und von Niedergermanien besonderes auf die Funde aus Deutschland und dem Norden hin, Hannover – Leipzig 1907. P. R. Wilson, J. S. Wacher, he 1958–9 Bypass excavations (Site 433). In: P. R. Wilson, Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958– 1997, Part I, CBA Research Report 128, York 2002, 46–122. V. Wollmann, Materiale epigraice și sculpturale romane în Muzeul Sebeș, (Römische Inschriften und Steindenkmäler im Museum Sebeș (Mühlbach), ActaMN 7, 1970, 163–183. V. Wollman, Minieritul metalifer, extragerea sării și carierele de piatră în Dacia romană/ Der Erzbergbau, die Salzgewinnung und die Steinbrüche im römischen Dakien, BMN 13, Veröfentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 63, ClujNapoca 1996. P. Zanker, he Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Jerome Lectures 16th series, Michigan 1988. J. D. Zienkiewicz, Excavations in the Scamnum Tribunorum at Caerleon: he Legionary Museum Site 1983–5, Britannia 24, 1993, 27–140. G. Zimmer, Römische Berufdarstellungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Archäologische Forschungen 12, Berlin 1982. P. Zsidi, Újabb villa az aquincumi municipium terrritoriumán (Bp. III. ker.Kaszás Dűlő-Csikós utca)/Neure Villa am Territorium des Municipiums von Aquincum, BRég 27, 1991, 143–179. Proceeding of congresses on ancient bronzes: BERLIN 1984 U. Gehrig (Hrsg.), Toreutik und igürliche Bronzen römischer Zeit. Akten der 6. Tagung über antike Bronzen 13. – 17. Mai 1980 in Berlin. Madame G.-M. Faider-Feytmans zum Gedächtnis, Berlin 1984. BUCHAREST 2004 C. Mușeţeanu (ed.), he Antique Bronzes: Typology, Chronology, Authenticity. he Acta of the 16th International Congress of Antique Bronzes, Organised by he Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest, May 26th–31st, 2003, Bucharest 2004. CAMBRIDGE 2002/1–2 C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer, S. E. Knudsen (eds.), From the Parts to the Whole: Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28 – June 1, 1996, vol. I-II, JRA suppl. ser. 39, 2000 (2002). FREIBURG J. Ronke (Hrsg.), Akten der 10. Internationalen Tagung über antike Bronzen, Freiburg, (STUTTGART) 1994 18–22. Juni, 1988, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürttemberg 45, Stuttgart 1994. KÖLN 2000 R. homas (Hrsg.), Antike Bronzen. Werkstattkreise: Figuren und Geräte. Akten des 14. Internationalen Kongresses für Antike Bronzen in Köln, 21. Bis 24. September 1999, KJ 33, 2000. LAUSSANE 1979 C. Bérard, P. Ducrey, A. Altherr-Charon (éds.), Bronzes hellénistiques et romains. Tradition et renouveau, Actes du Ve Colloque international sur les bronzes antiques, Lausanne, 8–13 mai 1978, CAR 17, Lausanne 1979. LYON 1977 S. Boucher (dir.), Actes du IVe Colloque International sur les bronzes antiques (17–21 mai 1976), Annales de l’Universite Jean Moulin, Lettres, Lyon 1977. MADRID 1993 J. Arce, F. Burkhalter (cords.), Bronces y Religion Romana. Actas del XI. Congreso Internacional de Bronces Antiquos, Madrid, mayo-junio, 1990, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientíicas (Madrid 1993). MAINZ 1975 H. Menzel (Hrsg.), Bericht über die Tagung „Römische Toreutik” vom 23. bis 26. Mai 1972 in Mainz, JRGZM 20, 1973(1975), 258–282. 232 NIJMEGEN 1970 NIJMEGEN 1995 SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR 1984 UDINE 2002 ZÜRICH 2015 Journals and series: Aarbøger Aarch ABPO ActaMN ActaMP AÉrt AEspA AFW-L AJA AKB AL Alba Regia Amphora AN AnatAnt AnB ANRW Antaeus AnTard APA Apulum Archaeologia ArchBulg ArchClass Archeologia ***, Tagung über römische Bronzegefäße im Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam in Nijmegen von 20. Bis einschließlich 23. Aprilie 1970. Hektogr. Niederschrift 1970 – manuscript without ISBN and page numbers (Biblioteca Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt am Main, registration no.: H 1117). S. T. A. M. Mols, A. M. Gerhartl-Witteveen, H. Kars, A. Koster, W. J. h. Peters, W. J. H. Willems (eds.), Acta of the 12th International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Nijmegen, 1–4 June 1992, ROB 18, 1995. ***, Bronzes Romains igurés et appliqués et leur problème techniques. Actes du VIIe Colloque international sur les Bronzes antiques, Székesfehérvár, 1982, Alba Regia 21, 1984, 5–136 A. Giumlia-Mair (a cura di), I bronzi antichi: Produzione e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi, Grando-Aquileia, 22–26 maggio 2001, Monographies Instrumentum 21, Montagnac 2002. E. Deschler-Erb, Ph. Della Cassa (eds.), New research on ancient bronzes. Acta of the XVIIIth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Zürich Studies in Archaeology 10/2015, Zürich 2015. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (København). Acta Archaeologica (København). Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest (Rennes). Acta Musei Napocensis (Cluj-Napoca). Acta Musei Porolissensis (Zalău). Archaeologiai Értesitő. A Magyar Régészeti és Művészettörténeti Társulat tudományos folyóirata (Budapest). Archivo Español de Arqveología (Madrid). Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe (Mainz am Rhein). he American Journal of Archaeology. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt (Mainz am Rhein). Arte Lombarda: Rivista di Storia dell’Arte (Cesano Maderno). Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis (Székesfehérvár). Amphora. Bulletin du Cercle archéologique Amphora (Braine l’Alleud). Aquileia nostra: bolletino dell’Associazione nazionale per Aquileia. Mvseo Archeologico (Aqvileia). Anatolia Antiqua (Istanbul). Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă. Arheologie-Istorie (Timișoara). H. Temporini (seria I, II), W. Haase (seria II) (Hrsg.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin – New York). Antaeus. Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest). Antiquité Tardive (Antigüedad Tardia, Late Antiquity, Spätantike, Tarda Antichità). Revue internationale d’histoire et archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.) publiée par l’Association pour l’ Antiquité Tardive (Turnhout). Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica (Berlin). Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis (Alba Iulia). Archaeologia: or, Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Society of Antiquaries of London (Londra). Archaeologia Bulgarica (Soia). Archaeologia Classica. Rivista della Scuola Nazionale di Archeologia, pubblicata a cura degli Istituti di Archeologia e Storia dell’arte Greca e Romana e di Etruscologia e Antichità Italiche dell’Università di Roma (Roma). Archeologia. Rocznik Instytutu Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków). 233 Archaeometry ArchPol Arctos AW BAM Banatica BAPA BAR BBA BCH BHAB BHAUT BJ BMA BMI BMM Sarh BMN BRég BRGK Britannia Buridava BVBl CAL CAR CCA CommArchHung CronPomp CSIR Cumidava Dacia (NS) DenkmPfBW Der Anschnitt DissPann DolgENM (ÚS) Drobeta EM EMEÉ EphDac EphNap FA FBW Fornvännen 234 Archaeometry (Oxford). Archaeologia Polona. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology. Polish Academy of Sciences (Wrocław). Arctos. Acta Philologica Fennica (Helsinki). Antike Welt. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte (Mainz am Rhein). Bulletin d´Archéologie Marocaine (Rabat). Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan (Reșița). Bulletin de l´Association Pro Aventico (Avenches). British Archaeological Reports (Oxford). Berliner Beiträge zur Archäometrie (Berlin). Bulletin de Correspondence hellénique (Athene). Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica (Timișoara). Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis (Timișoara). Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande (Bonn). Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis (Alba Iulia). Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice (București). Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis. Seria Archaeologica (Târgu Mureș). Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis (Cluj-Napoca). Budapest Régiségei: a Budapesti Történeti Múzeum Évkönyve (Budapest). Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission (Frankfurt am Main). Britannia. A Journal of Romano-British and Kindred Studies (London). Buridava. Studii și Materiale (Râmnicu Vâlcea). Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter. Herausgegeben von der Kommission für bayerische Landesgeschicte bei der Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München). Cahiers Archéologiques de la Loire (Roanne). Cahiers d’Achéologie Romande de la Bibliothèque Historique Vaudoise (Lausanne). Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (Budapest). Cronache Pompeiane (Napoli). Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Cumidava. Buletinul Muzeului de Istorie din Brașov (Brașov). Dacia. Recherches et découvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, 1 (1924) – 12 (1948). Nouvelle Série. Revue d’ archéologie et d’histoire ancienne, 1, 1957 sqq. (București). Denkmalplege in Baden-Württemberg. Nachrichtenblatt des Landesdenkmalamtes (Stuttgart). Der Anschnitt. Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau (Bochum). Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes (Budapest). Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem–és Régiségtárából /Traxaux de la section numismatique et archéologique du Musée National de Transylvanie à Kolozsvár (Hongrie) (1910–1919)/Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem–és Régiségtárából. Új Sorozat (2006-) (Kolozsvár). Drobeta. Muzeul Regiunii Porților de Fier (Drobeta-Turnu Severin). Erdélyi Múzeum. Kiadja az Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület (Kolozsvár). Az Erdélyi Múzeum–Egyesület Évkönyve (Kolozsvár). Ephemeris Dacoromana. Annuario Della Scuola Romena di Roma (Roma). Ephemeris Napocensis (Cluj-Napoca). Folia Archaeologica (Budapest). Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg/Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart). Fornvännen. Tidskrift för Svensk Antikvarisk Forskning (Stockholm). G&R Gallia Genava Germania Helinivm Hep Instrumentum JAK JAS JBB JGPV JRA JRGZM JSGU KJ Közlemények Marisia Marmatia MCA MEFRA MENTOR MFBVF Minerva NNU Oltenia OMRO PAT Peuce Pontica PSAS QFA QSAP RA (NS) RAComo RAE RAEC RAP RASMI RB ROB RÖ Greece & Rome. he Classical Association. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge). Gallia. Archéologie de la France antique, CNRS éditions (Paris). Genava. Bulletin du Musée d´Art et d´Histoire de Genève et de la Société auxiliaire du Musée, la Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, la Commission cantonale pour la conservation des monuments et la protection des sites (Genève). Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Berlin – Mainz am Rhein). Helinivm. Revue consacrée à l´archéologie du Pays-Bas, de la Belgique et du Grande –Duché de Luxembourg (Wetteren). Hispania Epigraphica (Madrid). Instrumentum. Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l´artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l´Antiquité (Montagnac). Jahresberichte aus Augst und Kaiseraugst (Augst). Journal of Archaeological Science (London and New York). Jahresbericht der bayerischen Bodendenkmalplege (München). Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa (Brugg). Journal of Roman Archaeology (Portsmouth – Rhode Island). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz (Mainz am Rhein). Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Basel). Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Römisch-Germanisches Museum und Archäologische Gesellschaft (Köln). Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából (Kolozsvár). Marisia. Studii și Materiale. Arheologie (Târgu Mureș). Marmatia (Baia Mare). Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice (București). Mélanges de L´école Française de Rome. Antiquité (Rome). MENTOR. Studien zu Metallarbeiten und Toreutik der Antike. Herausgegeben von R. Stupperich und R. Petrovszky (Heidelberg). Mitteilungen der Freunde der Bayerischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte (München). Minerva. he International Review of Ancient Art and Archaeology (London). Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte (Stuttgart). Oltenia. Studii și Comunicări. Arheologie-Istorie (Craiova). Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden (Nijmegen). Patimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum (Cluj-Napoca). Peuce. Studii și comunicări de istorie veche, arheologie si numismatică (Tulcea). Pontica. Muzeul de Arheologie Constanţa (Constanţa). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Edinburgh). Quaderni Friulani di Archeologia. Società Friulana di Archeologia (Udine). Quaderni della Soprindentenza Archeologica del Piemonte (Torino). Revue Archéologique. Nouvelle Série (Paris). Rivista Archeologica dell’Antica Provincia e Diocesi di Como (Como). Revue Archéologique de L’Est (Dijon). Revue Archéologique de L’Est et du Centre-Est (Dijon). Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent (Lleida/Lérida). Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore: Rassegna di Studi del Civico Museo Archeologico e del Civico Gabinetto Numismatico di Milano (Milano). Revista Bistriței (Bistrița). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten) (Nijmegen). Römisches Österreich. Jahresschrift der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Archäologie (Wien). 235 Sargetia Sautuola SCIVA SFECAG SHVI Situla SJ SMMIM Société Éduenne Specimina Nova Starinar SUBB-Historia TBA T&C Transactions TZ VAPD VHAD YAJ ZPE Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis (Deva). Sautuola. Revista del Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueología Sautuola (Santander). Studii și cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie (Bucureşti). Société Française d´Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule (Marseille). Sammelblatt Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt (Ingolstadt). Situla. Razprave Narodnega Muzeja v Ljubljani – Dissertationes Musei Nationalis Labacensis (Ljubljana). Saalburg Jahrbuch: Bericht des Saalburg Museum (Saalburg). Studii și Materiale de Muzeograie și Istorie Militară (București). Société Éduenne des Lettres, Sciences et Arts. Mémoires: Nouvelle Série (Autun). Specimina Nova. Dissertationum ex Instituto Historico Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis de Iano Pannonio Nominatae (Pecs). Starinar (Beograd). Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai-Historia (Cluj-Napoca). Technische Beiträge zur Archäologie (Mainz am Rhein). Technology and Culture. he International Quarterly of the Society for the History and Technology (Baltimore). Transactions. Stafordshire Archaeological and Historical Society (Staford). Trierer Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst des Trierer Landes und seine Nachbargebiete (Trier). Vjesnik za Arheologiju i Povijest Dalmatinsku/Journal of Dalmatian Archaeology and History (Split). Vjesnik Hrvatskoga Arheološkoga Društva. Nova serija (1895–1941/1942.) (Zagreb). he Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. he Yorkshire Archaeological Society (Claremont). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (Bonn). Museums and institutions: CMBN Bistrița-Năsăud Museum Complex, Bistrița (Complexul Muzeal Bistrița-Năsăud, Bistrița). IAIAC Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, Cluj-Napoca (Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei, Cluj-Napoca). MBS Brukenthal Museum, Sibiu (Muzeul Brukenthal Sibiu). MCDRD Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation, Deva (Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice și Romane, Deva). MIAZ History and Art County Museum, Zalău (Muzeul de Istorie și Artă, Zalău). MIG History Musem, Gherla (Muzeul de Istorie, Gherla). MIO History Musem, Orăștie (Muzeul de Istorie, Orăștie). MIT History Musem, Turda (Muzeul de Istorie, Turda). MMS “Ioan Raica” City Museum, Sebeș (Muzeul Municipal “Ioan Raica”, Sebeș). MNITR National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj-Napoca (Muzeul Național de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca). MNM Hungarian National Museum, Budapest (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest). MNUAI National Museum of the Union, Alba Iulia (Muzeul Naţional al Unirii, Alba Iulia). 236 VII. Annexes VII.1. Annexe I. List of the sculptural monuments from Roman Dacia with depictions of metal vessels1506 238 a. Votive monuments No. 1. 2. Monument type Votive altar without inscription (Pl. I/1) Votive altar (Pl. I/2) 3. Votive altar (Pl. II/3) 4. Votive altar (Pl. II/4) 5. Votive altar (Pl. III/5) 6. Votive altar (Pl. III/6) 7. Votive altar (Pl. IV/7) 8. Votive altar (Pl. IV/8) 1506 Place of discovery Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Alba County): in the basement of the Báthory church. Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). Storing place Inscription Dating MNUAI (without inventory no.). - 2nd – 3rd centuries AD MNITR (inventory Asclepio /et Hygiae no.: 205). /C(aius) Fabricius /Dexter /u(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). MNUAI (inventory Badonib(us) /reginis /Sexno.: 361). tia Au/gustina /ex uoto. 2nd – 3rd centuries AD 2nd – 3rd centuries AD Type of depicted vessels Bibliography BĂLUŢĂ 1989, 266, no. 15, On the right side a spouted jug and on the left pl. VI/1–2; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 121, 132, 140, one a bowl with tubular no. 28, pl. III/5. handle. IDR III/5, 12; GUDEA 1978, On the right side a 144; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ spouted jug and on the left 1994, 141, no. 40. one a bowl with tubular handle. IDR III/5, 37; RUSUOn the right side a bowl BOLINDEŢ 1994, 141, with tubular handle and no. 42. on the left one a spouted jug. IDR III/5, 78; RUSUOn the right side a bowl MNUAI (inventory Fortunae /super(a)e / 2nd – 3rd centuries AD BOLINDEŢ 1994, 141, with tubular handle and no.: 375). Aug(ustae) /sacrum /cum no. 43. on the left one a spouted aede /u(otum) s(olvit) jug. l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) [...] IDR III/5, 107; RUSUOn the left side a spouted Caius Caerellius MNBS (inventory Iunoni /reginae Po/ Alba Iulia/ BOLINDEŢ 1994, 141, Sabinus is attested at jug and under it a casno.: A 3409; old puloniae /deae patriae Apulum (Alba no. 44. serole. A krater-shaped no.: 7182). /C(aius) Caerellius /Sabi- Apulum between 183 County): in front vessel with vine leaves nus leg(atus) /Aug(usti) and 185 AD (see: IDR of the lower gate III/5, 235). and bunches of grapes is leg(ionis) XIII G(eminae) of the Austrian depicted on the right side. /et Fufidia Pollitta eius / fortiication. uoto. On the right side a casseIDR III/5, 128; WOLLStarting with MMIRS (without [I(oui)] o(ptimo) m(aDaia Română role and on the left one a MANN 1970, 172–173, ig. Commodus because inventory no.). ximo) /C(aius) Aelius / (Alba County): of the rank of colonia spouted jug, hardly visible. 8; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, Primus /dec(urio) col(obrought here attributed to the town. 140, no. 32? niae). from Apulum). Alba Iulia/ MNUAI (inventory I(oui) o(ptimo) m(aximo) 2nd – 3rd centuries AD IDR III/5, 129; CIUOn the right side a bowl Apulum (Alba no.: 8202). /M(arcus) Arrani/us EpaGUDEAN, BĂLUŢĂ with tubular handle and County): canabae. phr/oditus /et Arra/nius 1990, 207, ig. 1; RUSUon the left one a spouted Ni/ger filiu/s posuerunt. BOLINDEŢ 1994, 140, jug. no. 29. IDR III/5, 157; BĂLUŢĂ On the right side a bowl Unknown* I(oui) o(ptimo) m(aximo) 2nd – 3rd centuries AD Alba Iulia/ 1986, 119–120, ig. 1; with tubular handle and /Marcus Naeuius /Felicio Apulum (Partoş RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, on the left one a spouted cum /suis u(otum) s(oldistrict, Alba 140, no. 38. jug. vit) l(ibens) m(erito). County). he numbers of the monuments from the table correspond to the numbers from the plates. Observations - - - - - - - - No. 9. Monument type Votive altar (Pl. V/9) Place of discovery Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). Storing place Inscription Dating Type of depicted vessels Bibliography Observations MNBS (inventory no.: A 3420; old no.: 7193). I(oui) o(ptimo) m(aximo) /A(ulus) Tapetius /Epius. 2nd – 3rd centuries AD On the right side a bowl with tubular handle and on the left one a spouted jug. IDR III/5, 168; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 141, no. 46. - Alba Iulia/ MNUAI (inventory I(oui) o(ptimo) m(aximo) Apulum (Alba no.: 8203). /C(aius) Vibi/us Nic/ County): canabae. ostra/tus /u(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). 2nd – 3rd centuries AD On the right side a bowl with tubular handle and on the left one a spouted jug. IDR III/5, 175; CIUGUDEAN, BĂLUŢĂ 1990, 208–209, ig. 2; RUSUBOLINDEŢ 1994, 140, no. 30. The monument was discovered together with IDR III/5, 129 (no. 7 here) and both pieces display a similar decoration of the lateral sides.. - 10. Votive altar (Pl. V/10) 11. Votive altar (Pl. VI/11) Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). 12. Votive altar (Pl. VI/12) 13. Votive altar (Pl. VII/13) Alba Iulia/ Apulum (Partoş district, Alba County). Poiana (Hunedoara County): brought here from Germisara? 14. Votive altar (Pl. VII/14) Vețel/Micia (Hunedoara County). Probably 3rd AD Libero /patri et Libe(rae) On the right side a /Cl(audius) Atteius Celer century because of the spouted jug and on the /veteranus leg(ionis) XIII left one a krater–shaped presumed imperial /Gem(inae) [.....]?n(a)e vessel with vine stalks and epithet. d[e]c(urio) /canabesium / bunches of grapes. cum suis u(otum) l(ibens) s(olvit) /l(oco) d(ato) d(ecurionum) d(ecreto). MNITR (inventory Inuicto Myth{i}r/ae Chr/ 2nd – 3rd centuries AD On the right side a casseno.: v. 51139). estion /u(otum) s(olvit) role? and on the left one a spouted jug. IDR III/5, 240; RUSUBOLINDEŢ 1994, 141, no. 47. IDR III/5, 272; RUSUBOLINDEŢ1994, 141, no. 39. - Publius Furius SatOn the right side a bowl [I(oui)] o(ptimo) urninus is governor with tubular handle and m(aximo) /pro salu/te on the left one a spouted between 159 and P(ublii) Furii Sa/turnini jug. le[g(ati)] /augusti pr(o) 161/162 AD (see: PISO 1993, 73–75). pr(aetore) P(ublius) Ael(ius) /Maximianu[s] [dec(urio) /col(oniae)?] MCDRD (without Pro salute /Domus Divi/ 2nd – 3rd centuries AD On the right side a inventory no.). nae sacrum /Genium spouted jug and on the left Miciae /M(arcus) one a bowl with tubular Cornelius /Stratonicus / handle. aug(ustalis) col(oniae) /et ante f(rontem) lapi(dibus) /stravit. IDR III/3, 236; RUSSU 1966, 452–453, ig. 1. - IDR III/3, 71. - MCDRD (inventory no.: 45). MEAP (inventory no. 3149). 239 * In the irst publication of the altar (BĂLUŢĂ 1986) it is mentioned that the altar is preserved in the courtyard of the discoverer, Gheorghe Drîmbăreanu, in Partoș district of Alba Iulia, on Dacilor Street, no. 86. he same information (except for the name of the discoverer: Gheorghe Dumbrăvean) is ofered by Ioan Piso in the volume dedicated to the Roman inscriptions from Apulum (IDR III/5, 157). I tried to locate the altar in order to ofer better photographic information of the representations. With this occasion it was obvious that the address indicated in the publications was wrong. he discoverer, Gheorghe Drîmbăreanu, lives on Dacilor Street, no. 28 and from his account the altar is no longer in his possession since the end of the 1980’s. He could not remember what happened to it and he does not know anything about its present location. b. Funerary monuments 240 No. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Monument Place of discovery Storing place Dating Type of depicted vessels Bibliography Observations type Left lateral wall Aghireş (Cluj County). Incorporated in 2nd–3rd century FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 30, no. 94, Fig. 115; The female attendant holds a of aedicula the south gate AD. napkin in her left hand, slung over PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 179, no. 1, Pl. II/1. (Pl. VIII/15) of the reformed the shoulder, and a spouted jug in church. the right hand. BĂLUŢĂ 1989, 252, no. 2, Pl II; RUSU-BOThe female attendant holds a Alba Iulia/Apulum Altar of the MNUAI First half of LINDEŢ 1994, 140, no. 27; CIONGRADI 2007, jug in her right hand and in her pseudo-aedic- (Patoș district, Alba inv. no. R 7857. the 2nd century 202, no. A/A 6, Taf. 61/A/A 6a-c; PETRUȚ, AD (CIONGRADI left hand a napkin slung over the County). ula type MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 179, no. 2, Pl. II/2. shoulder. 2007). (Pl. VIII/16) The male attendant holds an over- FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 22, no. 67 (with wrong Left lateral wall Alba Iulia/Apulum MNUAI inv. 2nd–3rd century AD. sized jug in his right hand and a illustration); ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 211, of aedicula (Alba County). no. 298. no. 59, Pl. XXXIX; CIONGRADI 2007, 216, no. napkin in his left hand, thrown (Pl. VIII/17) Roman necropolis. Ae/A 6, Taf. 78/Ae/A 6; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ over the shoulder. 2010, 185, no. 23, Pl. VII/23. Alba Iulia/Apulum MNUAI inv. 2nd–3rd century The male attendant holds an askos FLORESCU 1930, 109, no. 58, Fig. 49; DAIPyra(Alba County). no. 164/II; 87. AD. in his right hand and a napkin in COVICIU 1968, 335, no. 5, Pl. III, Fig. 1–3; mid-shaped the left. ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 183, no. 5; CIONcoping of GRADI 2007, 240, no. Py/A 7, Taf. 100/Py/A funerary mon7a-c; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 185, no. 24, ument Pl. VII/24. (Pl. VIII/18) nd rd Lateral wall of Cluj-Napoca/Napoca MNITR without 2 –3 century The female attendant depicted BENEA, HICA 2004, 133, no. 12, pl. IV/1; The monument was inv. no. (Cluj County). aedicula AD. in the lower register holds in her PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 180, no. 8, Pl. III/8. reused as component of “South-eastern” (Pl. VIII/19) right hand a beaker and in her left a burial cist. necropolis*. hand a spouted jug. A napkin is slung over the left shoulder. BENEA, HICA 2004, 134, Pl. IV, no. 5; PETRUȚ, The monument was The female attendant holds an MNITR inv. 2nd–3rd century Possible aedic- Cluj-Napoca/Napoca MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 179, no. 4, Pl. II/4. reused as component of AD. oversized jug in her right hand no. 36 429. (Cluj County) ula lateral wall a burial cist. and a napkin decorated with “South-eastern” (Pl. IX/20) fringes in her left hand and on her necropolis. left shoulder. MNITR inv. 2nd–3rd century The female attendant on the right FLORESCU 1930, 82, no. 5, Fig. 5; DAICOVIRight lateral Cluj-Napoca/Napoca CIU 1969, 254–255, G 135, Pl. 96; DAICOVIno. 12. AD. holds in her left hand a bowl with wall of aedicula (Cluj County). tubular handle and in her raised CIU 1970, 246, G 96, Pl. LIX; FLOCA, WOLSKI (Pl. IX/21) Discovered in the 1973, 20–22, no. 60, Fig. 75; GUDEA 1978, right hand a beaker; a napkin is area of the Romanian 144; ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 205, no. 31, hanging from the same hand. National Theatre in Pl. XXXVII; BIANCHI 1985, 282, no. 216, Tav. The male attendant on the left the 19th century. XLVII, Fig. 122; BODOR 1986, 194, Fig. 1; holds a spouted jug in his right RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 132, 144, no. 92, pl. hand and the napkin in his left III/1; VEL no. 15081; BĂRBULESCU, PÎSLARU one, slung over his shoulder. 2003, 38, ig. 12; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 182, no. 12, Pl. IV/12. * he funerary monuments which originate from the “south-east necropolis” of Napoca were discovered during the archaeological excavations in the area of Brâncuşi, Titulescu and Plugarilor streets. he monuments in question were reused as parts of burial cists. No. 22. 23. Monument type Lateral wall of aedicula (Pl. IX/22) Place of discovery Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (Cluj County) or its hinterland. Discovered in 1915 on the Cluj-Feleacu road. Left lateral wall Cristeşti (Mureş of aedicula County) (Pl. IX/23) The necropolis of the Roman settlement. Storing place Dating MNITR inv. no. IV. 756. 2nd–3rd century AD. MJM without inv. no. 2nd–3rd century AD. 24. Left lateral wall Gârbău (Cluj County) of aedicula Stray ind. (Pl. IX/24) MNITR inv. no. I 1772. 2nd–3rd century AD. 25. Left lateral wall of aedicula (Pl. X/25) CMBN inv. no. 1. 2nd–3rd century AD. MNITR inv. no. 2581. 2nd–3rd century AD. MIAZ inv. no. 1051. Severan age. MCDRD inv. no. 3591. 2nd–3rd century AD. 26. 27. 28. Ilişua/Arcobadara (Bistriţa-Năsăud County) Roman necropolis. Left lateral wall Luncani (Cluj County) of aedicula The monument (Pl. X/26) originates from the Roman town of Napoca. Moigrad/Porolissum Stela of the (Sălaj County). pseudo-aedicDiscovered in the ula type town of Jibou (garden (Pl. X/27) of the Wesselényi castle). Right lateral Sarmizegetusa/Ulpia wall of aedicula Traiana Sarmizege(Pl. X/28) tusa (Hunedoara County) (according to CIONGRADI 2007). Type of depicted vessels Bibliography Observations Depiction of a male attendant FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 30, no. 92, Fig. 12; partially preserved. The servant is PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 185, no. 25, holding a spouted jug in his right Pl. VII/25. hand and a napkin in his left hand slung over his left shoulder. FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 20, no. 52, Fig. 67; The female attendant on the left side holds a spouted jug in her PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 181, no. 10, right hand and a beaker in the left Pl. III/10. hand, which she is ofering to the male attendant next to her. The female attendant holds in her FLORESCU 1930, 81–82, no. 4, Fig. 4; BODOR 1960, 47, Fig. 7, FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 26, right hand a spouted jug and in the left hand a beaker. A napkin is no. 81, Fig. 99; ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 202–203, no. 19, Pl. XXXV; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ hanging from the left arm. 2010, 180, no. 7, Pl. III/7. PROTASE 1961, 135–137, Fig. 5; FLOCA, The female attendant holds a WOLSKI 1973, 26, no. 82, Fig. 101; ŢEPOspouted jug in her right hand and SU-MARINESCU 1982, 207, no. 38; PETRUȚ, a napkin in the left hand slung MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 179, no. 3, Pl. II/3. over the shoulder. The monument was DAICOVICIU 1969, 245, G 92; DAICOVIThe male attendant depicted in incorporated in the wall CIU 1970, 253, 255, G 136; MITROFAN, the lower register holds a spouted of the Kemény castle ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1970, 531–536; JUDE jug in his right hand and the from Luncani prior to its 1971, 547–552; JUDE, POP, 1972, 12, no. 13, napkin in his left hand, slung over the shoulder. Pl. VII/2; FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 14, 16, no. 34, discovery (see BODOR 1986). Fig. 46; BIANCHI 1974, 160–162, Fig. 2; GUDEA 1978, 144; ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 212, no. 62, Pl. XXXVII; BODOR 1986, 194–195, Fig. 4; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 185, no. 26, Pl. VII/26. DAICOVICIU 1940, 324, Fig. 22; GUDEA, The male attendant holds a jug/ spouted jug in his right hand and LUCĂCEL 1975, 42, no. 140; ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 171, no. 46, Pl. XXI; GUDEA 1989, a napkin in his left and on the 789, no. 105, Pl. CCCI; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, shoulder. 145, no. 104; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 185, no. 27, Pl. VII/27. FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 10, no. 10, Fig. 18; The male attendant holds a ALICU ET ALII 1979, 164, no. 474, Pl. LXXXspouted jug in his right hand and VII; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 144, no. 86; a napkin in the left hand, slung ANDRIŢOIU 2006, 100–102, pl. 38/3a; over the shoulder. CIONGRADI 2007, 214, no. Ae/S3, Taf. 80/Ae/ S3 (only the inner side illustrated); PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 186, no. 29, Pl. VII/29. 241 No. 242 29. 30. 31. Monument Place of discovery type Right lateral Sutoru (Sălaj County) wall of aedicula Auxiliary fort, excava(Pl. XI/29) tions from 2006. Storing place Dating Type of depicted vessels Bibliography Observations MIAZ without inv. no. 2nd–3rd century AD. COCIŞ ET ALII 2009, no.: 6, Pl. IV/A-D; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 186, no. 28, Pl. VII/28. - MIAZ inv. Tihău (Sălaj County) no. 1026. Discovered in the vicinity of the auxiliary fort. MCDRD withLeft lateral wall Vețel/Micia (Hunedoara County). out inv. no. of aedicula (Pl. XI/31) 2nd–3rd century AD. Male attendant (shoulders and head are missing) holding a spouted jug in his right hand and a napkin in his left one, slung over the left shoulder. The male attendant holds a spouted jug in his right hand. PROTASE 1961, 140, no. 8, Fig. 8; FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 28, no. 87, ig. 106; GUDEA, LUCĂCEL 1975, 40, no. 130; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 186, no. 33, Pl. VIII/33. FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 10, no. 12; ŢEPOSUMARINESCU 1982, 210, no. 53, CIONGRADI 2007, 224, no. Ae/M 24, Pl. 81/Ae/M 24; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 187, no. 38, Pl. IX/38. PROTASE 1961, 127–134, Fig. 1a-c; FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 48, Fig. 120; BIANCHI 1974, 168, Fig. 4; ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1982, 171, no. 44, pl. XXI; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 131, 144, no. 82., pl. II/3; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 188, no. 40, Pl. X/40. - Left side-wall of aedicula (Pl. XI/30) CMBN f. without inv. no. 2nd–3rd century AD. Incorporated in the outer wall of the reformed church from Şăula. Hinder wall of Turda/Potaissa (Cluj MIT inv. aedicula no. 2797 County). (Pl. XII/34) Discovered inside the legionary fortress. 2nd–3rd century AD. 32. Altar of the pseudo-aedicula type (Pl. XI/32) Ilişua/Arcobadara (Bistrița-Năsăud County). Discovered inside the auxiliary fort. 33. Funerary stela (Pl. XII/33) Şăula (Cluj County). 34. 35. 2nd–3rd century AD. Funerary stela (Pl. XII/35) Turda/Potaissa (Cluj County). Discovered in 1984 during rescue excavations on Libertății Street. MIT without inv. no. 2nd–3rd century AD. second half of the 2nd century – beginning of the 3rd century AD. The male attendant holds a spouted jug represented in a frontal view in his right hand and an unidentiiable object in his left hand. Funerary banquet scene, with three participants, a man reclining, a woman on the kathedra and a female character in the background. A spouted jug and a panarium are placed on the loor under the table. Funerary banquet scene. Under the mensa tripes a spouted jug and a panarium can be observed. DIACONESCU 1979, 545–549, Fig. 2; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, no. 143, Pl. 2, Fig. 2; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 184, no. 21, Pl. VI/21. MITROFAN, ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU 1970, Funerary banquet scene, with 533–534, Fig. 3; JUDE, POP 1972, 7, no. 1, four participants on the kliné and one on the kathedra. A panarium Pl. 1; FLOCA, WOLSKI 1973, 14, no. 33, Fig. 44; RUSU-BOLINDEŢ 1994, 131, 146, no. 107, pl. is placed between two spouted jugs on the loor below the mensa II/5; BĂRBULESCU, PÎSLARU 2003, 36, ig. 10; PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 188, no. 41, Pl. X/41. tripes. BĂRBULESCU, PÎSLARU 2003, 36, ig. 10: Funerary banquet scene. Under CĂTINAȘ 2011, 89–93, 97, Pl. I/1. the mensa tripes a spouted jug, a bowl with tubular handle and a panarium can be observed. - - - - - VII.2. Annexe II. List of the main archaeological discoveries which indicate the existence of workshops for producing bronze vessels a. Moulds No. 1. Place of discovery Arab al-Mulk/Paltos (Jableh, Syria) 2. Autun/Augustodunum (Saône-et-Loire, France) 3. Context of discovery Found on the surface of the site. The archaeological rescue excavations from the “Military School”: insula C, buildings O and E, chambers 1–29 (phase 1) and 1–6 (phase 2), identiied as workshops for producing copper alloy objects. In chamber 1–29 the moulds were discovered inside a waste pit and on the loor, while in chamber 1–6 only on the loor. Camerton, 13 km south from Workshop for producing metal Bath/Aquae Sulis (Somerset, objects (pewter?). United Kingdom) Description Steatite (soapstone) mould carved on two sides with patterns used for producing handles for jugs and amphorae. Approximately 50 fragments of limestone moulds used for producing metal vessels (casseroles, bowls, plates etc.). Only fragments from the body of the vessels were preserved. No mould for casting handles has been identiied. Dating 1st century BC. Bibliography POULSEN 2002, 330–331, ig. 1–2. Observations - The workshops were clearly functional at the middle of the 2nd century AD. CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 113–126, 169–174; GORECKI 2000, 453; LUIK 2016, 223–224. - The lower part of two limestone moulds: one for producing casseroles and the other for plates. After the middle of the 3rd century AD. CUNLIFFE 1984, 195; BEAGRIE 1989, 183; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 175, ig. 144; BAYLEY 1995, 105, 109– 111, ig. 5–8; BAYLEY, BUDD 1998, 195–196, 203–222; GORECKI 2000, 457–458. ALARCAO 2000, 78–79, no. 122–123; ERICE LACABE 2006, 275–279, ig. 6; ERICE LACABE 2007, 211–212. MUTZ 1972, 37–38, Bild 53–57; GORECKI 2000, 456; LUIK 2016, 222–223. GRASSI 2011, 163, ig. 2; GRASSI 2015, 159, ig. 7; GORECKI 2016, 209. Although the scholars have considered that the moulds were used for producing pewter vessels, the shapes would rather indicate a production of bronze vessels. No traces of metallurgical activities associated with the moulds have been identiied. 243 4. Castleford/Lagentium (West Yorkshire, United Kingdom) Pit contemporary with the last inhabitancy phase of the 1st century AD fort. Almost 1000 fragments belonging to clay moulds used for casting the components of a single type of enamelled bronze vessel. End of the 1st century AD – beginning of the 2nd century AD. 5. Condeixa-a-Nova/Conimbriga (Baixo Mondego, Portugal) Not speciied. Two bivalve clay moulds used for producing bucket attachments belonging to variants of Delgado type III. 2nd century – irst half of the 3rd century AD (general chronology of the type). 6. Lyon/Lugdunum (Rhône, France) The excavations from 1968 on “Plateau La Sarra”, inside the Roman artisanal quarter. Limestone fragmentary moulds for producing casseroles and plates. End of the 1st century AD. 7. Milan/Mediolanum (Lombardy, Italy) The excavations from the Catholic University. The moulds were discovered discarded in a rubbish pit located near a building where bronze working activities were undertaken. Two fragmentary clay moulds used for producing bucket and basin attachments. End of the 1st century BC – maximum middle of the 3rd century AD? (according to the dating of the types). - - 244 No. 7. Place of discovery Rennes/Condate Riedonum (Bretagne, France) Context of discovery Destruction layers from an artisanal area composed of two buildings which were also used for activites related to copper alloys processing. 8. Santa Maria Capua Vetere/ Capua (Caserta, Campania, Italy) 1. Unknown. 2. Stray ind acquired by Louvre Museum. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Description Two fragments of limestone moulds, one of them being used for producing metal plates. 1. Moulds used for casting vessel components (bases, handles) discovered with the cast objects still inside. 2. Mould/mould imprint for an amphora handle attachment with the depiction of Pan. One half of a bivalve clay mould Stara Zagora/Augusta TraThe tumular necropolis from used for producing attachments for iana (Stara Zagora, Bulgaria) Čatalka, belonging to a villa rustica balsamaria with globular body (?). The from the territory of the Roman mould depicts the bust of a young town. A workshop which produced woman with the hair rendered in detail copper alloy objects functioned (Diana?), possibly with a bow. nearby. The mould was discovered inside the soil used for the erection of tumulus no. 1. Straubing/Sorviodurum The military vicus. Two clay moulds: one for producing (Bavaria, Germany) the lower end of a jug or spouted jug handle and the other for a casserole handle. Szőny/Brigetio (Komárom-Esztergom, Hungary) Tartous/Antaradus (Tartus, Syria) Vertault /Vicus Vertillensis (Vertiliensis), Vertillum (Côte-d’Or, France) Discovered in 1894 in the ruins of a house. They were acquired by the Louvre Museum in 1900. Archaeological excavations undertaken at the end of the 19th century and during the Second World War in the area of “Lepont parcel”. Clay mould possibly used for producing a handle for a bowl with tubular handle (“Grifschale”). 36 steatite (soapstone) moulds and mould components used for producing a wide variety of silver and bronze vessels (handles for plates, casseroles, simpula, jugs etc.). The Louvre Museum also stores mouldings of two similar moulds, coming from the A. Maignan Collection. It is considered that they were part of the same group from Tartous. Mould made of soft limestone. Three of the four sides display the shape of the produced objects: a Ω-shaped handle for a hemispherical basin (probably belonging to Eggers 97 type), a furniture itting and a rod triangular in cross-section. Dating The 3rd century AD. Bibliography LE CLOIREC 1996, 15, ig. 1. - 1. TASSINARI 1998, 88, 92, note 6; GORECKI 2000, 457. 2. TASSINARI 1998, 92, ig. 6. End of the 1st century AD – beginning of the 2nd century AD. MINKOVA, JANKOV 2004, 320, ig. 1. - WALKE 1965, Taf. A/3–4; PRAMMER 1978, 18, 20; FLÜGEL 2000, 126; GRALFS 1994, 134, no. 228, 146. NUBER 1973, 72–73, note 391, Taf. 12/1a-b. - Observations The mould cannot be attributed with certainty to copper alloy vessels, because this type of plate was produced from both silver and copper alloy. 1. The discovery is only mentioned in the literature and has not beneited yet from a detailed publication. Even though there are similarities with the attachments of balsamaria with globular body, the production of appliqués for caskets cannot be excluded in this case. - - - TASSINARI, BURKHALTER 1984; GORECKI 2000, 455–456; POULSEN 2002. - - FEUGÈRE 1994, 161–162, ig. 21; GORECKI 2000, 456; CHAUDRON-PICAULT 2005, 138, 144–145, ig. 15/1–4. - No. 14. Place of discovery Vichy /Aquae Calidae (Allier, France) 15. Xanten /Colonia Ulpia Traiana (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany) Unknown provenace 16. Context of discovery Place de la Liberté, 1845, during construction works. Discovered together with slag and production waste from bronze working. Colonia Ulpia Traiana, Houber Collection. - Description Both halves of a limestone bivalve mould, turned on the lathe, which was used for producing a bowl with lat or tubular handle. Clay mould used for casting the igurative end of a handle belonging to a spouted jug of Millingen type. Group of plaster moulds stored in the Museum of Cairo (Egypt) used for producing components of Roman metal vessels: amphorae, jugs, bowls with tubular handles, hemispherical basins etc. Dating - Bibliography MORLET 1957, 157–158, ig. 98; GRALFS 1994, 136, no. 245, 146; GORECKI 2000, 456. NUBER 1973, 51, note 276, Taf. 12/2a-b. Observations - Judging by the types, a dating in the second half of the 1st century – beginning of the 2nd century AD can be suggested. EDGAR 1903, 63–66 (nos: 32270–32281), Pl. XIX, XXXI; POLUSEN 2002, 310–311. - Dating - Bibliography LEGENDRE 1996, 68–73, ig. 1–11. Observations 1. Second half of the 2nd century – beginning of the 3rd century AD. 2. 240–260 AD. 1. FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, Abb. 1/11; GORECKI 2000, 453; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24, ig. 1; MUSTAȚĂ 2010, 195, no. 1, 200, Pl. II/1. 2. FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 130–131, Abb. 4/37; FURGER 1998, 137. - - - b. Semi-inished objects No. 1. 2. 3. Place of discovery Alspach (Haut-Rhin, Alsace, France) Context of discovery Stray ind made in 1904 near the Roman road leading to the ancient town of Metz/ Divodurum. Augst/Augusta Raurica (Colo- 1. The archaeological excavations made in 1964 in Region 1: the area between nia Augusta Rauricorum) insulae 22 and 28. (Basel-Landschaft, Switzer2. The archaeological excavations made land) in 1961 in insula 30: from the layer overlapping the gladiator mosaic. Autun/Augustodunum (Saône-et-Loire, France) The archaeological rescue excavations from the “Military School”, insula C, building C (stratigraphic units 4064 and 4269). Object type Hoard of metal objects composed of ive bronze cauldrons, bronze bars, fragmentary iron handles, iron tools, and iron bells. Four out of the ive cauldrons can be considered semi-inished objects because their shape testiies for the diferent production stages undertaken by this type of vessel. 1. Basin (?) attachment shaped as a palmetto. The exterior surface is still coarse and the piercing process of the loop, probably using a drill, was just begun, but never inished. 2. Semi-inished circular object used for producing a round shape (bowl or plate). Traces of hammering are visible on both sides. Three bucket attachments with the surface still coarse (stratigraphic unit 4064) and two amphora handles (stratigraphic unit 4269). - - CHARDRON-PICAULT, One of the two amphora handles has a casting PERNOT 1999, 180–181, defect. It cannot be ig. 147–148; GORECKI excluded that we are 2000, 453. dealing with a production waste. 245 246 No. 4. Place of discovery Condeixa-a-Nova/Conimbriga(Baixo Mondego, Portugal) 5. Hettange-Grande/Caranusca (Moselle, Lorraine, France) 6 Reims/Durocortorum Remorum (Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, France) Context of discovery Not speciied. Object type 1. Bucket attachment decorated with masks belonging to a variant of Delgado type III. The features of the face are hardly visible. 2. Bucket attachment decorated with masks belonging to Delgado type III. The features of the face are hardly visible. Dating 2nd century – irst half of the 3rd century AD (general chronology of the type). Bibliography 1. ALARCAO 2000, 105, no. 300.7. 2. ERICE LACABE 2006, 275–276, ig. 5/2. Stray ind made in 1962 on the side of Hoard of metal objects composed the Roman road connecting Divoduof ifty bronze inds, among rum (Metz, Moselle, Lorraine, France) which igurative bronzes, vessels, and Augusta Treverorum (Trier/Trèves, production waste. The hoard also Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany). included a semi-inished object, in the early stages of the hammering process, which was used for producing a bronze cauldron. Discovery made in 1861 in the ruins of Seven semi-inished objects a house from Reims. which were cast and more or less hammered. They would have been used for producing bronze plates or trays. End of the 2nd century AD. EIDEN 1995, 151–153, Abb. 10–13; LEGENDRE 1996, 73–75, ig. 12–13; GORECKI 2000, 454. - MUTZ 1972, 150–152, Abb. 429–436; TASSINARI 1975, 49–51 (no. 95–101), Pl. XXI/95– 96, XXII/97–101; GORECKI 2000, 453. Observations The poor rendering of the decoration in comparison with other examples of the series makes the interpretation of these pieces as semi-inished/scrap objects plausible. Still, a closer examination would be necessary in order to certify this assumption. - - c. Components of the lathe No. 1. Place of discovery Augst/Augusta Raurica (Colonia Augusta Rauricorum) (Basel-Landschaft, Switzerland) Context of discovery Object type Dating Bibliography The archaeological excavations from FURGER 1997, 34–37, Massive iron axis coming from Half – third quarter of the 3rd century AD. 1961–1962: insula 30, the chamber from Abb. 4–5; FURGER 1998, the lathe (L: 169 mm). The the south-eastern corner identiied as a 132–133, Abb. 18. objects displays a conical end fabrica (discovered on the mortar loor: provided with a conical tip. It was 3rd horizon, last stone phase). interpreted as a lathe axis used for inishing bronze objects. Observations - d. Production waste No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Place of discovery Caerleon/Isca Augusta (Wales, United Kingdom) Context of discovery The archaeological excavations from 1983–1985 undertaken in the scamnum tribunorum of the legionary fortress: building A, chamber 5 identiied as a workshop for producing iron and bronze objects. Discovery type Four trays (three lined with tegulae and one with timber), set inside the loor of the workshop, were documented. Inside the trays laminated metal illings from bonze and iron were identiied, testifying for bronzesmith and blacksmith activities. It is probable that the trays served for collecting/recycling, by means of water-dip, the metal swarf resulted from the lathe-banks set inside the workshop. Two timber-lined trays for collecting Catterick /Cataractonium The archaeological excavations from metal waste were identiied, as well (North Yorkshire, United 1958–1959 undertaken in the civilian as traces from other similar instalKingdom) town (Catterick-Bypass, site no. 433), lations which did not preserve very insula VII, building VII.2 which funcwell. The trays contained bronze tioned as a workshop used for bronze powder and fragments of corroded working. bronze. Exeter/Isca Dumnoniorum The legionary fortress: fabrica posiSeveral shallow troughs (depth: (Devon, United Kingdom) tioned along via principalis. 20 cm) were identiied, set into the loor, measuring 40–50 cm in width and maximum 4 m in length. The timber lining was held in place with the help of stakes. The troughs were interpreted as trays for collecting metal waste. Only one of them contained bronze powder and metal scrap. St. Albans/Verulamium The archaeological excavation from Twelve timber-lined trays were iden(Hertfordshire, United 1958–1960 undertaken inside the artitiied. They were used for collecting Kingdom) sanal quarter, insula XIV. the metal waste resulted from lathe turning. They contained bronze powder, as well as metal scrap, including iron. York/Eburacum (North Bronze workshop excavated in 1964 in Traces from two overlapped timYorkshire, United Kingdom) the colonia (St. Mary Church, Bishophill ber-lined trays were identiied. They Senior). contained metal waste similar to the other discoveries listed above. Dating Bibliography Phases III-IV: 90/100– ZIENKIEWICZ 1993, 28, 200 AD. 54–57, ig. 13–14. Observations - Phases 1, 2, and 5: end of the 1st century – 3rd century AD. BAYLEY ET ALII 2002, 164–166; WILSON, WACHER 2002, 46, 92–93, pl. 41. The bronze waste seems to have been deposited by means of sweeping not water-dip, aspect which questions the use of the lathe in this case. Second half of the 1st century AD. BIDWELL 1980, 31–34, ig. 19–20. - 50 – 120 AD. FRERE 1972, 11, 18–19; GORECKI 2000, 460; NIBLETT 2001, 62, 64, ig. 30. - End of the 2nd century AD. RAMM 1976, 39; COOL 2002, 4. - 247 e. Cuciables used in the brass cementation process 248 No. Place of discovery Context of discovery Discovery type Dating Bibliography Observations 1. Autun/Augustodunum (Saône-et-Loire, France) Discoveries made in several points of the eastern periphery of the ancient town (Saint-Nazaire Monastery, Anne-Marie Javouhey Institute, The “Military School”), interpreted as artisanal areas. A great number of crucibles provided with lid (the number is not speciied), made of ire clay and used for the brass cementation process. Second half of the 1st century AD. CHARDRON-PICAULT 1997–1998, 171–181; CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 176–178; PICON 2007, 10–11. - 2. Lyon/Lugdunum (Rhône, France) Archaeological rescue excavations undertaken in 1993 in Valmy Square. Approximately ive thousand fragments coming from crucibles and lids made of ire clay were identiied. They correspond to a number of 272 complete shapes. The dimensions (also valid for the discoveries at Autun) vary as follows: 50–55 cm in height, 15–25 cm in rim diameter, 30–40 cm in maximum body diameter. They had a capacity of 30–35 litters. Second half of the 1st century AD. PICON ET ALII 1995, 207–215; PICON 2007, 10–11. - VII.3. Annexe III. Modern terminology: comparative table No. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. Present volume German Casserole Kasserolle „Blechkasserole” (RADNÓTI Casserole with thin, concave walls and han- 1938; EGGERS 1951; GRAUE 1974; PETROVSZKY 1993; dles ending in stylised SEDLMAYER 1999). swan heads. French Casserole Casserole légère, à paroi plus mince et a basin caréné (BARATTE ET ALII 1984). English Italian Saucepan /Casserole Casseruola Casseruola „a Saucepan of very thin fusione sottile” bronze with concave (BOLLA 1986). wall and handle ending in a swans’ heads loop (DEN BOESTERD 1956) /Casserole with handle ending in a loop with bird’s heads (KOSTER 1997). Casseruola con Saucepan with handle Casserole à manche Casserole with cresBronzekasserolle mit halmanico a disco con ending in a disc terminé par un cent-shaped perfobrundem Loch (EGGERS disque rond percé en pierced by a crescentic foro a crescente di 1951) /Kasserolle mit Scheiration on the handle croissant (TASSINARI hole (DEN BOESTERD luna (TASSINARI terminal (shallow and ben Grif mit halbrundem 1956) /Casserole with 1993; BOLLA 1994). 1975a) /Casserole à high variants). Ausschnitt (HOLLIGER, disc-ended handle HOLLIGER 1985) /Kasserolle manche se terminant (KOSTER 1997). par un disque percé mit Halbmondförmungen d’un trou semi-circu(FLÜGEL 1993) /Kasserolle laire ou en forme de mit halbmondförmigem demi-lune (KAPELLER Loch (niedrige Form/hohe 2003). Form) (PETROVSZKY 1993) / Kasserolle mit lunulaförmiger Griföfnung (SEDLMAYER 1999). Romanian Caserolă Caserolă cu pereții subțiri și concavi și mâner terminat în capete stilizate de lebădă (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Caserolă cu capătul mânerului perforat în formă de semiluna (forma joasă și forma înaltă) (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Casseruola con Caserolă cu capătul Saucepan with handle Casserole with circular Bronzekasserolle mit rundem Casserole à manche mânerului perforat manico a disco ending in a disc terminé par un disque perforation on the han- Loch (EGGERS 1951) /Kascircular (forma e foro circolare pierced by a round dle terminal (shallow serolle mit Scheiben Grif mit percé d´un trou rond joasă și forma (TASSINARI 1975a) / hole (DEN BOESTERD (CARANDINI 1977) rundem Ausschnitt (HOLand high variants). înaltă) (MUSTAȚĂ /Casseruola con 1956) /Casserole with Casserole à manche LIGER, HOLLIGER 1985) / 2013). manico a disco disc-ended handle Kasserolle mit rundem Loch: percé d’un trou circucon foro rotondo (KOSTER 1997). niedrige Form /hohe Form laire (KAPELLER 2003). (TASSINARI 1993; (PETROVSZKY 1993) /KasBOLLA 1994). serolle mit kreisrundem Loch (FLÜGEL 1993) /Kasserolle mit runder Griföfnung (SEDLMAYER 1999). Image 249 250 No. 1.4. Present volume German French English Saucepan with bulging Casserole du type Casserole with circular Bronzekasserole mit rundem wall on laring foot perforation on the han- Loch: Typ 144: mit geschweif- Gödåker (TASSINARI (DEN BOESTERD 1975a) /Casserole ventem Fuß (=Gödåkertyp) dle terminal, Gödåker true à pied (casserole 1956) /Casserole with (EGGERS 1951) /Kasserolle type. disc-ended handle Gödåker) (BARATTE mit rundem Loch, Gödåker(KOSTER 1997). ET ALII 1984). Typ (PETROVSZKY 1993) / Bauchige Kasserolle mit geschweiftem Fuß und kreiförmigem Grifausschnitt (Typ Gödåker) (BIENERT 2007). 2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) Kelle und Sieb /Kelle-Sieb-Garnitur Puisoir/Louche et passoire 2.1. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with volute-decorated handles. Bronzekellen mit Sieb, mit Paire de passoire et de casserole à manche runderförmigem Grif und en queue d´aronde halbrundem Becken: Typ 159: (TASSINARI 1975a). mit Voluten-Grif (EGGERS 1951) /Kelle und Sieb (PETROVSZKY 1993) /Kelle und Sieb Eggers 159a (MÜLLER 1997) /Kelle-Siebgarnituren mit runderförmigem Grif (SEDLMAYER 1999). 2.2 Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with lat handles. Paire de passoire et de Bronzekelle und Sieb, mit casserole à manche runderförmigem Grif und en queue d´aronde halbrundem Becken (= Typ (TASSINARI 1975a) / 160); Bronzekelle und Sieb, Passoire et puisoir mit runderförmigem Grif (TASSINARI 1995) / und lachbodigem Becken Louche et passoire (= Typ 161) (EGGERS 1951) / (KAPELLER 2003). Kellen und Siebe mit lachem Grif (PETROVSZKY 1993). Dipper and strainer - Italian - Romanian Caserolă cu capătul mânerului perforat circular, tipul Gödåker (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Attingitoio e colino Seturi de strecurat (strecurătoare şi suport pentru strecurătoare) Seturi de strecurat Ramaiolo e (strecurătoare colatoio di forma şi suport pentru semicircolare con manico a forma di strecurătoare) cu mânerele decremo (CARANDINI orate cu volute 1977) /Attingitoio e colino (TASSINARI (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). 1993). Seturi de strecurat Ramaiolo e Dipper and strainer (strecurătoare colatoio di forma with hemispherical şi suport pentru semicircolare con bowl and with plain strecurătoare) manico a forma di handle ending in remo (CARANDINI cu mânere plate a bi-concave grip (Eggers 160); Dipper 1977) /Attingitoio e (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). colino (TASSINARI and strainer with 1993). curved base, vertical wall and lat, plain handle widened in the middle (Eggers 161) (DEN BOESTERD 1956). Image No. 3. 3.1. Present volume Spouted jug Spouted jug with narrow mouth. German Kanne Bronzekanne mit Kleeblattmündung und nach oben geschwungenem Henkel: Prunkform mit Fuß (Typ 127) (EGGERS 1951) /Kanne mit enger Mündung (RAEV 1978) /Kanne mit ovale Mündung (WIELOWIEJSKI 1985) / Schnabelkanne (SEDLMAYER 1999). French Cruche/Pot Oenochoé à embouchure oblique en fer à cheval (TASSINARI 1975a; BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976). English Italian Romanian Jug Brocca Cană Cană cu buza Slender jug with nar- Brocca con becco: row mouth and spout brocca con bocca îngustă și deversor (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). a ferro di cavalo (DEN BOESTERD (TASSINARI 1993). 1956) /Beaked jug (HAYNES 1984) /Jug with projecting mouth (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002). 3.2. Spouted jug with trefoil mouth. Kanne mit nach oben geschwungenen Henkel und Kleeblattmündung (WIELOWIEJSKI 1985) /Trifoliarkanne (SEDLMAYER 1999). Pot à embouchure trilobée (TASSINARI 1975a) /Cruche à embouchure trilobée (KAPELLER 2003). Jug with trefoil mouth (DEN BOESTERD 1956; NENOVA-MERJANOVA 2002). - Jug with long spout (DEN BOESTERD 1956). 3.3 Spouted jug with elon- Schnabelkanne (DRACK 1955; gated spout. STUPPERICH, THOMAS 2003) /Lenzburger Kanne (DEHN 1964). Brocca a imboccatura bi-trilobata; vetre ovoidale proilo continuo /vetre ovoidale proilo discontinuo (TASSINARI 1993). Cană cu buza trilobată (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Brocca con becco a Cană cu deversor canale (TASSINARI alungit (MUSTAȚĂ 1993). 2013). Image 251 252 No. 3.4. Present volume Bronze sheet spouted jug with separately cast handle. 3.5 Bronze sheet spouted jug with the handle cast in one with the mouth. German Kanne mit Scharnier deckel vom Typ Pompeji (FLÜGEL 1993) /Ältere Pseudoscharnier- und Scharnierdeckelkanne (SEDLMAYER 1999). French English Italian Cruche trilobé en tôle Sheet bronze jug Tassi- Brocca con becco nari E 5000 (KOSTER (FEUGÈRE 1994) / corto (E 5000) 1997). Cruche de type Pompéi (TASSINARI 1993). (KAPELLER 2003). Romanian Cană din tablă de bronz cu mâner turnat separat (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Cană din tablă de “Gallo-römische” Bronze- Pot avec une/à embou- Jug of very thin bronze Brocca fornita di with heavy mouth cast una pesante imbo- bronz cu mânerul chure lourde coulée kanne vom Typus Överbo (EGGERS 1951) /Blechkanne d’une pièce avec l’anse in one with the handle catura desinente tunat împreună cu in becco versatoio buza (MUSTAȚĂ (DEN BOESTERD (TASSINARI 1975a; (RAEV 1978) /Blechkanne 2013). e fusa in un solo 1956) /Sheet bronze Eggers 128 (FLÜGEL 1993) / SZABÓ 1994) /Cruche pezzo con l’ansa jug Eggers 128 Blechkanne mit Klappdeckel avec une anse coulée (gruppo I) (BOLLA (KOSTER 1997). d´une pièce avec (KÜNZL 1993a) /Jüngere 1979) /Brocca con Scharnierdeckelkanne (SEDL- l´embouchure (BOUimboccatura unita CHER, TASSINARI MAYER 1999). all’ansa (E 6000) 1976; TASSINARI 1995) (TASSINARI 1993). /Cruche bulbeuse á embouchure lourde coulée d’une pièce avec l’anse (CAVALIER 1988) /Cruche en tôle à anse coulée (FEUGÈRE 1994) /Cruche de type Eggers 128 (KAPELLER 2003). Image No. 4. 4.1 Present volume Amphora Amphora with globular body. German Amphora/Krug Amphora (KALČEV 1994) / Doppelhenkelkrug (BANGHARD, GORECKI 2007). French Amphore Amphore à panse sphérique (FEUGÈRE 1991a) /Pot à deux anses (TASSINARI 1995) /Amphore à panse globulaire (KAPELLER 2003). 5. 5.1. Jug Jug with lid. Krug Scharnierdeckelkrug (SEDLMAYER 1999). Cruche/Pot - 5.2. English Italian Amphora Brocca Brocca con due Globular amphora (KOSTER 1997) /Vessel ansi verticali; vetre with a spherical body sferoidale (TASSI(NENOVA-MERDNARI 1993). JANOVA 2002). Jug - Slender very thin Pot élancé avec une Jug with the end of the Krug mit fußförmigen Henbronze jug with anse à terminaison kelattaschen (RAEV 1978) / handle shaped like a handle terminating Fußhenkelkrug (SEDLMAYER inférieure en forme de human foot. in a human foot or in pied humain (TASSI1999). NARI 1975a) /Cruche two human feet (DEN BOESTERD 1956) / à ouverture ronde et Jug decorated with a anse unique (TASSIhuman foot/Jug with a NARI 1995). handle terminating in a human foot (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998). Romanian Amforă Amfora cu corpul globular (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Brocca Brocca con un’ansa e imboccatura ampia; proilo discontinuo (TASSINARI 1993) /Brocca con coperchio a cerniera (CASTOLDI 2004). Ulcior Ulcior cu capac (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). - Ulcior cu capătul mânerului în formă de picior uman (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image 253 254 No. 5.3. Present volume Jug with relief-decorated handle. German Ungegliederter Henkelkrug /Gegliederter Henkelkrug (RAEV 1978; SEDLMAYER 1999). 6. Bowl with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome Bowl with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome. Grifschale Casserole/Patère à manche Bronzekasserolle mit Widderkopfgrif (EGGERS 1951) /Grifschale (NUBER 1973; SEDLMAYER 1999) /Grifschale (Patera) (PETROVSZKY 1993) /Phiale mit Grif (SZABÓ 1999). Patère (TASSINARI 1975a; BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976; FEUGÈRE 1994; TASSINARI 1995) /Patère à manche (KAPELLER 2003). 6. French English Italian Brocca con Slender jug, cast Pot à embouchure un’ansa verticale in one piece, with ronde et anse richee imboccatura well-deined neck and ment ornée (TASSImedia; vetre ovoirichly ornamented NARI 1975a; CAVALIER dale (TASSINARI handle /Slender jug, 1988) /Pot à embou1993) /Brocca chure ronde à anse cast in two pieces, with ansata articolata historiée (BARATTE ET ornamented handle (BOLLA 1994). (DEN BOESTERD ALII 1984). 1956) /Jug; body and neck cast in one piece /Jug; body, neck and handle cast separately (KOSTER 1997). 7. Bowl with lat handle Badeschale Casserole de bain/ Patère de bain 7. Bowl with lat handle. Flache Abgußschale (RAEV 1978); Badeschale (PETROVSZKY 1993; SEDLMAYER 1999). Casserole de bain (TASSINARI 1975a) / Patère de bain (BOUCHER, TASSINARI 1976; TASSINARI 1995). Romanian Ulcior cu mâner decorat în relief (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Handled bowl /Bowl Patera con manico Bol cu mâner tubuwith cylindrical handle (manicata) lar, terminat într-o protomă zoomorfă sau antropomorfă Patera /Handled bowl Patera (H) (TASSI- Bol cu mâner tubuNARI 1993; BOLLA lar, terminat într-o (DEN BOESTERD 1994) /Patera con protomă zoomorfă 1956) /Handled dish sau antropomorfă manico (SAR(KOSTER 1997) /Bowl (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). with cylindrical handle NATARO 2002) / Patera manicata (NENOVA-MERD(CASTOLDI 2004). JANOVA 2002). Cast plate with lat handle/Handled bathing dish Bath-saucer (DEN BOESTERD 1956) / Cast plate with lat handle (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1994) /Handled bathing dish (KOSTER 1997) /Shallow plate with a lat handle (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999). Attingitoio da bagno/Patera da bagno Patera di uso termale con manico traforato terminate in modo curvilineo/retilineo (CARANDINI 1977) /Attingitoio da bagno (I) (TASSINARI 1993) /Patera da bagno (BOLLA 1994). Bol cu mâner plat Bol cu mâner plat (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image No. 8. Present volume Bowl with high handles 8. Bowl with high handles. 9. 9.1. Basin Hemispherical basin with stand and ixed handles. 9.2. German Schale mit schlaufenförmigen, den Rand fassenden Henkeln Schale mit schlaufenförmigen, den Rand fassenden Henkeln (BIENERT 2007). Becken “Mittleres” und “spätes” bronzenes Fußbecken mit festen Grifen (EGGERS 1951) /“Mittleres” Becken mit festen Grifen (Fußbecken) (PETROVSZKY 1993) /Fußschale mit omegaförmigem, festem Grif (FLÜGEL 1993) /Flacher und halbkugeliger Becken (SEDLMAYER 1999). Spätes steilwandiges BronSteep-walled basin zebecken mit aufgehöhtem with attachments ending in stylised bird Boden: mit Traubenattache (Typ 79) (EGGERS 1951) / heads. Steilwandbecken mit Traubenattasche (PETROVSZKY 1993) /Becken mit Vogelkopfattaschen (Taubenattaschen) (PETROVSZKY 2012). French - English - Italian Coppa biansata Romanian Bol cu mânere supraînălțate - - Coppa biansata (CASTOLDI 1979) /Coppa (M 1331) (TASSINARI 1993). Bol cu mânere supraînălțate (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Bassin Bassin (FEUGÈRE 1994). Basin Basin (DEN BOESTERD 1956) / Basin with omega-shaped handles (KOSTER 1997) /Hemispherical basin with two handles (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002). - Steep-walled basin (DEN BOESTERD 1956). - Bazin cu pereţii drepţi și atașe terminate în cap stilizat de pasăre (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Bacile Bazin Bazin semisferic Bacile di grandi cu postament dimensioni: bacile şi mânere ixe con piede ad anello (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). e impugnature zoo/antropomorfe (TASSINARI 1993). 9.3. E 81 steep-walled basin. Spätes steilwandiges Bronzebecken mit aufgehöhtem Boden: mit Lötstellen unbekannter Attachen (Typ 81), ohne Attachen (Typ 82) (EGGERS 1951). - - - Bazin cu pereţii drepţi E 81 (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). 9.4. Steep-walled basin with attachments shaped like grapevine leaves. Spätes steilwandiges Bronzebecken mit aufgehöhtem Boden: mit drei Weinblattattaschen (Typ 83) (EGGERS 1951). Bassin à panse droite et à fond plat Eggers 83 (KAPELLER 2003). - - Bazin cu pereţii drepţi și atașe în formă de frunză de viță de vie (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image 255 256 No. 10. 10.1. Present volume Bucket Bucket with attachments shaped like a human mask. German Eimer Bronzeeimer von Situlaform mit Gesichtsattachen (EGGERS 1951) /Eimer mit Gesichtsattachen (KUNOW 1983; WIELOWIEJSKI 1985; BERKE 1990) /Bronzeeimer von Situlenform mit stilisierten Gesichtsattachen, mit längerem Hals als E 24 und betont abgesetzter Schulter (E 25); Situla mit Gesichtsattachen (E 26) (LUND HANSEN 1987) /Bronzeeimer: Henkelattachen mit Frauenmaske, Palmette und Tierprotome (POULSEN 1992) / Situlaartige Bonzeeimer mit Masken- und Trapezattachen E 24–30 (KARASOVÁ 1998). French Situle Situle (BONNET ET ALII 1989) /Situle ovoïde (CAVALIER 1988). English Bucket Bucket with rounded body and high neck (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002). 10.2. Bucket with slightly concave sides. Bucket with concave Situle (TASSINARI Neuburger Eimer (WERNER sides (KOSTER 1997). 1975a; BOUCHER, 1936) /Bronzeeimer vom Typus Vaengegaard: Typ 35: TASSINARI 1976; BONNET ET ALII 1989) / mit Frauenkopfattachen: Typ Seau tronconique à 36: mit dreieckigen Attachen lancs concaves (TAS(EGGERS 1951) /Eimer mit SINARI 1995) /Seau konkavem Oberteil und verbreitertem Unterteil (WIE- cylindrique aux parois LOWIEJSKI 1985) /Konischer légèrement concaves de type Eggers 36 Eimer mit konkav nach außen (KAPELLER 2003). geschwugender Wandung der Form Eggers 36 und Radnóti 53 (KELLNER, ZAHLHAAS 1993). Italian Romanian Secchia/Situla Găleată Găleată cu atașe Situla bronzea biconica sferoidale în formă de mască umană (MUSTAȚĂ (FROVA 1963) / 2013). Situla „a corpo ovoide” (BOLLA 1991) /Secchia a fondo piatto (TASSINARI 1993). - Găleată cu pereții ușor concavi (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image No. 10.3. Present volume Buckets with bellshaped body. German French English Italian Romanian Găleată cu corpul Secchiello Situla (HAYNES Situle (BOUCHER, Kessel vom Typ „Balčic” (CASTOLDI 1986; în formă de clopot 1984) /Bucket with TASSINARI 1976) / (RAEV 1978) /Glockenförmige (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). CASTOLDI 1994) U-shaped body Kessel mit niedrigem Stan- Situle au proil presque /Situla di piccylindrique (CAVALIER (NENOVA-MERDJAdring (SEDLMAYER 1999). cole dimensioni NOVA 2002) /Deep1988) /Seau de forme (BOLLA 1994) / cylindrique aux parois bowl situla (POULSEN Situla piccola 2000). légèrement à fortea pareti conment concaves et au cavo-convesse fond arrondi (KAPEL(CASTOLDI 2002). LER 2003). 11. 11.1. Balsamarium Globular balsamarium with relief-decorated body. Balsamarium Salbengefäß (REICHART 1955) /Balsamarium mit Reliefdekor (BRAUN 2001). Balsmaire Situle à panse décorée (ÉSPERANDIEU, ROLLAND 1959) Vase de forme ovoïde, la panse ornée (ROLLAND 1965) /Pot globulaire avec un décor en relief (TASSINARI 1975a) / Balsamaire à ventre globulaire décoré en relief (SZABÓ 1984) / Pot historié (TASSINARI 1995). Flask/Vessel Ointment-pot or incense-pot with relief-ornament (DEN BOESTERD 1956) / Figural vessel (PLESNIČAR GEC 2002). Balsamario Vasetto decorato a rilievo (TERENZIANI 1986) /Balsamario decorato a rilievo (BOLLA 1994). 11.2. Globular balsamarium with undecorated body. “Topf mit schließbarem Deckel” („Balsamarium“) (PETROVSZKY 1993). Balsamaire à ventre globulaire sans décor (SZABÓ 1984). Ointment-pot or incense-pot (DEN BOESTERD 1956) / Globular handled lask (KOSTER 1997) /Globular oil vessel (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999). Balsamario globu- Balsamarium globlare (BOLLA 1994). ular cu corpul nedecorat (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Balsamarium Balsamarium globular cu corpul decorat în relief (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image 257 258 No. 12. Present volume Anthropomorphic vessel 12.1. Anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel. German Büsten-/Kopfgefäß French Vase anthropomorphe Vase plastique Büstengefäß (RADNÓTI (EUZENNAT 1938; SEDLMAYER 1999) / 1957) /balsamaire Balsamarium in Büstenform anthropomorphe (RAEV 1978) /Anthropomor(MAJEWSKI 1964; phes Büstengefäß (BIENERT BRONZES ANTIQUES 2007). BESANÇON 1981) / vase plastique anthropomorphe (MARTI 1996) /vase anthropomorphe (MARTI-CLERCX, MILLE 2002). English Anthropomorphic vessel Italian - Romanian Vas antropomorf Bust-vessel /Anthropomorphic oil vessel (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1995; NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1999). - Vas antropomorf în formă de bust (MUSTAȚĂ 2013). Image VII.4. Annexe IV. List of attachments with half-pierced loop from the Roman Empire1507 Attachments with vegetal decoration: 1. a. Augst/Augusta Raurica (Basel-Landschaft, Switzerland); b. archaeological excavations from 1964, region 1, between insulae 22 and 28; c. Römermuseum Augst, inv. no.: 1964.3142; d. L.: 55 mm; W.: 38 mm; Dloop-hole: 6 mm; Weight: 73,6 g; e. semi-inished product of an attachment shaped as a palmetto ornamented with incisions forming a vegetal decoration; the exterior surface is still coarse and the piercing process of the loop (on the right side), probably using a drill, was just begun, but never inished; f. 2nd half of the 2nd century – beginning of the 3rd century AD; g. FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, 119–120, Abb. 1/11; GORECKI 2000, 453; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24, ig. 1; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 195, no. 1, Pl. II/1. 2. a. Moigrad/Porolissum (Mirşid, Sălaj, Romania); b. Nicolae Pătru Popescu Collection, stray ind from the Pomet hill; c. National History Museum of Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca, inv. no.: IN 21514; d. L.: 54 mm; W.: 34 mm; Dloop-hole: 9 mm; Weight: 71 g; e. attachment shaped as a palmetto ornamented with incisions forming a vegetal decoration; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; on the upper part of the loop a small casting fault can be observed; it presents soldering traces on the inner side; f. -; g. GUDEA 1989, 691, no. 3, pl. CCXXX/3; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24, ig. 2; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 195, no. 2, Pl. III/1. 3. a. Răcarii de Jos (Dolj, Romania) (PL. II/2); b. the auxiliary fort; c. Museum of Oltenia, Craiova, inv. no.: -; d. L.: 58 mm; W.: 35 mm; Weight: 86,5 g; e. attachment shaped as a palmetto, with a more elongated body, ornamented with incisions forming a vegetal decoration; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; f. -; g. BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, 228, no. 672, pl. CXIII/672; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24, ig. 3; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 195–196, no. 3, Pl. II/2. Attachments with antropomorphic decoration: 4. a. Brugg/Vindonissa (Aargau, Switzerland); b. archaeological excavations from 1905, destruction layer of the legionary fortress; c. Vindonissa Museum, Brugg, inv. no.: 2287 t; d. L.: 74 mm; W.: 52 mm; Dloop-hole: 11 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto, partially broken and positioned between two volutes, can be observed in the lower part; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; f. AD 30/40–101; g. HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1985 (1986), 11–12, no. 81, Taf. 10/81; GORECKI 2000, 43; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 4, Pl. IV/1. 5. a. Burgh by Sands (Cumbria, United Kingdom); b. metal detecting (Portable Antiquities Scheme); c. returned to the inder; d. L.: 58 mm; W.: 37 mm; e. attachment decorated by incision with the head of a child?; a small palmetto can be observed in the lower part; the decoration is hardly visible; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; f. -; g. https://inds.org.uk/database (03.05.2017), Record ID: LVPL150. 6. a. Davidovac (Kladovo, Bor, Serbia); b. unknown; c. Narodni Muzej, Beograd, inv. no.: 2681/III; d. L.: 81 mm; W.: 32 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto between two volutes can be observed in the lower part; the loop was half-pierced on the right side; f. -; g. RATKOVIĆ 2005, 121, no. 58; MUSTAŢĂ 2009, 24; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 5, Pl. IV/2. 7 a. Langres (Haute-Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, France); b. 1969, Langres, east from Blanche-Fontaine; donation from the countess de Montangon; c. Musée d‘Art et d‘Histoire, Langres, inv. no.: -; d. L.: 53 mm; W.: 34 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto, partially broken, can be observed in the lower part; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; f. -; g. LEBEL 1965, 165–166, no. 43, pl. XV/43; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 6, Pl. V/1. 8. a. Neuss/Novaesium (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany); b. Neuss – Grimmlinghausen; c. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, inv. no.: 14143; d. L.: 57 mm; W.: 38 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto, partially broken can be observed in the lower part; the superior right part is also damaged; the loop was half-pierced on the right side; f. -; g. MENZEL 1986, 206 (no. 570), Taf. 180/570; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 7, Pl. V/2. In the description of the objects the following criteria were used: a. place of discovery, b. circumstances of discovery, c. storage place, d. dimensions, e. description, f. chronology, g. literature. Regarding the dimensions, for some of the objects it was not possible to indicate the diameter of the loop-hole or the weight, since they were not mentioned in the publications. 1507 259 9. a. Olympia/Ολυµπία (Elis, Greece); b. on the street positioned east from the Leonidaion, in the late demolition layer; c. Ethniko Archeologiko Mousio, Athina, inv. no.: B 3092; d. L.: 58 mm; W.: 33 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto can be observed in the lower part; the loop was half-pierced on the right side; f. Roman Imperial period; g. GAUER 1991, 190 (Le 69), Abb. 13/11, Taf. 82/4; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 8, Pl. V/3. 10. a. Unknown; b. unknown; c. private collection, Edgar L. Owen Gallery of Antiquities, New Jersey, no. 5947; d. L.: 57 mm; W.: 33 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto can be observed in the lower part; the decoration is very stylized, the features being just suggested; the loop was half-pierced on the right side; f. -; g. http://edgarlowen.com/a51ar.shtml (02.10.2010), no. 5947; MUSTAȚĂ 2010b, 196, no. 9, Pl. V/4. 11. a. Unknown; b. unknown; c. Archaeological Museum Gaziantep (Gaziantep/Zeugma, Turkey), Kamer Collection, inv. G-003; d. L.: 56 mm; e. attachment decorated by incision with the head of a woman; a small stylized palmetto can be observed in the lower part; the decoration is stylized, only the main features of the face are marked; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; possible soldering traces visible on the back; f. -; g. http:// artefacts.mom.fr/en/home.php (03.05.20170), no. BAS–4030. 12. a. Unknown; b. unknown; c. Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, no. Fr. 1472 a 6; d. L.: 49 mm; W.: 33 mm; e. attachment decorated with the head of a child (Eros); the lower part is broken; the loop was half-pierced on the right side; f. -; g. http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus (03.05.2017), no. Fr. 1472 a 6. 13. a. Unknown; b. unknown; c. unknown; d. L.: 60 mm; W.: 40 mm; e. attachment decorated by incision with the head of a child (Eros); a small palmetto can be observed in the lower part; the loop was half-pierced on the left side; f. -; g. he object was on sale on www.ebay.com with the indication that it was discovered at Colchester (Essex, United Kingdom): http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPERB-ROMAN-BRONZE-VESSELMOUNT–2ND-CENTURY-AD-/231014111908?nma=true&si=4p6b60ICXvMAWe2Sd9AQWQu5u04%2 53D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 (26.09.2013). 260 VIII. List of illustration Figures: Fig. 1. Drawing of the implements and the supplies needed for a banquet represented on the mosaic from Marbella (after DUNBABIN 1993, 130, Fig. 16). Fig. 2. Mosaic from the baths of a house from Aquincum with representations of instrumenta balnei (©BHM – Aquincum Museum). Fig. 3. Shop sign from the Farnese Collection, illustrating a metal vessels workshop (redrawn by Marton Ferenczi after PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 12, tav. 5). Fig. 4. Representation on a votive altar from Stockstadt am Main (Germany) with the depiction of the handwashing set (redrawn by Márton Ferenczi after NUBER 1973, Taf. 28/2). Fig. 5. Representation on a votive altar dedicated by Lucius Minucius Optatus depicted as a coppersmith (Este, Italy) (redrawn by Marton Ferenczi after PIRZIO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990, 9, tav. 1). Fig. 6. Scene from the sarcophagus discovered at Simpelveld depicting a shelf with a set of bronze vessels (redrawn by Marton Ferenczi after GORECKI 1994, 179, Abb. 4). Fig. 7. Spouted jugs depicted on votive altars from Roman Dacia. Fig. 8. Bowls with tubular handle and casseroles depicted on votive altars from Roman Dacia. Fig. 9. Diagram showing the relation between the name and composition of cooper alloys (redrawn after BAYLEY 1990, 8, Fig. 1). Fig. 10. he distribution of the indicators of bronze vessel production inside the Roman Empire. Fig. 11. Stone moulds. 1–2. Autun (after CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 170–171, Fig. 137/2078, 138/454); 3. Lyon (after MUTZ 1972, 38, Bild 54); 4. he reconstruction of a bivalve limestone mould (after CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 172, Fig. 141). Fig. 12. 1–4. Alspach. Bronze cauldrons in diferent stages of production (after LEGENDRE 1996, 72, Fig. 11); 5–7. Autun. Semi-inished bucket attachments (after CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 180, Fig. 147/264, 265,685); 8–9. Autun. Semi-inished amphora handles (after CHARDRON-PICAULT, PERNOT 1999, 181, Fig. 148). Fig. 13. Possible reconstruction of a bronze vessels workshop (after WILLER 2006, 180181, Abb, 239). Fig. 14. 1. he technological stages taken in order to manufacture a metal vessel (after DUBOS 989, 434); 2. he types of hammers used during the mechanical deformation process (after PERNOT 1991, 132, Fig. 2). Fig. 15. he reconstruction of the process of pressing on the lathe a metal disk in order to produce a vessel (after HERMANS 1971, 318, Fig. 10). Fig. 16. Possible reconstruction of a Roman lathe used for producing and inishing metal vessels (after BOCKING ET ALII 2004, 212, Abb. 1). Fig. 17. Finishing a casserole on the lathe (after BOCKING ET ALII 2004, 215, Abb. 5). Fig. 18. he superimposition of the outlines of the handles from Moigrad/Porolissum and Nijmegen-Grote Markt. Fig. 19. he distribution of bronze attachments with semi-pierced loop within the Roman Empire. Fig. 20. Bronze attachments with semi-pierced loop. 1. Augst/Augusta Raurica (redrawn after FURGER, RIEDERER 1995, Abb. 1/11); 2. Moigrad/Porolissum; 3. Răcarii de Jos (redrawn after BONDOC, GUDEA 2009, pl. CXIII/672; photo: D. Bondoc); 4. Brugg/Vindonissa (redrawn after HOLLIGER, HOLLIGER 1986, Taf. 10/81); 5. Davidovac (redrawn after RATKOVIĆ 2005, no. 58); 6. Langres (LEBEL 1965, pl. XV/43); 7. Neuss/ Novaesium (redrawn after MENZEL 1986, Taf. 180/570); 8. Olympia (redrawn after GAUER 1991, Abb. 13/11, Taf. 82/4); 9. Edgar L. Owen Gallery of Antiquities, New Jersey. Fig. 21. Bronze handle from South Shields (after ALLASON-JONES, MIKET 1984, 166–167, no. 427). Fig. 22. 1a-b. Possible reconstruction of the fastening mechanism. Fig. 23. 1–2. he two types of jagged joint. Fig. 24. Bronze vessels with jagged joints. 1–2. Alba Iulia/Apulum (drawn by Mugurel Manea). 3a-b. he History Museum in Sighișoara (photo: Silvia Mustață). Fig. 25. General plan of the excavations on Victor Deleu Street, Cluj-Napoca (second stone phase) (redrawn after COCIȘ ET ALII 1995, ig. 7 with further modiications). Fig. 26. he inlow stages of bronze vessels into Dacia Porolissensis. Figures used to illustrate the types of metal vessels: 1.1. Casserole with thin, concave walls and handles ending in stylised swan heads (PETROVSZKY 1993, 412, Taf. 1/III, 1). 1.2. Casseroles with crescent-shaped perforation on the handle terminal (shallow and high forms) (PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 1/IV/2a-b). 1.3. Casseroles with circular perforation on the handle terminal (shallow and high forms) (PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 2/V/2–3). 1.4. Casserole with circular perforation on the handle terminal, Gödåker type (PETROVSZKY 1993, Taf. 2/V/5c). 2.1. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with volute-decorated handles (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 13/159a). 2.2. Straining sets (strainers and dippers) with lat handles (RADNÓTI 1938, Taf, VI/26; EGGERS 1951, Taf. 13/160–161). 3.1. Spouted jug with narrow mouth (RAEV 1978, Taf. 32/8). 3.2. Spouted jug with trefoil mouth (DEN BOESTERD 1956, Pl. X/236). 3.3. Spouted jug with elongated spout (DEN BOESTERD 1956, Pl. XI/259). 3.4. Bronze sheet spouted jug with separately cast handle (TASSINARI 1993, E 5220/18782). 3.5. Bronze sheet spouted jug with the handle cast in one with the mouth (CAVALIER 1988, 55, nos. 6, 8). 4.1. Amphora with globular body (TASSINARI 1993, A 1000/3211). 5.1. Jug with lid (TASSINARI 1993, C1210/10268). 5.2. Jug with the end of the handle shaped like a human foot (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 1998, 73, Fig. 9). 5.3. Jug with relief-decorated handle (DEN BOESTERD 1956, Pl. XII/276). 6. Bowl with tubular handle ending in a zoomorphic or anthropomorphic protome (DEN BOESTERD 1956, Pl. IV/70). 7. Bowl with lat handle (PETROVSZKY 1993, 441, Taf. 30/Y.08). 8. Bowl with high handles (BIENERT 2007, 170, Form 58). 9.1. Hemispherical basin with stand and ixed handles (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 10/103). 9.2. Steep-walled basin with attachments ending in stylised bird heads (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 8/79). 9.3. E 81 steep-walled basin (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 8/81). 9.4. Steep-walled basin with attachments shaped like grapevine leaves (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 9/83). 10.1. Bucket with attachments shaped like a human mask (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 4/25–28). 10.2. Bucket with slightly concave sides (EGGERS 1951, Taf. 5/36). 10.3. Bucket with bell-shaped body (NENOVA-MERDJANOVA 2002, 200, Fig. 1/2). 11.1. Globular balsamarium with relief-decorated body (ISAC 2000, 219, Abb. 5). 11.2. Globular balsamarium with undecorated body (SIMION 1995, 216, Fig. 1/1a). 11.3. Iron balsamaria. 12.1. Anthropomorphic bust-shaped vessel (SZABÓ 1984, 109, Fig. 7/11). Plates: Pl. I. 262 1. Altar without inscription from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: A. Timofan); 2. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. II. Pl. III. Pl. IV. Pl. V. Pl. VI. Pl. VII. Pl. VIII. Pl. IX. Pl. X. Pl. XI. Pl. XII. Pl. XIII. Pl. XIV. Pl. XV. Pl. XVI. Pl. XVII. Pl. XVIII. Pl. XIX. Pl. XX. Pl. XXI. Pl. XXII. Pl. XXIII. Pl. XXIV. Pl. XXV. Pl. XXVI. Pl. XXVII. Pl. XXVIII. Pl. XXIX. Pl. XXX. Pl. XXXI. Pl. XXXII. Pl. XXXIII. Pl. XXXIV. Pl. XXXV. Pl. XXXVI. Pl. XXXVII. 3–4. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: A. Timofan). 5–6. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață). 7. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață); 8. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (after BĂLUŢĂ 1986, 119, ig. 1). 9–10. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață). 11. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: C. Mitar); 12. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 13. Votive altar from Geoagiu/Germisara? (photos: D. Iancu); 14. Votive altar from Vețel/Micia (photos: C. Mitar). 15. Aedicula wall from Aghireş (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/1); 16. Altar of the pseudo-aedicula type from Alba Iulia/Apulum (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/2); 17. Aedicula wall from Alba Iulia/Apulum (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/23); 18 . Pyramid-shaped coping of funerary monument from Alba Iulia/Apulum (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/24); 19. Aedicula wall from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/8). 20–24. Aedicula walls from: 20–22. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/4, IV/12, VII/25); 23. Cristești (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/10); 24. Gârbău (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/7). 25. Aedicula wall from Ilișua/Arcobadara (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/3); 26. Aedicula wall from Luncani (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/26); 27. Stela of the pseudo-aedicula type from Moigrad/Porolissum (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VIII/27); 28. Aedicula wall from Sarmizegetusa/Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/29). 29–31. Aedicula walls: 29. Sutoru; 30. Tihău; 31. Vețel/Micia (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/28, VIII/33, IX/38); 32. Altar of the pseudo-aedicula type from Ilișua/Arcobadara (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. X/40). 33. Funerary stela from Șăula (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, VI/21); 34. Aedicula wall from Turda/ Potaissa (after PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. X/41); 35. Funerary stela from Turda/Potaissa (after CĂTINAȘ 2011, Pl. I/1). 1. Cuzdrioara; 2–3. Buciumi; 4. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 5. Floreşti-Şapca Verde; 6. Gilău (redrawn after DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 54, Fig. 1/1); 7. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 8–9. Moigrad/Porolissum. 10. Orheiu Bistriţei. 11–12. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 13–15. Moigrad/Porolissum. 16. Cuzdrioara; 17. Buciumi; 18. Gilău; 19. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 20. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 21–23. Moigrad/Porolissum. 24–25. Moigrad/Porolissum. 26. Turda/Potaissa (after BAJUSZ 2005, 498, 28/119/1. ábra); 27. Turda/Potaissa (after ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/42); 28. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 29. Turda/Potaissa. 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 31, 33. Moigrad/Porolissum; 32. Buciumi. 34. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca; 35–36. Gherla. 37–38. Moigrad/Porolissum; 39. Buciumi; 40. Gherla. 41–43. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 44–45. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 46–47. Moigrad/Porolissum. 48. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 49. Cuzdrioara. 50. Orheiu Bistriţei. 51. Turda/Potaissa (after ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/30); 52–53. Moigrad/Porolissum. 54. Dacia Porolissensis; 55. Moigrad/Porolissum; 56a. Moigrad/Porolissum (after BUDAY 1914, 73, Fig. 5/8); 56b. Moigrad/Porolissum. 57a. Bologa (after GUDEA 1977, 178, Fig. 9/1); 57b. Bologa (drawing from the archive of the archaeological site). 58. Moigrad/Porolissum; 59. Gherla. 60–61. Gherla; 62–63. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 65. Buciumi. 64. Orheiu Bistriţei. 66. Gherla; 67. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 68–69. Moigrad/Porolissum. 263 Pl. XXXVIII. Pl. XXXIX. Pl. XL-XLI. Pl. XLII. Pl. XLIII. Pl. XLIV. Pl. XLV. Pl. XLVI. Pl. XLVII. Pl. XLVIII. Pl. XLIX. Pl. L. Pl. LI. Pl. LII. Pl. LIII. Pl. LIV. Pl. LV. Pl. LVI. Pl. LVII. Pl. LVIII. Pl. LIX-LX. Pl. LXI. Pl. LXII. Pl. LXIII. Pl. LXIV. Pl. LXV. Pl. LXVILXVII. Pl. LXVIIILXIX. Pl. LXX. Pl. LXXILXXII. Pl. LXXIII. Pl. LXXIV. Pl. LXXV. Pl. LXXVI. Pl. LXXVIILXXVIII. Pl. LXXIX. Pl. LXXX. Pl. LXXXI. Pl. LXXXII. Pl. LXXXIII. Pl. LXXXIV. Pl. LXXXV. 264 70. Gilău; 71–74. Moigrad/Porolissum. 75. Gherla; 76–78. Moigrad/Porolissum; 79. Turda/Potaissa (after BAJUSZ 2005, 556, 45/86b/2. ábra); 80. Turda/Potaissa (after BAJUSZ 2005, 671, 44/81/1. ábra). 81a-b. Gilău (after ISAC 2000, 219–221, Abb. 5–8). 82. Bologa; 83. Moigrad/Porolissum; 84a. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. b. X-ray showing the shape of the vessel; c. Drawing based on the X-ray. 85a. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 85b-c. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. X-ray of the vessel. 87–88. Buciumi; 89–90. Moigrad/Porolissum; 91. Turda/Potaissa (after BAJUSZ 2005, 729, 32/9/2 ábra); 92. Turda/Potaissa (after BAJUSZ 2005, 679, 30/87/3. ábra). 93–94. Buciumi; 95. Gilău. 96–97. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 98. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 99–100. Moigrad/Porolissum. 101–103. Moigrad/Porolissum. 104–105. Moigrad/Porolissum. 106. Turda/Potaissa (after ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/6); 107. Bologa; 108. Buciumi. 109. Gilău; 110–112. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 113–114. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 115–116. Moigrad/Porolissum. 117–119. Moigrad/Porolissum. 1. Cuzdrioara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 2–3. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). 4. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 5. Floreşti-Şapca Verde (after ALICU 2008, 31, no. 94); 7. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă); 8. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 9. Moigrad/Porolissum; 10. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 10. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 11. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 12. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 15. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 16. Cuzdrioara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 18. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 19. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 20. Ilişua/ Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 21. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 23. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 24. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă). 25. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă); 28. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR). Turda/Potaissa (photos: S. Mustaţă). 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Cociş). 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 31. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 32. Buciumi (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 33. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 34. ClujNapoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 35–36. Gherla (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 37–38. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 39. Buciumi (photo: S. Mustaţă); 41. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 42–44. Ilişua/ Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 46. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă); 47. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 48. Ilișua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 49. Cuzdrioara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 50. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 52–53. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 54. Dacia Porolissensis (photos: S. Mustaţă); 55, 58. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 59. Gherla (photo: S. Mustaţă); 60–61. Gherla (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 62–63. Ilișua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 65. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). 64. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 67. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă); 68–69, 71. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 70. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR). 72, 74. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 73. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). Pl. LXXXVI. Pl. LXXXVIILXXXVIII. Pl. LXXXIX. Pl. XC. 75. Gherla (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 76–77. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 81. Gilău (photo: S. Mustaţă). 81. Gilău. Details (after DIACONESCU 2013, 217, 219, 224, 235; photos: E. Bota MNITR). 82. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 83. Bologa (photos: S. Mustaţă); 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCI. 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCII-XCIII. 85. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCIV. 86. Moigrad/Porolissum (© Hungarian National Museum, Budapest); 87–88, 93. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCV. 94. Buciumi (photo: S. Mustaţă); 95. Gilău (photos: S. Mustaţă); 96. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCVI. 97–98. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 99. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCVII. 100, 102, 104–105. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCVIII. 107. Bologa (photos: S. Mustaţă); 109. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 111–112. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă). Pl. XCIX. 113–114. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 115–116. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). Pl. C. 117, 119. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 118. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). Pl. CI. Image with the inds from Imre Botár’s Collection (after ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8). Pl. CII-CV. he chronology of the production and use for the types of Roman metal vessels identiied in Dacia Porolissensis. Pl. CVI. he distribution of the types of metal vessels in Dacia Porolissensis. 265 IX. Plates 20 cm 0 1 20 cm 0 2 Pl. I. 1. Altar without inscription from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: A. Timofan); 2. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 269 20 cm 0 3 20 cm 0 4 Pl. II. 3–4. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: A. Timofan). 270 20 cm 0 5 20 cm 0 6 Pl. III. 5–6. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață). 271 20 cm 0 7 20 cm 0 8 Pl. IV. 7. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață); 8. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (ater BĂLUŢĂ 1986, 119, fig. 1). 272 20 cm 0 9 20 cm 0 10 Pl. V. 9–10. Votive altars from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustață). 273 20 cm 0 11 20 cm 0 12 Pl. VI. 11. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: C. Mitar); 12. Votive altar from Alba Iulia/Apulum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 274 20 cm 0 13 20 cm 0 14 Pl. VII. 13. Votive altar from Geoagiu/Germisara? (photos: D. Iancu); 14. Votive altar from Vețel/Micia (photos: C. Mitar). 275 15 19 17 18 16 0 50cm Pl. VIII. 15. Aedicula wall from Aghireş (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/1); 16. Altar of the pseudo-aedicula type from Alba Iulia/Apulum (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/2); 17. Aedicula wall from Alba Iulia/Apulum (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/23); 18. Pyramid-shaped coping of funerary monument from Alba Iulia/Apulum (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/24); 19. Aedicula wall from Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/8). 276 24 21 22 0 50cm 23 20 0 50cm Pl. IX. 20–24. Aedicula walls from: 20–22. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/4, IV/12, VII/25); 23. Cristești (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/10); 24. Gârbău (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. III/7). 277 27 26 28 25 0 50cm Pl. X. 25. Aedicula wall from Ilișua/Arcobadara (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. II/3); 26. Aedicula wall from Luncani (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/26); 27. Stela of the pseudo-aedicula type from Moigrad/Porolissum (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VIII/27); 28. Aedicula wall from Sarmizegetusa/Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/29). 278 29 30 31 32 0 50cm Pl. XI. 29–31. Aedicula walls: 29. Sutoru; 30. Tihău; 31. Vețel/Micia (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. VII/28, VIII/33, IX/38); 32. Altar of the pseudo-aedicula type from Ilișua/Arcobadara (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. X/40). 279 33 35 34 0 50cm Pl. XII. 33. Funerary stela from Șăula (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, VI/21); 34. Aedicula wall from Turda/Potaissa (ater PETRUȚ, MUSTAȚĂ 2010, Pl. X/41); 35. Funerary stela from Turda/Potaissa (ater CĂTINAȘ 2011, Pl. I/1). 280 1 2 3 0 3 cm 4 Pl. XIII. 1. Cuzdrioara; 2–3. Buciumi; 4. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 281 5 6 9 7 8 0 3 cm Pl. XIV. 5. Floreşti-Şapca Verde; 6. Gilău (redrawn ater DIACONESCU, OPREANU 1987, 54, Fig. 1/1); 7. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 8–9. Moigrad/Porolissum. 282 10 0 283 Pl. XV. 10. Orheiu Bistriţei. 3 cm 11 12 0 3 cm Pl. XVI. 11–12. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 284 13 14 15 0 3 cm 285 Pl. XVII. 13–15. Moigrad/Porolissum. 16 17 18 19 0 3 cm Pl. XVIII. 16. Cuzdrioara; 17. Buciumi; 18. Gilău; 19. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 286 21 22 20 0 23 287 Pl. XIX. 20. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 21–23. Moigrad/Porolissum. 3 cm 24 25 0 3 cm Pl. XX. 24–25. Moigrad/Porolissum. 288 26 27 28 0 3 cm Pl. XXI. 26. Turda/Potaissa (ater BAJUSZ 2005, 498, 28/119/1. ábra); 27. Turda/ Potaissa (ater ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/42); 28. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 289 29 0 3 cm Pl. XXII. 29. Turda/Potaissa. 290 30 0 3 cm Pl. XXIII. 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 291 31 33 32 0 3 cm Pl. XXIV. 31, 33. Moigrad/Porolissum; 32. Buciumi. 292 34 36 35 0 3 cm 293 Pl. XXV. 34. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca; 35–36. Gherla. 38 37 40 39 0 3 Pl. XXVI. 37–38. Moigrad/Porolissum; 39. Buciumi; 40. Gherla. 294 41 42 43 0 3 cm Pl. XXVII. 41–43. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 295 44 45 46 47 0 3 cm Pl. XXVIII. 44–45. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 46–47. Moigrad/Porolissum. 296 48 49 0 3 cm Pl. XXIX. 48. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 49. Cuzdrioara. 297 50 0 3 cm Pl. XXX. 50. Orheiu Bistriţei. 298 51 53 52 0 3 cm Pl. XXXI. 51. Turda/Potaissa (ater ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/30); 52–53. Moigrad/Porolissum. 299 55 54 56a 3 cm 0 56b Pl. XXXII. 54. Dacia Porolissensis; 55-56. Moigrad/Porolissum (56a: ater BUDAY 1914, 73, Fig. 5/8). 300 57a 57b 0 3 cm Pl. XXXIII. 57a. Bologa (ater GUDEA 1977, 178, Fig. 9/1); 57b. Bologa (drawing from the archive of the archaeological site). 301 58 59 0 3 cm Pl. XXXIV. 58. Moigrad/Porolissum; 59. Gherla. 302 61 60 63 62 65 0 3 cm Pl. XXXV. 60–61. Gherla; 62–63. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 65. Buciumi. 303 304 64 0 3 cm Pl. XXXVI. 64. Orheiu Bistriţei. 68 67 66 69 0 305 Pl. XXXVII. 66. Gherla; 67. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 68–69. Moigrad/Porolissum. 3 70 71 73 72 74 0 3 cm Pl. XXXVIII. 70. Gilău; 71–74. Moigrad/Porolissum. 306 75 79 77 76 78 80 0 3 cm 307 Pl. XXXIX. 75. Gherla; 76–78. Moigrad/Porolissum; 79. Turda/Potaissa (ater BAJUSZ 2005, 556, 45/86b/2. ábra); 80. Turda/Potaissa (ater BAJUSZ 2005, 671, 44/81/1. ábra). 81a 0 3 Pl. XL. 81a. Gilău (ater ISAC 2000, 219–221, Abb. 5, 7a-b). 308 81b 0 3 cm 309 Pl. XLI. 81b. Gilău (ater ISAC 2000, 219–221, Abb. 6, 8). 82 83 84a 0 3 cm Pl. XLII. 82. Bologa; 83. Moigrad/Porolissum; 84a. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 310 part added during restoration joining line part added during restoration joining line joining line part added during restoration part added during restoration original base part added during restoration 84b 84c 0 3 cm Pl. XLIII. 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. b. X-ray showing the shape of the vessel; c. Drawing based on the X-ray. 311 85a 0 3 cm Pl. XLIV. 85a. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. 312 lid capac line between linie despărțitoare the two între celeplates? două plăci ? part added parte adăugată în timpul during restoration procesului de restaurare joining linie de line îmbinare 85b lid capac linedespărțitoare between linie the cele two două plates? între plăci ? joining line linie de îmbinare 85c 0 3 cm Pl. XLV. 85b-c. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca. X-ray of the vessel. 313 314 88 87 89 90 91 0 92 3 cm Pl. XLVI. 87–88. Buciumi; 89–90. Moigrad/Porolissum; 91. Turda/Potaissa (ater BAJUSZ 2005, 729, 32/9/2 ábra); 92. Turda/Potaissa (ater BAJUSZ 2005, 679, 30/87/3. ábra). 93 94 95 0 3 cm Pl. XLVII. 93–94. Buciumi; 95. Gilău. 315 96 97 0 3 cm Pl. XLVIII. 96–97. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 316 98 99 100 0 3 cm Pl. XLIX. 98. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 99–100. Moigrad/Porolissum. 317 101 102 103 0 3 cm Pl. L. 101–103. Moigrad/Porolissum. 318 104 105 0 3 cm Pl. LI. 104–105. Moigrad/Porolissum. 319 107 106 108 0 3 cm Pl. LII. 106. Turda/Potaissa (ater ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8/6); 107. Bologa; 108. Buciumi. 320 110 109 111 112 0 3 cm Pl. LIII. 109. Gilău; 110–112. Ilişua/Arcobadara. 321 114 113 116 115 0 3 cm Pl. LIV. 113–114. Ilişua/Arcobadara; 115–116. Moigrad/Porolissum. 322 118 117 119 0 3 cm Pl. LV. 117–119. Moigrad/Porolissum. 323 1 2b 2a 3a 3b 0 3 cm Pl. LVI. 1. Cuzdrioara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 2–3. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). 324 4a 4b 5 7 8a 8b 0 3 cm Pl. LVII. 4. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 5. Floreşti-Şapca Verde (ater ALICU 2008, 31, no. 94); 7. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă); 8. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 325 326 9a 0 10 0 3 cm Pl. LVIII. 9. Moigrad/Porolissum; 10. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 3 cm 9b 10a 10b 0 3 cm 327 Pl. LIX. 10. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 328 10c 10d Pl. LX. 10. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 11b 11a 11c 0 3 cm Pl. LXI. 11. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 329 330 15 12b 12a 16b 16a 0 3 cm Pl. LXII. 12. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 15. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 16. Cuzdrioara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 18 19a 19b 21b 21a 20b 20a 0 3 cm Pl. LXIII. 18. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 19. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 20. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 21. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 331 332 23 24 0 3 cm Pl. LXIV. 23. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 24. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă). 25 28 0 3 cm Pl. LXV. 25. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă); 28. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR). 333 29a 3 cm 0 Pl. LXVI. 29. Turda/Potaissa (photos: S. Mustaţă). x 334 29b 0 3 cm 29c Pl. LXVII. 29. Turda/Potaissa (photos: S. Mustaţă). 335 30a 30b Pl. LXVIII. 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Cociş). 336 30d 30c 30e 30f 0 3 cm Pl. LXIX. 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Cociş). 337 338 30g 30h 0 3 cm Pl. LXX. 30. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 31a 31c 31b 0 3 cm 339 Pl. LXXI. 31. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 340 31e 31d 31f 31g Pl. LXXII. 31. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 32 33a 34a 33b 34b 0 3 cm Pl. LXXIII. 32. Buciumi (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 33. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 34. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 341 342 37b 37a 38a 0 38b 3 cm 36 35 Pl. LXXIV. 35–36. Gherla (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 37–38. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 41 39 43 0 42 44 3 cm 343 Pl. LXXV. 39. Buciumi (photo: S. Mustaţă); 41. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 42–44. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 46 47 48a 48c 48b 0 3 cm Pl. LXXVI. 46. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Mustaţă); 47. Moigrad/Porolissum (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 48. Ilișua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 344 49a 0 3 cm Pl. LXXVII. 49. Cuzdrioara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 345 49b 0 3 cm Pl. LXXVIII. 49. Cuzdrioara (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 346 50b 50a 0 50c 3 cm Pl. LXXIX. 50. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 347 52a 52b 53a 53b 0 3 cm Pl. LXXX. 52–53. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 348 55d 55a 55c 55b 54a 54b 58b 58a 0 3 cm Pl. LXXXI. 54. Dacia Porolissensis (photos: S. Mustaţă); 55, 58. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 349 59 61 62a 60 63b 63a 0 62b 3 cm 65a 65b Pl. LXXXII. 59. Gherla (photo: S. Mustaţă); 60–61. Gherla (photos: S. Odenie MNITR); 62– 63. Ilișua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 65. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). 350 64a 0 3 cm 64b Pl. LXXXIII. 64. Orheiu Bistriţei (photos: S. Mustaţă). 351 68a 68b 67 69a 69b 70 71a 0 71b 3 cm Pl. LXXXIV. 67. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă); 68–69, 71. Moigrad/ Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 70. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR). 352 0 73a 72b 72a 3 cm 74a 73b 74b 353 Pl. LXXXV. 72, 74. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 73. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 354 75 76a 76b 77b 77a 0 3 cm Pl. LXXXVI. 75. Gherla (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 76–77. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 81a 0 3 Pl. LXXXVII. 81. Gilău (photo: S. Mustaţă). 355 81b 81c 0 Pl. LXXXVIII. 81. Gilău (photo: S. Mustaţă). 356 3 cm 81d 81f 81e 81g Pl. LXXXIX. 81. Gilău. Details (ater DIACONESCU 2013, 217, 219, 224, 235; photos: E. Bota MNITR). 357 358 82a 84a 82b 83a 83b 84b 84c 0 3 cm Pl. XC. 82. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 83. Bologa (photos: S. Mustaţă); 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 84d 84e Pl. XCI. 84. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 359 360 85a 85c 85b 0 3 cm Pl. XCII. 85. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 85d 85e Pl. XCIII. 85. Cluj-Napoca/Napoca (photos: S. Mustaţă). 361 86a 86c 86b 86d 86e 87b 87a 88b 88a 93 0 3 cm Pl. XCIV. 86. Moigrad/Porolissum (© Hungarian National Museum, Budapest); 87–88, 93. Buciumi (photos: S. Mustaţă). 362 96 95 94 0 3 cm 363 Pl. XCV. 94. Buciumi (photo: S. Mustaţă); 95. Gilău (photos: S. Mustaţă); 96. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă). 97a 97b 98b 98a 99b 99c 99a 99d 0 Pl. XCVI. 97–98. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 99. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 364 3 cm 100a 100b 102 104 105 0 3 cm 365 Pl. XCVII. 100, 102, 104–105. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 109a 109b 107a 107b 111a 111b 112a 112b 0 3 cm Pl. XCVIII. 107. Bologa (photos: S. Mustaţă); 109. Gilău (photo: S. Odenie MNITR); 111–112. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photo: S. Mustaţă). 366 114a 113 114b 115a 116 115b 0 3 cm Pl. XCIX. 113–114. Ilişua/Arcobadara (photos: S. Mustaţă); 115–116. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă). 367 117b 117a 118a 118b 119b 119a 0 3 cm Pl. C. 117, 119. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Mustaţă); 118. Moigrad/Porolissum (photos: S. Odenie MNITR). 368 Pl. CI. Image with the finds from Imre Botár’s Collection (ater ARDEVAN, RUSU 1979, Fig. 8). 369 NO. 50-1 BC TYPE 1-50 AD 50-100 AD 100-150 AD 150-200 AD 370 1.1 1.2 1.3 P V, 1 P V, 2 P V, 3 1.4 P V, 5c 2.1 2.2 E160 E 160 2.2 E160 /161 E 160/161 2.2 E161 E 161 LEGEND: production period period of use uncertain period E-Eggers P-Petrovszky Pl. CII. The chronology of the production and use for the types of Roman metal vessels identified in Dacia Porolissensis. 200-250 AD NO. TYPE 50-1 BC 1-50 AD 50-100 AD 100-150 AD 150-200 AD 3.1 3.2 3.3 provincial variant? 3.4 3.5 4.1 5.1 371 LEGEND: production period period of use uncertain period E-Eggers P-Petrovszky Pl. CIII. The chronology of the production and use for the types of Roman metal vessels identified in Dacia Porolissensis. 200-250 AD NO. TYPE 50-1 BC 1-50 AD 50-100 AD 100-150 AD 150-200 AD 372 5.2 5.3 general dating of the type 6. Canterbury type (handle ending in anthropomorphic representation) 7. 8. 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 LEGEND: production period period of use uncertain period E-Eggers P-Petrovszky Pl. CIV. The chronology of the production and use for the types of Roman metal vessels identified in Dacia Porolissensis. 200-250 AD NO. 50-1 BC TYPE 1-50 AD 50-100 AD 100-150 AD 150-200 AD 10.1 10.2 10.3. 11.1 general dating of the type 11.2 11.4 12.1 373 LEGEND: production period period of use uncertain period E-Eggers P-Petrovszky Pl. CV. The chronology of the production and use for the types of Roman metal vessels identified in Dacia Porolissensis. 200-250 AD 374 LEGEND: settlement auxiliary fort legionary fortress 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 Ilișua/Arcobadara Moigrad/Porolissum Cuzdrioara Gherla Buciumi Orheiu Bistriței 2 2 2 Bologa Gilău Cluj-Napoca/Napoca Florești 2 Turda/Potaissa 2 0 Pl. CVI. The distribution of the types of metal vessels in Dacia Porolissensis. 50km 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 (E160) 2.2 (E160/161) 2.2 (E161) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6 7 8 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 13 the number indicates the quantity of finds

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Silvia Mustata_The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis.pdf

Silvia Mustata_The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis.pdf

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS