Download pdf - CAIETELE CIVA 2 2013 · Christian Jacq, Marii înţelepţi ai Egiptului Antic. De la Imhotep la Hermes Trismegistus , traducere din limba franceză de Alexandru Nicolae, Bucureşti,

CAIETELE CIVA

2 │2013

1

Reproducerea integrală sau parţială a textului revistei, prin orice mijloace, fără acordul autorilor şi al editurii, este interzisă. Colegiul ştiinţific: Dr. Florin GOGÂLTAN (Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei Cluj-Napoca) Dr. Ioan Alexandru ALDEA (Alba Iulia) Dr. Cătălin RIŞCUŢA (Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane - Deva) Dr. Iosif Vasile FERENCZ (Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane - Deva) Dr. Călin ANGHEL (Universitatea „1 Decembrie 1918” din Alba Iulia) Colegiul de redacţie: Dr. Cristian Ioan POPA - directorul revistei Florin CIULAVU - secretar de redacţie Gligor Adrian BORZA - membru Mihaela BLEOANCĂ - membru Mihaela SAVU - membru Ioan OPREA - membru Traducerea şi revizuirea textelor şi rezumatelor în limba engleză: Mihaela SAVU Concepţie copertă: Călin A. ŞUTEU Desen: Ştefan ANDREI ISSN 2359 – 7429 ISSN-L 2359 – 7429 Asociaţia Cercul de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, Alba Iulia E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.aciva.ro/

2

ASOCIAŢIA „CERCUL DE ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE”

CAIETELE CIVA 2

Alba Iulia 2013

3

4

CUPRINS

STUDII ŞI ARTICOLE

Ioan Alexandru BĂRBAT, Două reprezentări de tip bucranium descoperite la Rapoltu Mare (jud. Hunedoara) .......................................................................................................................... 9 Two representations of Bucranium type from Rapoldu Mare (Hunedoara county) ... 27 Rumyana YORDANOVA, House models on lids - problems of identification, diversity, interpretation (based on materials from Bulgaria) ......................................................................... 37 Modele de case pe capace - problematica identificării, diversităţii şi interpretării (bazat pe materialele din Bulgaria) ................................................................................................... 42 Svetlana TODOROVA, Roman Fibulae from Rouse Regional Museum ................................ 51 Fibule romane din Muzeul Regional Ruse ......................................................................... 62 Svetlana VELIKOVA, Items of Bone from Sexaginta Prista .................................................. 67 Obiecte din os de la Sexaginta Prista .................................................................................. 73 Evan SCHERER, The Great Chesters lorica squamata ....................................................... 81 Lorica squamata din Great Chester ..................................................................................... 90 Gligor Adrian BORZA, Biserica fortificată din Şard (jud. Alba). Consideraţii istorice şi stilistice .................................................................................................................................................... 95 The Fortified Church from Şard (Alba county). Historical and Stylistic Considerations .................................................................................................................................................. 111 Florin CIULAVU, Aspecte privind activitatea monetăriei de la Alba Iulia în timpul principelui Gabriel Bethlen (1613-1629) ................................................................................................... 147 Aspects regarding the activity of the Mint from Alba Iulia during the lead of Prince Gabriel Bethlen (1613-1629) .............................................................................................. 190

MISCELLANEA Florin CIULAVU, Contribuţii la repertoriul numismatic al judeţului Alba. Un sesterţ de la Traian descoperit la Oarda-„Dublihan” (mun. Alba Iulia) .................................................................. 203

5

Considerations to the Numismatic Repertoire of Alba County. A Sestert released under Traian discovered at Oarda-“Dublihan” (Alba Iulia Town) ......................................... 205 Marius Gheorghe BARBU, Vârfuri antice de suliţă descoperite recent pe teritoriul com. Veţel, jud. Hunedoara ............................................................................................................................... 209 Ancient Spear Tips Recently Discovered on the Territory of Veţel village, Hunedoara county ..................................................................................................................................... 218 Sergiu-Gabriel ENACHE, Un nou obiectiv arheologic pe măgura vulcanică Şumig (oraş Gătaia, jud. Timiş) ................................................................................................................................ 221 A new Archaeological Objective discovered on the Sumig Volcano Hill (Gataia town, Timis County) ....................................................................................................................... 230 Gligor Adrian BORZA, Un clopot premodern din biserica fortificată de la Valea Lungă (jud. Alba) ....................................................................................................................................... 233 A Premodern Bell from Fortified Church of Valea Lungă (Alba County) ................. 237

RECENZII ŞI PREZENTĂRI DE CARTE Beatrice Ciută, Plant species within the diet of Prehistoric communities from Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Mega, 2012, 144 p. (Gligor Adrian BORZA) .................................... 241 Christian Jacq, Marii înţelepţi ai Egiptului Antic. De la Imhotep la Hermes Trismegistus, traducere din limba franceză de Alexandru Nicolae, Bucureşti, Pro Editură şi Tipografie, 2009, 144 p. (Mihaela BLEOANCĂ) ........................................................... 243 Cristian Nicolae Apetrei, Reşedinţele boiereşti din Ţara Românească şi Moldova în secolele XIV-XVI, Brăila, Editura Istros, 2009, 412 p. + 2 hărţi. (Florin CIULAVU) .................... 247 Cronica CIVA ....................................................................................................................... 252 LISTA ABREVIERILOR ................................................................................................... 255 LISTA AUTORILOR .......................................................................................................... 259

6

ROMAN FIBULAE FROM ROUSE REGIONAL MUSEUM

Svetlana TODOROVA In this study are included 15 unpublished fibulae from the Rouse Regional Museum. The examples do not come from an archaeological site or archaeological context, because of which the following classification is based on formal analysis. They are commonly dated in the Roman times. E. Gencheva includes them in one group - disc-type fibulae.1 They differ in exchanging the bow with a plate, which has various forms and decoration. Various types are distinguished, based on common features in the figure (in the form of an animal, bird and so on), on the kind of decoration (cut-out or with enamel) or on the way of production (moulded or printed). The great variety of finds probably can determine a secondary production of the large centers and military fabricae. Essential problem is the chronology of these items. According to the observations of E. Gencheva some of these fibulae are in use for such a long period that is impossible to point at an exact envelopement of appearance, development and distribution.2 The lack of archaeological finds from closed complexes is another obstacle for solving this problem.

Flat Cut-out fibulae In the 2nd half of II c. AD. in provinces developed an ornamental style known as roman cut-out style. E. Gencheva considers that the roman hemstiched style developed itself basically on the celtic floral and trumpet style, mixed with the Greek floral motives, as the most characteristic is the pelta-ornament.3 That ornament can be seen on applications, straps, harness. This items are cast in a mould and then the edges are made smooth and slightly canted. It is typical for the Rhine and Danube Limes. Well dated finds from province Dacia places them chronologically in the end of the 2nd-3rd c. AD..4

The first two examples (pl. I/1-2) are decorated with cut-out peltas. Very close examples are known from Serbia5 and Romania.6 The group “cut-

Master in Archaeology, "St. Kliment Ohridsky" University Archaeology, Sofia; e-mail: [email protected]. 1 Генчева 2004, p. 65. 2 Генчева 2004, p. 65-66. 3 Генчева 2004, p. 70. 4 Cociş 2004, p. 128. 5 Bojović 1983, p. 283, pl. XXIX; military camp Veliki Kalemegdan, Beograd. 6 Cociş 2004, p. 1541, pl. CIX.

Caietele CIVA, II, 2013, p. 51-66

Svetlana Todorova

out” fibulae are common for the territory of Dacia from the end of the 2nd c. AD. to the beginning of the 3rd c. AD.,7 while in Moesia Inferior such examples are dated in 3rd c. AD..8 E. Gencheva accepts for the finds from Bulgaria the date-the end of the 2nd c.-the beginning of the 3rd c. AD..9 As these objects appear mostly in fortifications, it can be asumed they were used mainly by the army.

Another two fibulae (pl. II/3-4) have the form of a horn. They are attributed a Celtic tradition. In the publication on the finds from Pannonia E. von Patek places these objects in one group together with fibulae with S- and pelta-form.10 The author believes they are an import from the west. Close examples are known from Serbia,11 Romania,12 military camps Saalburg and Zugmantel13 and Lauriacum.14 The last one is made of silver;15 it is defined as „leaf-shaped”16 and based on the archaeological context is dated in the 3rd c. AD. (it differs by the fastening mechanism-a spring). S. Petković gives a wider chronological range - from the middle of the 2nd-4th c. AD.,17 while S. Cociş, using well-dated finds from Dacia, places chronologicallys this type from the end of the 2nd - 3rd c. AD..18 The lack of published materials from Bulgaria at this stage makes it difficult to determine the chronology of these items. Based on the analogous examples from Dacia and Moesia Inferior the two fibulae can be dated from the middle of the 2nd -4th c. AD.

The next fibula (pl. I/5) has quadrate form with rounded ends and decoration of 8 cut-out leaf-ornaments. E. Gencheva includes almost identical object.19 That examples are mainly found in Pannonia. They appear in military camps along the Danubian Limes in the last forth of the 2nd c. AD. and is still in use in the first quarter of the 3rd c. AD..20

Zoomorphic type fibulae In one group E. Gencheva places them chronologicallys all examples with the form of animals, birds and fishes. Almost identical finds in figure and

7 Popescu 1945, p. 500; Cociş 2004, p. 128. 8 Bojović 1983, p. 66. 9 Генчева 2004, p. 70. 10Patek 1942, p. 128. 11 Bojović 1983, p. 287, pl. XXIX; Petković 2010, p. 9, XXXII/1-2. 12 Cociş 2004, p. 1560, pl. CX. 13 Böhme 1972, p. 1145, p. 1148-1149, T. 29. 14 Jobst 1975, p. 344, pl. 48. 15 Usually these items are made of cupper. The presence of a silver one can be explained with the higher status of its owner. 16 Jobst 1975, p. 120, divides the trumpet cut-out fibulaes into four variants: oval ones, longed ones, round ones and leaf-shaped. 17 Petković 2010, p. 179. 18 Cociş 2004, p. 128. 19 Генчева 2004, p. 2, pl. XXVI. 20 Генчева 2004, p. 70.

52

Roman Fibulae from Rouse Regional Museum

decoration come from Pannonia.21 They can be flat or engraved, with or without enamel. According to some authors this items had protective purpose, although later they probably were used only in a fashion-decorative manner.22 It is not still obvious if they were worn only by men or even by women, because these fibulae come out not only in military camps but also in civil villages.23 According to S. Cociş all zoomorphic fibulae without enamel are typical for Norikum, Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia; and the items from Dacia are dated in II c.24

l date 2nd

in Serbia will be used.35 The village is dated from the 1st c. to the 3rd c. AD. An

The first fibula (pl. I/6) has the form of a rabbit. Such finds are attested on the territory from Germania Superior to Scythae.25 Interesting find is the lead die in a form of a rabbit from Novae, Bulgaria.26 It is used for making clay moulds in which are casted the fibulae. That makes the researcher believe that the military fabricae are used for manufacturing small items, too.27 A. Ambroz places them chronologicallys chronologically these examples in the 1st c. AD..28 More suggested as a date is 2nd c. AD..,29 although S. Petković extended the upper limit to the 3rd c. AD..30 E. Gencheva explains the broad chronologica

- 3rd c. AD.. with the lack of accurate data about zoomorphic fibulae.31 The next item (pl. I/7) has the form of a bird. The earliest examples

present the bird in relief, without additional engraved decoration. There are known examples with outspread or gathered together wings. Such items are found in Noricum and Pannonia and are dated from the middle of the 1st c. AD. to the time of the Flavii’s (69-96).32 These fibulae are still in use in the 2nd-6th c. AD..33 The later examples, dated in the 5th-6th c. AD., are considered to be in connection with the Christian symbols.34 Because of the unprecised chronology of different kinds and forms of birds, an analogous fibula from a roman village

21 Генчева 2004, p. 70. 22 Bojović 1983, p. 67. 23 Bojović 1983, p. 68. 24 Cociş 2004, p. 118. 25 Riha 1979, p. 1737, pl. 67; Bojović 1983, p. 291 pl. XXX; a stray find; although the example is decorated with two smaller engraved rabbits filled with red enamel and a cabbage between them; Petković 2010, p. 1-3, pl. XXXVIII; Cociş 2004, p. 1429-1430 pl. CI; Амброз 1966, p. 17-18, pl. 15. 26 Генчева 2004, pl. XXVII, p. 2. 27 Генчева 2004, p. 72. 28 Амброз 1966, p. 35. 29 Riha 1979, p. 204; Bojović 1983, p. 68. 30 Petković 2010, p. 204. 31 Генчева 2004, p. 72. 32 Генчева 2004, p. 71. 33 Winter 1985-1986, p. 333; Uenze 1992, pl. I/7, p. 139; Petković 2010, p. 203. 34 Генчева 2004, p. 71. 35 Petković 2010, pl. XXXVII/4; Vojska, p. 203.

53

Svetlana Todorova

interesting opinion exists that the birds have a protective meaning.36 It is suggested that the territory of appearance is between Pannonia Inferior and Moesia Superior, where is find a lead die for manufacturing.37

Fibulae with the form of an object

Characteristic for this type is the different kind of an object they represent: an axe, a trumpet, a lyre, a wheel, a jug and so on. They are distributed all over the Empire, but are more common in the west. In Dacia is known a small amount of finds. The owners are military as well as civilians.38

The first fibula (pl. I/8) has the form of a trumpet. It is spread throughout the Roman Empire, mostly in the west provinces and is dated in 7th decade of the 2nd c. till the first decade of the 3rd c. AD..39

The second example (pl. I/9) is in the form of a wheel. It has six spokes and stamped quadrates on the edge, filled with enamel. The closest items are known from the military camps Lauriacum40 and Augst,41 which confirm their military use. They were worn by civilians, too. Similar items from Augst are found with pottery from the last third of the 1st c. AD. and from the late 2nd- first half of the 3rd c. AD..42 W. Jobst suggests these objects are not further in use after the middle of the 3rd c. AD..43 Navigation wheels, published from Bulgaria, are chronologically placed from the middle to the end of the 1st c. AD..44 That puts the presented fibula (pl. I/9) in the wide chronological range from the second half of the 1st c. till the second half of the 3rd c. AD..

Fibulae with geometrical shape without enamel In this group is presented only one item (pl. II/1)-a fibula with rhomboid shape, which opposite ends have additional juts. There’s an opinion that these ends represent stylistically formed bird heads.45 This item is known as Camulodunum type.46 Almost similar ones are known from Germania Superior,47 Moesia Inferior,48 Scythiae.49 According to S. Petković their origin 36 H. Winter (Winter 1985-1986, p. 333-334) supposes that the later appearance of needles decorated with such a bird maybe replaced the fibulae with that ornament; thus, the adoption of the symbol can be attributed the cult tradition; Riha 1979, p. 198. 37 Petković 2010, pl. XXXVII/5. 38 Cociş 2004, p. 120-121. 39 Cociş 2004, p. 121. 40 Jobst 1975, pl. 45, p. 315. 41 Riha 1979, pl. 68, p. 1764. 42 Riha 1979, p. 204, № 1762, № 1764. 43 Jobst 1975, p. 112. 44 Генчева 2004, p. 67. 45 Patek 1942, p. 121. 46 Rieckhoff 1975, p. 64. 47 Riha 1979, pl. 58, 1527-1537, p. 182. 48 Bojović 1983, pl. XXVIII, p. 267. 49 Амброз 1966, p. 5, pl. 15.

54


must be searched in the Hellenistic centers along the Pontus and the surrounding sarmatian territories, where can be seen the earliest examples.50 Based on closed archaeological complexes from Pantikapey, Olbia and Chersonese these fibulae are dated in second half of 1st c. till the first half of the 2nd c. AD..51 A later date is given for the finds from Bulgaria - from the 2nd c. till the beginning of the 3rd c. AD.,52 but this chronology refers to the whole group of disc-shaped fibulae.53 In this particular case, in which this item is a definite type-“Camulodunum”, such dating must be precised according to the archaeological context of the type. Based on the lack of such examples in Roman Dacia it is suggested they were in use till the rule of Traianus (98-117),54 which corresponds with the date given by E. Riha-1st c. AD..55 A date in 1st c. AD. can be accepted for the represented fibula №9 (pl. II/1).

Fibulae with enamel This items commonly have a flat, trapezium, rhomboid or quadrate bow; usually the short foot has a trapezium shape and ends with an zoomorphic head. For the classification of this kind is used K. Exner’s (1941) typological scheme. The author divides them in tree groups: 1) with a form of a bow; 2) symmetrical; 3) with a shape of a disc or a plate. The first one is divided in tree variants, the first of which is with non-divided bow. The upper surface is almost always with enamel-either placed in large, one-colored fields or single fields, devided by “paths”.56 K. Exner notify that it's not determined if the examples with zoomorphic ending represent a bird or a reptile, because the decoration may be interpreted as well as feathers or as scales.57 According to the author these images have a protective meaning especially in the roman period. There is an opinion that these examples descend from fibulae with longed and profiled bow.58

The items with enamel, related to the provincial roman group, appear in great amounts in Belgium, North France, England and along the Rhine river.59 A well-known archaeological complex “Villa von Anthee” in Belgium is assumed as an industrial zone and a workshop for products with enamel. Such workshops are explored in Cologne, Mainz and Trier (along the Rhine river). Such examples can be found in fortifications along the Limes with a connection

50 Petković 2010, p. 191. 51 Амброз 1966, p. 33. 52 Хараламбиева, Атанасов 1992, I7, stray find, p. 60. 53 Генчева 1987, p. 40-41. 54 Petković 2010, p. 191. 55 Riha 1979, p. 182. 56 Exner 1941, p. 49. 57 Exner 1941, p. 54. 58 Bojović 1983, p. 62. 59 Exner 1941, p. 40.

55

Svetlana Todorova

with the main centers in all stages of development.60 S. Cociş accepts that the production centers are in Gallia Belgica and Rhineland.61 Another place of distribution is Pannonia.62 Due to its trade relations these fibulae are spread to the East.63 It is considered possible that these items are manufactured by Gauls or Romanized Germans.64

D. Bojović places these items chronologically in the broad interval 1st-3rd c. AD..65 The finds from Dacia are dated in the first half of the 2nd c. AD.,66 while other researchers specify it in the second half of the 2nd c. AD..67 It is believed that fibulae with enamel, covering small surface can be dated in the 1st c. AD., while the ones with larger fields, covered with enamel and a great variety of colours, should be placed chronologicallyd in the time of Antonini (96-192).68

The first two examples belong to one group, according to K. Exner's classification-with a form of a bow.69 The first one (pl. II/2) has a round shape and a leg in a form of zoomorphic head. An example with two zoomorphic endings on the opposite sides of the fibula are known.70 Similar finds come from Germania Superior,71 Pannonia,72 Scythiae.73 The example from the tomb in Chersonese is dated from the end of 1st c. to the middle of the 3rd c. AD..74

The second fibula (pl. II/3) has a trapezium shape and a leg in a form of zoomorphic head. E. von Patek divides this type into tree variants, as item №11 (pl. II/3) belongs to the second one a leg ending with a zoomorphic head.75 These items reach all the west provinces and the ones along the Danube river, maybe in relation with trade, which makes it difficult to outline a region of development.76 A similar fibula, found in Dacia, is dated in the first half of the 2nd c. AD..77

The third fibula (pl. II/4) belongs to the second type, presented by K. Exner-symmetrically formed objects.78 It has a rhomboid shape with four

60 Exner 1941, p. 40. 61 Cociş 2004, p. 88. 62 Bojović 1983, p. 62. 63 Patek 1942, p. 123. 64 Patek 1942, p. 123. 65 Bojović 1983, p. 62. 66 Cociş 2004, p. 88. 67 Exner 1941, p. 54; Patek 1942, p. 123; Амброз 1966, p. 29; Генчева 2004, p. 73. 68 Генчева 2004, p. 73; Cociş 2004, p. 125. 69 Exner 1941, p. 49. 70 Matouschek 1985-1986, pl. 19/2а, p. 186-187. 71 Böhme 1972, pl. 25, p. 956-960. 72 Exner 1941, pl. 8, p. 9; Patek 1942, pl. XIV/4, XV/1, p. 27. 73 Амброз 1966, pl. 14, p. 8. 74 Амброз 1966, p. 29. 75 Patek 1942, p. 119. 76 Exner 1941, p. 54. 77 Cociş 2004, p. 87, pl. LV/803. 78 Exner 1941, p. 49.

56


coming out juts (two by two similar). These examples are supposed to appear as imports in Dacia, because of the small amount of finds.79 This kind is distributed mostly in Gallia and along the Rhine river.80 Similar fibulae are known from military camps Augst81 and Zugmantel,82 Heddernheim83 and Dacia.84 E. Riha dates this kind in the first half of the 2nd c. AD.,85 while K. Exner places them chronologically in the second half of the 2nd c. AD..86

Based on the variety of colours of the enamel, observed in these tree examples, and the chronology accepted by E. Gencheva, considering the finds from the territory of Bulgaria, they can be dated in the second half of the 2nd c. AD..87

Fibulae with a form of a letter This type is suggested to be in use mostly by soldiers, because of its appearance mainly in military camps and villages along the roman limes. The most frequent finds are with letter „S”.88

Here is presented only one fibula (pl. II/5) in a form of a letter „S”. It is considered possible, that they represent amphibians, because of the segmented endings.89 Similar finds from Dacia are placed in the group of the zoomorphic fibulae.90 In fortifications along the Danube river such items are placed chronologicallyd in the first half of the 2nd c. AD.,91 while in Dacia they are dated in the whole 2nd c. AD..92

Fibulae in the form of swastika The presented example (pl. II/6) has four arms (two fragmented), which end with horse heads. Such examples can be decorated or not. This form is suggested to be a german decorative element, connected with the cult to the Sun.93 These items are connected with the military, because of their presence in camps all over the Limes. There’s an opinion that the ones, ending with zoomorphic head, are common for southeast roman provinces-Moesia Inferior,

79 Cociş 2004, p. 125; Petković 2010, p. 72. 80 Cociş 2004, p. 125. 81 Riha 1979, pl. 64, p. 1665. 82 Böhme 1972, pl. 24, p. 935, 955. 83 Exner 1941, pl. 10, 5 II 5. 84 Cociş 2004, pl. CVII, p. 1514. 85 Riha 1979, p. 192. 86 Exner 1941, p. 58. 87 Генчева 2004, p. 73. 88 Генчева 2004, p. 74. 89 Böhme 1972, p. 44. 90 Cociş 2004, p. 118, pl. CI, 1415-1421. 91 Генчева 2004, p. 74. 92 Cociş 2004, p. 119. 93 Генчева 2004, p. 75.

57

Svetlana Todorova

Moesia Superior, Pannonia, Dacia.94 They are distributed in Germania and Noricum as well, while in Dacia they appear as an import.95 It is interesting that from Saalburg and Zugmantel are known 36 pieces, neither of which with zoomorphic endings,96 which can explain these materials as local production. S. Petković believes they appear under the influence of the sarmathian tribes and the center of their manufacture is Pannonia Secunda.97 Similar examples are known from Serbia,98 Bulgaria.99

The finds from Moesia Inferior are dated in the 4th c. AD.,100 the ones from Dacia - from the third decade of the 2nd c. till the end of rule of Severus Alexander (222-235).101 Other authors indicate as a period of distribution of these items the end of the 2nd-3rd c. AD..102 Although the finds from Dacia are suggested to be imports, they come out from well-dated chronological contexts, which can suggest as a beginning date for the presented example the time from the 30’s of the 2nd c. AD. As for the final date, it can’t be determined exactly, because of the lack of such closed archaeological complexes, even though there are finds from Singidunum, placed chronologically from the second half of the 4th c. till the first half of the 5th c. AD..103

This paper has the purpose to define the type and the chronology of 15 fibulae from the Rouse Regional Museum. That is not an attempt to make a new classification, but to adjust the examples to the existing ones. Because of the stray character of the finds it is difficult to determine their appearance in the territory of today Rouse district, which indicates the great importance of the existence and the precise investigation of closed archaeological complexes. Based on analogous fibulae from near and distant provinces the range of their use is outlined. The amount of finds from this area can be suggestive for local manufacture. Further researches will confirm or reject such possibility.

94 Bojović 1983, p. 67. 95 Cociş 2004, p. 136. 96 Böhme 1972, p. 45. 97 Petković 2010, p. 186. 98 Petković 2010, pl. XXXIV, p. 1-5. 99 Генчева 2004, pl. XXVIII, p. 3; Русев 2004, 8-9, p. 61. 100 Bojović 1983, p. 67; in the 4th c. AD. are dated the finds from Popovo district (Русев 2004, p. 61-62). 101 Cociş 2006, p. 136. 102 Böhme 1972, p. 46; Jobst 1975, p. 123; Bojović 1983, p. 67; Генчева 2004, p. 75. 103 Petković 2010, pl. XXXIV/3, p. 187.

58


Catalogue

Cut-out fibulae 1. Round shape. Bronze (Br). The upper part, together with the hinge mechanism is fragmented. The catch plate is transverse, in a form of a hook. Four cut-out peltas (two by two formed the same way). The pin is missing (pl. I/1). Dimensions: preserved length (L) = 3,0 cm; width (W) = 3,2 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, inventory № (i. №) 431. Type 25.5 after Bojović. Date: the end of the 2nd-3rd c. AD.. 2. Irregular round form. Br. Hinge mechanism. The catch plate is the same like № 1.1. Decorated with 4 cut-out peltas. The pin is missing (pl. I/2). Dimensions: L = 3,1 cm; W = 3,3 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №729. Type 25 b after Cociş. Date: the end of the 2nd-3rd c. AD.. 3.1. Round form. Br. The hinge mechanism, the catch plate and the pin are missing. Cut-out pelta forms, which seize S-formed ornament. That ornament is hold in the middle from the two trumpet-shaped endings of the fibula. The bottom part of the “S” is broken (pl. I/3). Dimensions: preserved L = 2,4 cm; W = 3,0 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №418. 3.2. Longed form. Br. Part of the hinged mechanism and the catch plate are fragmented. Decorated with tree peltas, two trumpet endings, which are holding S-shaped ornament (its end is trumpet-formed). The pin is missing (pl. I/IV). Dimensions: L = 3,4 cm; W = 2,4 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1296. Type 25.7 after Bojović, 25j2 after Cociş, 31 G after Jobst, 46 after Böhme, H 2 after Patek, 22D after Petković. Date: the middle of the 2nd-4th c. AD.. 4. Quadrate form with rounded ends. Br. Hinge mechanism. From the middle of every side is coming out a jut, ending with a button. Inside the fibula, from every corner toward the center are cut out two peltas (totally 8 peltas). Fragmented catch plate. The pin is missing (pl. I/5). Dimensions: L = 3,7 cm; W = 3,7 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1135. Type 28 a after Gencheva. Date: final quarter of the 2nd-first quarter of the 3rd c. AD..

59

Svetlana Todorova

Fibulaes with a zoomorphic form 5. Form of a rabbit. Br. Sketchily formed. Hinged mechanism. The catch plate is partly broken (pl. I/6). Dimensions: L = 1,6 cm; W = 2,9 cm. Stray find from Belene, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1093. Type 26.1 after Bojović, 8.5 after Ambroz, 7.25 after Riha, 25E after Petković. Date: 2nd-3rd c. AD.. 6. A fibula in a form of a bird with stretched wings. Br. The catch plate and the right wing are fragmented. String fastening mechanism, 8 windings, upper bow. Тhe tail is engraved. The pin is missing (pl. I/7). Dimensions: L = 3,5cm; W = 1,8 cm. Stray find from Trimamium, Rouse district. Rouse Regional Museum, i. №897. Type 29 a after Gencheva, II b1 after Winter, 7.22 after Riha, 25C after Petković. Date: 1st-3rd c. AD.. Fibulae with a shape of an object 7. Fibula in a form of a trumpet. Br. Hinge mechanism. The catch plate is transverse, hook-shaped. On the upper side of the fibula there’s a trapezoid jut, that ends with a button. The same trapezoid jut can be seen on the down side of the fibula. The pin is missing (pl. I/8). Dimensions: L = 3,7 cm; W = 2,3 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district, Rouse Regional Museum, i. №403. Type 23 c after Cociş. Date: 7th decade of the 2nd-first decade of the 3rd c. AD.. 8. Fibula in a form of a wheel, six spokes. Br. Fragmented. Hinged mechanism. Decoration: rhombs, places them chronologicallyd on the outer side of edge, filled with red enamel. On the spokes and the inter side of the wheel are seen incisions. The pin and the catch plate are missing (pl. I/9). Dimensions: diameter 3,5 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district, Rouse Regional Museum-i. №410. Type 28 after Jobst, 7.25 after Riha. Date: second half of the 1st-second half of the 3rd c. AD.. Fibulae with geometrical form without enamel 9. Fibula with rhomboid form. Br. Hinged mechanism. The upper and the down side are divided into two oval-shaped parts. In the center of the rhomb are inscribed concentrical circles. From the center of the circles is sticking out a pin. Fragmented catch plate (pl. II/1). Dimensions: L = 4,0 cm; W = 2,5 cm. From unknown places them chronologically, Rouse Regional Museum, i. №2115. Type 23 after Bojović, Е 2 after Patek, 8.3 after Ambroz, 4.14 А1 after Rieckhoff, 7.4 after Riha, 24A1 after Petković.

60


Date: 1st c. AD.. Fibulae with geometrical form and enamel 10. Round shape. Br. Hinged mechanism. The upper part of the fibula and the catch plate are fragmented. On the outside of the fibula, symmetrically attached, are two juts, fragmented (maybe with round shape). In the inside, the fibula is decorated with trapezoid fields, alternating with oval holes (filled with blue enamel), surrounding a smaller circle (filled with green enamel). The leg is formed like an animal head. The pin is missing (pl. II/2). Dimensions: L = 3,8 cm; W = 2,4 cm; diameter of the circle 1,8 cm. From unknown places them chronologically, Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1207. Type 7.4 after Ambroz, 2 а after Matouschek, 41m after Böhme, 1 b after Exner, Е 2 after Patek, 5.17 after Riha. Date: second half of the 2nd c. AD.. 11. Trapezoid form. Br. The upper part, the fastening mechanism and the catch plate are fragmented. The leg is formed like an animal head; the neck is decorated with a line in relief. Probably the eyes were filled with enamel, because the right one is empty now. In the center of the trapeze there is an triangle field, filled with enamel. There are two more triangles (with engraved walls) inscribed inside the trapeze, outside this field. The pin is missing (pl. II/3). Dimensions: L = 3,7 cm; W = 2,0 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district, Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1136. Type 18 с after Cociş, 1 b after Exner, 17 k after Böhme, Е 2/2 after Patek, 5.17 after Riha. Date: second half of the 2nd c. AD.. 12. Rhomboid shape. Br. The fastening mechanism and the catch plate are fragmented. The fibula ends with a leg of two connected biconical parts. The upper side ends the same way but narrower. The other two ends of the rhomb end with one rhomboid jut, decorated with tree shallow holes. Inside the fibula there is another rhomb, inside of which is inscribed a circle (filled with orange enamel). Probably the inside rhomb was filled with enamel, too. The pin is missing (pl. II/4). Dimensions: L = 3,6 cm; W = 2,6 cm. Stray find from Belene, Rouse district, Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1100. Type 24 b1 after Cociş, 41 с, l after Böhme, 2 after Exner, 7.16 after Riha. Date: second half of the 2nd c. AD.. Fibula in a form of a letter 13. Fibula in the form of the letter “S”. Br. The endings are segmented. String fastening mechanism, 8 windings, upper bow. Fragmented catch plate. The pin is missing (pl. II/5). Dimensions: L = 3,0 cm; W = 1,9 cm. Stray find from Appiaria, Rouse district; Rouse Regional Museum, i. №1016. Type 31 a after Gencheva, 22 b 1 по Cociş, 48 с по Böhme.

61

Svetlana Todorova

Date: first half of the 2nd c. AD.. Fibula in form of swastika 14. Fibula in form of swastika, which ends with horse heads, oriented to the right. Br. Hinged mechanism. Two of the heads and the catch plate are fragmented. The eyes are made by two concentrical circles. The mane is made by incised lines. In the center of the swastika are made another two concentrical circles. The pin is missing (pl. II/6). Dimensions: preserved L = 3,9 cm; preserved W = 3,2 cm. From unknown places them chronologically, Rouse Regional Museum, i. № 854. Type 27 after Bojović, 33 b 2 after Cociş, 23D after Petković. Date: 3rd decade of the 2nd c. AD.-5th c. AD.. (?).

Fibule romane din Muzeul Regional Ruse

(rezumat) Autorul prezintă 15 din fibulele romane nepublicate care se găsesc în Muzeul Regional din Ruse. Acestea sunt incluse în tipul discoidal de fibule. Ele nu fac parte dintr-un context arheologic închis, aceasta fiind o problemă întâmpinată în general la interpretarea acestui tip de materiale. Primele două piese (pl. I/1-2) pot fi încadrate cronologic la sfârşitul secolului al doilea şi începutul celui următor. Următoarele două (pl. II/3-4) au formă de cor şi se încadrează temporal la sfârşitul veacului al doilea şi de-a lungul celui de al treilea. Cea de-a cincea fibulă (pl. I/5) decorată cu frunze, aparţine cronologic ultimului sfert al secolului al doilea şi primei pătrimi din secolul următor. Lotul fibulelor care reprezintă obiecte este început de una în formă de tropetă (pl. I/8), ea fiind datată din a şaptea decadă a secolului al doilea până în prima decadă a veacului trei. Al doilea exemplu este sub forma unei roţi (pl. I/9), fiind încadrată cronologic din a doua jumătate a secolului I până în prima jumătate a veacului al treilea. Piesele fără smalţ, de formă geometrică, sunt reprezentate printr-un singur exemplar (pl. II/1), fiind încadrată cronologic în secolul I. Următoarea categorie conţine fibule smălţuite, primele două au formă de bol (pl. II/2-3), fiind încadrate temporar astfel: prima în secolele I-III, iar a doua în secolul II. Următoarea are o formă simetrică (pl. II/4), cronologic fiind încadrată în veacul al II-lea. Sunt cunoscute şi piese în formă de „S” (pl. II/5), încadrate cronologic în secolul al II-lea. Următoarea are formă de svastică (pl. II/6), şi este încadrarea cronologic în secolele II-III. Studiul de faţă a analizat tipologic şi cronologic 15 fibule din Muzeul Regional Ruse, astfel punându-se în circuitul ştiinţific mai multe exemplare din această categorie.

Explicaţia figurilor Pl. I. Fibule romane din colecţia Muzului din Ruse/Bulgaria. Pl. II. Fibule romane din colecţia Muzeului din Ruse/Bulgaria.

62


Bibliographical Abbreviations

Амброз 1966 А. Амброз, Фибулы юга европейской части СССР,

САИ, вып., 1966, p. 1-30. Генчева 2004 Е. Генчева, Римските фибули от България от края на I

в. пр. н. е. до края на VI в. от н. е., Faber, В. Търново, 2004.

Генчева 1987 Е. Генчева, Типология и датиране на ранноримските фибули от Южна България, in Археология, 4, С., 1987, p. 30-43.

Русев 2004 Н. Русев. Фибули от II-VI в. в Исторически музей-Попово, in Попово в миналото, 4, Полиграф-Разград, 2004, p. 58-77.

Хараламбиева, Атанасов 1992 А. Хараламбиева, Г. Атанасов, Фибули от Новопазарско от I-VII в., in Годишник на музеите от Северна България, XVIII, 1992, p. 57-74.

Böhme 1972 A. Böhme, Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel, in SJ, XXIX, 1972, p. 5-112.

Bojović 1983 D. Bojović, Rimske fibule Singidunuma, Beograd, 1983. Cociş 2004 S. Cociş, Fibulele din Dacia Romană, Cluj-Napoca, 2004. Exner 1941 K. Exner, Die provinzialrömischen Emailfibeln der

Rheinlande, in BerRGK, 29, Berlin, 1941, p. 31-121. Jobst 1975 W. Jobst, Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum,

Forschunden in Lauriacum, Linz, 10, 1975. Matouschek, Nowak 1985-1986 J. Matouschek, H. Nowak, Unpublizierte Tierfibeln und

Fibeln mit Thermiomorphen Gestaltungselementen aus osterreichischen Privatsammlungen, in RÖ, 13-14, 1985-1986, p. 131-182.

Patek 1942 E. von Patek, Verbreitung und Herkunft der Römischen Fibeltypen von Pannonien, Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 19, 1942.

Petković 2010 S. Petković, Rimske fibule u Srbiji ot I do V veka n. e., Arheološki Institut, Beograd, 2010.

Popescu 1945 D. Popescu, Fibeln aus dem Nationalmuseum für Altertümer in Bukarest, in Dacia, IX-X, 1945, p. 485-505.

Riha 1979 E. Riha, Die Römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, in Forschungen in Augst, 3, Augst, 1979.

Rieckhoff 1975 S. Rieckhof, Munzen und Fibeln aus dem Vicus des Kastells Hufingen, in SJ, XXXII, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1975, p. 6-104.

Uenze 1992 S. Uenze, Die Spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec, în MBF, 43, 1992, p. 361-382.

Winter 1985-1986 H. Winter, Römische Vogelfibeln von österreichischen Fundstellen aus Privatbesitz, in RÖ, Ekkehard Geber, 13-14, 1985-1986, p. 323-369.

63

Svetlana Todorova

Keywords: roman fibulae, Rouse Regional Museum, I AD. - III AD. century Cuvinte-cheie: fibule romane, Muzeul Regional Ruse, secolele I-III d.Hr.

64


Pl. I. Roman fibulae from Rouse Regional Museum / Bulgaria.

65

Svetlana Todorova

66

Pl. II. Roman fibulae from Rouse Regional Museum / Bulgaria.

ABREVIERI

AA Archaeologia Aeliana. Society of Antiquaries Newcastle

Upon Tyne, Newcastle. AÉ Archaeologiai Értesitö, Budapest. AII(A)C Anuarul Intitutului de Istorie (şi Arheologie) Cluj, Cluj-

Napoca. Alba Regia Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis.

Székesfehérvár. AMET Anuarul Muzeului Etnografic al Transilvaniei, Cluj-

Napoca. AMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a

Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca. AMP Acta Musei Porolisensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi

Artă Zalău, Zalău. Angustia Angustia. Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe. AnB Analele Banatului. Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara. AO Arhivele Olteniei. Academia Română, Institutul de

Cercetări Socio-Umane „C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor” Craiova, Craiova.

APL Annalecta Praehistorica Leidensia, Leiden. Apulum Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis, Muzeul Naţional al

Unirii, Alba Iulia. Arheologija Organ na Arheologičeskija Institut i Muzei, Sofia. ATS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis. Institutul pentru

Cercetarea şi Valorificarea Patromoniului Cultural Transilvănean în Context European, Sibiu.

BA Biblioteca de Arheologie, Bucureşti. BAR British Archaeological Reports (International Series),

Oxford. BAM Brukenthal. Acta Musei, Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal,

Sibiu. BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal. Sibiu. Banatica Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan, Reşiţa. BAR British Archaeological Reports International Series,

Oxford. BAR BS British Archaeological Reports British Series, Oxford. BCMI Buletinul Comisiuni Monumentelor Istorice, Comisiunea

Monumentelor Istorice, Bucureşti. BerRGK Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission 1939,

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Darmstadt. BHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica,

Timişoara. BHAUT Biblioteca Historica et archaeologica Universitas

Timisiensis, Centrul de Studii de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie Constantin Daicoviciu, Timişoara.

255

Lista abrevierilor

BMA Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis. Muzeul Naţional al Unirii, Alba Iulia.

BMN Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca. BMP Bibliotheca Musei Porolissensis, Zalău. Brukenthal Brukenthal. Acta Musei. Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal,

Sibiu. BS Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis, Sibiu. BSNR Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române. Societatea

Numismatică Română, Bucureşti. BT Bibliotheca Thracologica. Institutul Român de

Tracologie, Bucureşti. BUA Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, Alba Iulia. Bulletin Bulletin. Veliko, Trnovo. Caiete BANATICA Caiete BANATICA. Muzeul de Istorie al judeţului Caraş-

Severin, Reşiţa. Caietele CIVA Caietele CIVA, Cercul de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie,

Universitatea „1 Decembrie 1918” din Alba Iulia. CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România, Ministerul

Culturii, Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului. CCDJ Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos. Muzeul „Dunării

de Jos”, Călăraşi. CN Cercetări Numismatice. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a

României, Bucureşti. CNA Cronica Numismatică şi Arheologică, Foaie de Informaţii

a Societăţii Numismatice Române, Bucureşti. Corviniana Corviniana. Acta Musei Corvinensis, Muzeul Catelul

Corvinilor, Hunedoara. Crisia Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea. Dacia Dacia. Recherches et Découvertes Archéologiques en

Roumanie/ Revue d’Achéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne, Bucharest.

Dissertationes Pannonicae Dissertationes Pannonicae, Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies, Budapest.

DP Documenta Praehistorica. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v sloveniji, Ljubljana.

EphemN Ephemeris Napocensis, Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei, Cluj-Napoca.

Forschungen in Augst Forschungen in Augst, Switzerland. FVL Forschungen zur Volks und Landeskunde, Sibiu. GlasnikSAD Glasnik Srpskog Arheolośkog Društva, Belgrad. Годишник на Археологическия музей Годишник на Археологическия музей (Annual of the

Regional Archaeological Museum-Plovdiv), Regional Archaeological Museum-Plovdiv, Plovdiv.

Годишник на музеите от Северна България Годишник на музеите от Северна България (Annual of

the Museums in Northern Bulgaria), Veliko, Tarnovo.

256

Lista abrevierilor

Istros Istros. Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila. Интердисциплинарни изследвания Интердисциплинарни изследвания (Interdisciplinary

Studies), National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia.

Известия на Археологическия институт Известия на Археологическия институт (Journal of the

Institut of Archaeology, Sofia), Bulgarski Arkheologicheski Institute, Sofia.

Известия на Историческия Музей-Шумен Известия на Историческия музей-Шумен, Regional

History Museum Shumen, Shumen. JBSM Jahrbuch des Burzenländer Sächsischen Museums,

Muzeul Săsesc al Ţării Bârsei, Braşov. JFA Journal of Field Archeology, Boston. JOS The Journal of Ottoman Studies, Istanbul. JRS Journal of Roman Studies, The Society for the Promotion

of Roman Studies, London. Man Man. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain

and Ireland, London. MB Muzeul Brukenthal. Studii şi comunicări (Arheologie şi

Istorie), Sibiu. MBF Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte,

Munchen. MCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Academia Română,

Comisia Naţională de Arheologie, Bucureşti. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte,

München. Musaios Musaios, Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Buzău. NK Numizmatikai Közlöny, A magyar numizmatikai társulat

megbizásából, Budapest. NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift, herausgegeben von der

Numismatifchen Gefellfchaft in Wien, Wien. OIC Oriental Institute Communications, Chicago. PA Patrimonium Apulense. Direcţia Judeţeană pentru

Cultură, Culte şi Patrimoniul Cultural Naţional Alba, Alba Iulia.

Paléorient Paléorient. Revue pluridisciplinaire de préhistoire et protohistoire de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et de l’Asie Central, Paris.

Перник Перник, Pernik. Попово в миналото Попово в миналото (Popovo in the past), Museum of

Popovo, Popovo. Poročilo Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika

v sloveniji. Neolitske Studjie, Ljubljana.

257

Lista abrevierilor

258

PSAN Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle.

PZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Berlin.

RB Revista Bistriţei. Complexul Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud, Bistriţa.

RIB Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Administrators of the Haverfield Bequest, Oxford.

RLÖ Der Römische Limes in Österreich, Akademien der Wissenschaften-Limeskommission, Vienna.

RM Revista Muzeelor. Centrul pentru Formare, Educaţie Permanentă şi Managemnt în domeniul Culturii, Bucureşti.

RPRP Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, Salt Lake City. RÖ Römisches Österreich, Österreichische Gesellschaft für

Archäologie, Wien. SA Sovetskaya arkheologiya, Moscova. Sargetia Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis, Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice

şi Romane Deva, Deva. SJ Saalburg Jahrbuch, Saalburg Museum, Saalburg. SCI Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie, Institutul de Istorie „George

Bariţiu” Cluj-Napoca (1956-1957). SCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche, Bucureşti (din 1974,

Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie). SCN Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatica. Institutul de

Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan” al Academiei Române, Bucureşti.

SIB Studii de istorie a Banatului, Universitatea de Vest Timişoara, Timişoara.

SMIM Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. Institutul de Istorie „Nicolae Iorga”, Bucureşti.

Starinar Starinar, Tređa Serija. Arheološki Institut, Beograd. Suceava Suceava. Anuarul Complexului Muzeal Bucovina,

Complexul Muzeal Bucovina, Suceava. SUCH Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis. Series Historica.

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” Sibiu, Sibiu. SP Studia Patzinakia, The Romanian Group for an

Alternative History, Bucharest. TC Society for the History of Technology. Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore. Terra Sebus Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, Muzeul Municipal

„Ioan Raica”, Sebeş. Tibiscus Tibiscus. Muzeul Banatului Timişoara, Timişoara. Ziridava Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica, Complexul Muzeal Arad,

Arad.