Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István

Full text

3
REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN
ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE
ReDIVA
THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNAL
OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
II/2014
CLUJ-NAPOCA
2014

7
CONTENTS
STUDIES
Mariana Prociuc, Vlad codrea
Archaeozoology and palaeontology of the Subpiatră Cave
(Bihor County, Romania) 11
AurorA PeţAn
An unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of the 19th century 28
Mátyás BAjusz, AurorA PeţAn
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from
the notes of Téglás István 41
csaba szabó
Discovering the gods in Apulum:
historiography and new perspectives 53
rAdu IustInIAn zăgreAnu, ClAudIu Ionuţ Iov
A Roman funerary stela from Porolissum 83
alexandra Teodor
The roman defensive system(s) of Tomis. Some issues in
the light of the current knowledge 92
REVIEWS
Todd L. VanPool, Robert D. Leonard, Quantitative
Analysis in Archaeology, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
(lAurA-sIMonA drAşoveAn) 149
Luca-Paul Pupeză, Veacul întunecat al Daciei,
Cluj-Napoca, 2012. (rAluCA-elIzA BătrînoIu) 153
Ioan Piso, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, Rada Varga, Silvia Mustaţă,
Ligia Ruscu (eds.), Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan
sexagenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca, 2011. (AurorA PeţAn) 159
Rada Varga, The Peregrini of Roman Dacia (106-212),
Cluj-Napoca, 2014. (cosMin coaTu) 167

ReDIVA II/2014, p. 41-52
TWO BRONZE BRACELETS WITH LOOPED
AND TWISTED ENDS FROM THE NOTES
OF TÉGLÁS ISTVÁN
Mátyás BAJUSZ
MA, “Babeş-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, RO
E-mail: bajusz.matyas@gmail.com
Aurora PEŢAN
PhD Candidate, “Babeş-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, RO
E-mail: apetan@gmail.com
Abstract. The present article brings forward information concerning
two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends recorded by Téglás
István in his note books. The pieces were discovered in Turda, respectively
Sarmizegetusa (Várhely). The rst one belonged to Téglás’s collection, and
the second one ended up at the museum in Deva, its actual nding place
and context being probably forgotten in the meantime.
Keywords: Téglás István, antiques collections, bronze bracelets with
looped and twisted ends, Potaissa, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa
In the second half of the 19th century, besides the famous
collections of the Transylvanian aristocracy, other collections were
also constituted, maybe less spectacular, but valuable in many ways,
belonging to some erudite persons. One of the most well-known was
that of Téglás István from Turda1.
Téglás István (1953-1915) was born in Sfântu Gheorghe, received
his elementary school teacher diploma in Deva in 1874 and had
a long teaching career2. He started collecting artefacts since 1873
1 For Téglás István and his collection, see Orosz 1915, Bajusz 1980, Bajusz
2005.
2 He was a teacher in Făgăraş (1875-1876), Braşov (1876-1878), Petroşani
(1878-1880); school principal in Sibiu (1880-1885), Rupea (1885-1891); assistant
school inspector of the county Târnava Mică & Mare, Sighişoara (1891-1894);
school inspector of the county Turda-Arieş, Turda (1894-1907); school inspector
of the county Bistriţa-Năsăud, Bistriţa (1907-1908).

42
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
and after denitively settling in Turda, his collection had become a
museum with thousands of artefacts, coins, historical documents,
and other objects belonging to archaeology, ethnography and natural
sciences, available to those interested.
He has published nearly 100 articles in various scientic elds.
However his greatest merit is the scrupulosity with which he has
noted and drawn everything he had seen were he went. His collection,
following his death, was slowly scattered, but 56 note books remained
for posterity, with very diverse information, from which until now
mostly only the archaeological ones have been exploited3.
In the following we will present two bronze bracelets recorded by
Téglás István in his note books4. Both artefacts belong to a category
widespread in pre-Roman Dacia, but also to be found in Roman
time, namely that of shackles with looped and twisted ends5. The
two pieces were discovered in Potaissa (Turda), respectively Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Várhely). Téglás István attributed the rst
one to the Romans, and for the second one he gave no chronological
data, probably considering it Roman as well, due to its nding place.
1. The bronze bracelet from Potaissa (Turda)
Potaissa romjaibόl rόmai tárgyak. Bronzkarperec.Találtatott a Szindi-patak jobb
partján 1911. Június 7-én. A kerülete 24 cm és pár mm. Belsejében az átmérő
felülről lefelé 65 mm – egyik sodronybogtόl a másikig 7 cm. A sodrony belül lapos,
de a külső oldala háromszögű, vagyis három élűre van domborítva (Rr. 735). 46/9.6
“Roman pieces from the ruins of Potaissa. Bronze bracelet. It was
discovered on the right side of the Sânduleşti stream on the 7th of July
1911. Circumference: 24 cm and a few mm. The diameter of the interior,
top to bottom, 65 mm, the distance between the two knots is 7 cm. The
wire is at at the interior, and the exterior part is triangular, meaning it
consists of three edges.”
3 Bajusz 2005.
4 We are very indebted to Conf.dr. Bajusz István („Babes-Bolyai” University
of Cluj-Napoca) for providing us unpublished data and original drawings from
the manuscript of Téglás István. We also thank Dr. Aurel Rustoiu (Institute
of Archaeology and Art History of Cluj-Napoca) for his valuable suggestions
regarding the identication of the artefacts.
5 Rustoiu 1996, p. 94.
6 Bajusz 2005, I/2, p. 708 and g. 46/9.

43
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István
1.1. The context of the discovery
The bracelet was discovered in June 1911 in the lower part of the
valley of the Sănduleşti stream (its right side). Several other roman
artefacts also were discovered in the area at that time: a ceramic
wheel for a toy carriage, a bronze key-ring and a bronze bula7.
In this area, on different occasions, but mostly in the spring
of 1911, when the railroad leading to the Sănduleşti stone quarry
was constructed, many traces of buildings belonging to the roman
settlement were discovered8.
The piece from Turda belongs to the numerous Roman discoveries
from Potaissa, that starting from 1894, Téglás had registered and
drawn in his notebooks, most of them being also acquired for his
collection, as it is this bracelet.
1.2. The identication
The item from Turda (Fig. 1) is a bronze bracelet with looped and
twisted ends. This type of piece has appeared in the Mediterranean
area at the end of the 2nd century BC and in the Ist century BC,
spreading in the “barbarian” Europe and being used over the entire
1st millennium AD9. It was widespread in pre-Roman Dacia, but a
few pieces were also recorded in Roman environment. The shackles
were made of gold, silver or bronze and had diameters between 1.5
and 8 cm. Only those above 5 cm in diameter were used as bracelets,
but these too could have had other functionalities as well10.
The bracelet from Turda falls in the most common subtype, namely
2a according to the classication made by Aurel Rustoiu11, respectively
D3a according to that of Kurt Horedt12, having the ends looped and
twisted on a circle segment of 7 cm in length out of a total of 24 cm. One
of the ends forms 5 coils, and the other only one. The diameter of 6.5
7 Bajusz 2005, I/2, p. 708, g. 46/11 and 46/25/1, I/2, p. 709, g. 46/25/2.
8 See Bajusz 2005, I/2, p. 707-726.
9 Rustoiu 1989-1993, p. 255; Rustoiu 1996, p. 94.
10 Rustoiu 1989-1993, p. 258.
11 Rustoiu 1996, p. 94.
12 Horedt 1973, p. 139.

44
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
cm is within the known limits that vary between 5 and 8 cm13. The bar
seems to be triangular in section according to the description, a feature
yet unknown in other bracelets from the same category.
Bronze bracelets of this type have been discovered in several
Dacian settlements14. However, some similar pieces were also
reported in the Roman period, for example in the Locusteni
necropolis15, in that from Sucidava16, in the tumular necropolis at
Callatis17 or in the amphitheatre of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa18.
Having no other information about the context of the discovery, no
assumption can be made considering a Dacian presence in the spot
from the bank of Sănduleşti stream19. The piece could have ended up
there accidentally, but we cannot exclude its provenience from a Roman
context, as the other objects found in the same place would suggest.
2. The bronze bracelet from
Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Várhely)
1884 július 17. [Bronz] Rézkarperec az Alexa Arion kertjében kiásott épületből.
Átmérő 9 cm. 4/26.20
“[Bronze] Copper bracelet from the building excavated in the garden of
Arion Alexa. Diameter 9 cm.”
13 Rustoiu 1996, p. 94.
14 Brad, Răcătău, Poiana-Galaţi, Popeşti, Şimleu Silvaniei etc. Rustoiu 1996,
p. 95 and 192-193, with associated bibliography.
15 Popilian 1980, p. 96, pl. XXX.
16 Petolescu, Onea 1973, p. 126, 129, g. 2/b, 4/1-3.
17 Preda 1965, p. 247, g. 10/2.
18 See below note no. 38.
19 Other Dacian artefacts come from Turda as well: a silver torques, Dacian
scyphate coins and Dacian tetradrachms (Crişan et al. 1992, 404, nr. 62g ), and
possibly a silver plurispiral bracelet with the ends ornamented with zoomorphic
motifs (Peţan 2013).
20 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p 437 and g. 4/26. In the original text Téglás mentioned
that the bracelet was made of bronze, but afterward he corrected and wrote
above that it is copper. Such confusions are common in his notes. The piece
was, of course, made of bronze.

45
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István
2.1. The context of the discovery
The piece was found in the garden of a local man Alexa Arion, in
a large mound from the south-west corner of the Roman settlement,
opposite to the old church, that hid the ruins of a building. In the
notebooks of Téglás István there is more information about this
building – some published in the 2005 edition, others unpublished -,
that we will summarize further on for a better understanding of the
bracelet’s discovery context, but also because of the importance of
the information itself.
The building is located very close to the enclosure wall, had a
length of 16 m, and the width, together with the wall, was of 4.2 m.
The building‘s back wall is 0.75 m thick, the one from the front is
0.60 m. The western wall is preserved to a considerable height21. The
building’s walls were made of quarry stone bound with lime, and
the lintels and the building’s corners were made of carved stone22.
It had 4 rooms that on Téglás István’s drawing were noted as
follow, from left to right: room, sanctuary, room, kitchen, and
latrine23 (Fig. 2). In the second room (from the left) there was an
altar24. The rooms’ walls were painted in red and decorated with
a mural painting that had greenish and yellowish ornaments. The
sanctuary’s walls were also painted in red, and those of the next
room had also greenish and yellowish ornaments25.
A page torn from Téglás István’s notebooks that was afterwards
retrieved gives us a drawing of the building’s ruins and some
additional data beside those previously mentioned (Fig. 3):
Sheet torn from notebook no. 4 (1884), unpublished26
Ásatás 1884. júli[us] 17.
A kiásott római lak[ó]ház meglévő falai Alexi kertjében 1884.
21 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 436.
22 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 436, g. 4/33 and 4/33/1.
23 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 435, g. 4/30.
24 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 442, g. 2/61/1.
25 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 435, g. 4/20.
26 In the 1950s many pages were torn from his notebooks (recording mostly
inscriptions), and partly published in IDR. Lately we have managed to recover
some of them. Among them it is the adjacent page that could not be included
in the published volume.

46
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
1-ső szoba falának magassága 1,60 m, oldalfalazat legkisebb magassága 0,80 m.
xx Kápolna
x Konyha
The excavation from the 17th of July 1884.
The existing walls of the Roman house uncovered in the garden of Alexi.
The wall’s height from the rst chamber (room): 1.60 m, the lowest
height of the lateral wall: 0.80 m.
xx Sanctuary
x Kitchen
It is not known from which of the 4 rooms of the building the
bracelet came. Some other pieces drawn by Téglás István also come
from that building, which include a ceramic statuette representing
“the divine couple” and fragments of another statuette, found in the
same room with the altar, and a terra sigillata fragment27.
Téglás István was present at the excavations undertaken in Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetusa in July 1884, together with his brother, the
well-known archaeologist Téglás Gábor, being employed as a drawer
by the History and Archaeology Association of the Hunedoara
County. The found artefacts were taken to the Association’s museum
in Deva. Among them there is also the bronze bracelet recorded as
having been found in the Roman building described above.
2.2. The identication
The piece has some interesting features. First of all, it has the
greatest diameter known so far for this type of bracelets, 9 cm.
Secondly, as the drawing shows, it is attened in the median segment
of the arch, forming an ellipsoid widened section provided with a
socket in which an element could have been inserted – an organic or
inorganic material with an apotropaic role (plants, animal organs or
bones etc.)28, as in the case of the Roman bullae (Fig. 5a)
It is interesting to notice that the next piece Téglás presents
(Fig. 4), also discovered in Sarmizegetusa (Várhely), has a similar
morphology, although the only thing mentioned about it is that
27 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 437, g. 2/62, 4/19 and 4/20.
28 According to Pliny the Elder, Nat.Hist. XXVIII, 9, 1; 47, 5, where the Roman
custom to introduce such materials inside the bracelets is noted (inclusus in
armillam). We thank Dr. Aurel Rustoiu for this information.

47
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István
it is a bronze ring (“Bronzgyűrű”)29. Its diameter is not noted, but
considering the fact that Téglás’s drawing is at scale, the diameter
appears to be of 3 cm, - too much for a ring. This type of shackles
with diameters that are between those of rings and of bracelets –
namely between 1.5 and 4 cm – had different practical and decorative
uses: to close up chains, to make necklaces and belts, as belt rings
etc.30. The two pieces seem to be a pair, as both of them have a socket.
Returning to the bracelet, it has analogies in two31 pieces
considered as coming from Costeşti-Cetăţuie, found today at the
Dacian and Roman Civilization Museum in Deva, and that also have
a socket on the median part of the arch32. Aurel Rustoiu has delimited
this subtype, giving it the indicative 2c. A comparison between the
two pieces drawn– the one published by Rustoiu as coming from
Costeşti and the one drawn by Téglás, discovered at Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa – shows that they are identical in the smallest details:
they have the same diameter, the largest so far attested; they have
the same number of loops, twisted in the same manner and at the
same distance; they have the same type of socket, that has, in both
cases, a slight distortion in the right side (according to the orientation
of the two drawings) (Fig. 5/a, b). This raises the question whether it
is one and the same piece, that came to Deva after 1884, and whose
provenance was forgotten in the meantime. As we do not know
the inventory numbers of the pieces from Costeşti, we can make no
further observations33. Their identication in the inventories of the
museum could provide additional data about how they got into the
29 Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 438, g. 4/21.
30 Rustoiu 1996, p. 107-108; Rustoiu 1989-1993, p. 255-258. In pre-Roman
Dacia such pieces are known at Bâzdâna, Răcătău, Tinosu and Poiana, see
Rustoiu 1996, p. 108 with the associated bibliography. They were included by
Horedt 1973, p. 139 in the category E2a and by Rustoiu 1996, p. 107 in 3a.
31 Today the number of known pieces in this subtype could actually be
higher.
32 Rustoiu 1996, p. 95, who mentions items morphologically similar in the
Scordisci’s cultural area; p. 278, g. 42/5. See Popović 1999, p. 50, Pl. 3/10-12.
33 A. Rustoiu knows two bracelets of this type, but only published the
drawing of one of them, without an inventory number. The discovery context
of the pieces is not mentioned.

48
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
museum’s collections and would clarify the confusion about their
nding place.
The two shackles with the ends looped and twisted mentioned
by Téglás in Sarmizegetusa join other similar pieces found later on
in the same site: a bronze ring with looped and twisted ends, with a
diameter of 1.7 cm, which is said to come from older excavations34;
a bronze shackle from the same category, but with a diameter of
2.4 cm, and decorated with a spiral eye, discovered in building B35,
that belongs to a subtype widespread in the Roman world; a bronze
bracelet with a diameter of 7 cm, coming out from the excavations at
the amphitheatre36. In all likelihood, both the shackle and the bracelet
recorded by Téglás in Ulpia, being discovered in a Roman context
and with analogies in the same site, are of Roman origin.
Téglás István records in his notes more Dacian jewellery, which
he correctly identies37. As for the two bracelets, even they belong
to a widespread type in pre-Roman Dacia, their assignment to the
Roman culture is probably correct due to the contexts of discovery.
The two pieces recorded by Téglás István are important because
of their features and by their nding place. At the same time, we
hope that by making reference to them, we will draw the specialists’
attention to the two volumes of the monumental work recently
published, that comprise Téglás István’s manuscripts including
many archaeological information yet unused.
34 Alicu, Cociş 1988, p. 231, pl. I/11 and p. 231; Alicu et al. 1994, p. 107, no.
706 and pl. 37/714 (the numbering from the text does not correspond to that
from the plate).
35 Alicu, Cociş 1988, p. 231, pl. I/10 and p. 242.
36 Alicu, Cociş 1988, p. 238, pl. VIII/70 and p. 245; Alicu et al. 1994, p. 107,
no. 708 and pl. 37/708.
37 The Dacian bracelet from Dârlos (I/1, p. 114), the silver torques from
Mezőség (I/1, p. 241-242), the silver torques from Colţeşti (I/1, p. 406), the silver
shackles from Moldoveneşti (I/1, p. 410) etc.

49
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István
Bibliography
Alicu,
Cociş 1988 Dorin Alicu, Sorin Cociş, Podoabe romane de la Ulpia
Traiana, Apulum, XXV, 1988, p. 225-246.
Alicu
et al. 1994 Dorin Alicu, Sorin Cociş, Constantin Ilieş, Alin Soroceanu,
Small nds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Cluj-
Napoca, 1994.
Bajusz 1980 István Bajusz, Colecţia de antichităţi a lui Téglás István din
Turda, Acta Musei Porolissensis 4, 1980, p. 367-394.
Bajusz 2005 István Bajusz (ed.), Téglás István jegyzetei. I. Régészeti
feljegyzések (Însemnările lui Téglás István. Notiţe
arheologice), Cluj-Napoca, 2005.
Crişan et al.
1992 Ion Horaţiu Crişan, Mihai Bărbulescu, Eugen Chirilă,
Valentin Vasiliev, Iudita Winkler, Repertoriul
arheologic al judeţului Cluj, Cluj-Napoca, 1992.
Horedt 1973 Kurt Horedt, Die Dakischen Silberfunde, Dacia, N.S., VII,
1973, p. 127-167.
Orosz 1915 Endre Orosz, Téglás István emlékezete, Erdély 24, 1915,
p. 7-12.
Petolescu,
Onea 1973
Constantin C. Petolescu, Octavian Onea, Cercetări în
necropola Sucidavei, jud. Olt (1968), Materiale şi Cercetări
Arheologice X, 1973, p. 125-140.
Popović 1999 Petar Popović, The Scordisci and the Bastarnae, in Miloje
Vasic (ed.), Le Djerdap/les Portes de Fer à la deuxième
moitié du premier millenaire av. J. Ch. jusqu’aux guerres
daciques: kolloquium in Kladovo-Drobeta-Turnu Severin,
September-October 1998, Belgrade, 1999, p. 47-54.
Peţan 2013 Aurora Peţan, A silver Dacian bracelet in the Kemény collection,
Acta Musei Napocensis 50/I, 2012 (2013), forthcoming.
Popilian 1980 Gheorghe Popilian, Necropola daco-romană de la
Locusteni, Craiova, 1980.
Preda 1965 Constantin Preda, Découvertes recentes dans la necropole
tumulaire du debut de l’époque romaine à Callatis, Dacia
N.S. IX, 1965, p. 233-251.
Rustoiu
1989-1993
Aurel Rustoiu, O verigă cu capete petrecute şi înfăşurate
din cetatea dacică de la Costeşti (jud. Hunedoara), Acta
Musei Napocensis 26-30, p. 251-260.
Rustoiu 1996 Aurel Rustoiu, Metalurgia bronzului la daci (sec. II
î.Chr.-I d.Chr.). Tehnici, ateliere şi produse de bronz,
Bucharest, 1996.

50
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
Figures
Fig. 1. The bracelet from Turda. Bajusz 2005, I/2, p. 708, g. 46/9.
Fig. 2. The plan of the bulding from Arion Alexa’s garden. Bajusz 2005,
I/1, p. 435, g. 4/30.

51
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from the notes of Téglás István
Fig. 3. Ruins of the Roman building from Arion Alexa’s garden.
Sheet torn from notebook no. 4 (1884), unpublished.

52
Mátyás BAJUSZ | Aurora PEŢAN
Fig. 4. The shackle from Sarmizegetusa (Várhely).
Bajusz 2005, I/1, p. 438, g. 4/21.
a b.
Fig. 5. a. The bracelet from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.
Bajusz 2005, I/1, p 437, g. 4/26.
b. The bracelet from Costeşti.
Rustoiu 1996, p. 278, 42/5.