THE BRONZE CAULDRON OF AVRĂMENI (BOTOȘANI COUNTY). ASPECTS OF COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY DURING THE LATE IRON AGE IN THE TERRITORIES BETWEEN THE CARPATHIANS AND THE VOLGA

Abstract

In 1942, following readjustment works of the road connecting the Saveni and Avrameni communes, a barrow was destroyed, resulting the find of a bronze cauldron. A. Nițu deemed the vessel of Avrameni as part of the series of cauldrons coinciding with the civilisation and expansion of the Sarmatians by the Don and Lower and Mid Danube in the 1st – 4th century AD and dated it to this chronological span. Gh. Bichir argued that the Avrameni cauldron is somewhat later than that of Piatra Șoimului (Calu), which the scholar dated to the 1st century BC. The vessel’s shape resembles that of a “bell” cast together with its handles, while the biconical foot was made separately, the two parts being attached by a bronze cast-made plug. On the body, the vessel displays several repair traces. According to its features and specificities, the Avrameni cauldron belongs to type Demidenko II.1.B, being the single of the type in the area between the Don and the Carpathians. The remaining resembling specimens come from 2nd – 1st century BC complexes from territories left of the Lower Don and the Kuban region. The author believes that according to its shape, the curved vertical handles decorated each with a knob as well as its making manner and foot attachment, the Avrameni vessel is an artefact joining elements specific to the Sauromatian cauldrons used in the Volga and Lower Don area, but also in the Kuban region also in the 2nd – 1st century BC. Within the context of its analysis are also discussed the cauldrons of Bubueci and Velikoploskoe, both from “ritual hoards/deposits” part of a larger group of such features of the 3rd – 1st century BC from territories comprised between the Volga – the pre-mountain area from North Caucasus in the east and the Lower Danube - Prut to the west. The cauldron of Bubueci belongs to type Demidenko I.3.A. It has a body cast together with the handles, while the  iconical foot, surviving fragmentarily, was cast separately. Similarly to the Avrameni vessel, that of Bubueci is the most western find of a cauldron of the type. The body shape, curved vertical handles decorated each with three knobs, the lip shape and its making manner, how the handles start from the cauldron rim as well as how they were made, indicate that the vessel combines elements specific to the Sauromatian and early Sarmatian cauldrons. In the case of the Avrameni and Bubueci cauldrons, as well as those similar, the author concludes they are either a continuation of ancient casting traditions or were produced sometime earlier, yet continued to be used for a good period of time after their production cease. The exhibited repair traces and presence far from their territories of origin, where they were made and used, as well as their find together with 2nd – 1st century BC artefacts confirm, according to the author, their use for a longer time span. In the case of the Avrameni vessel, its deposition might have occurred sometime during the 2nd century BC as well as between the end of the 2nd – first decades of the 1st century BC. With respect to the dating of the “ritual hoard/deposit” of Bubueci, the author believes it dates no earlier than the 2nd century BC, and that its framing sometime between mid 2nd century BC and early 1st century BC is very likely. In the case of the Velikoploskoe cauldron, its body shape and sizes resemble those of the Demidenko VI type cauldrons emerging in the 2nd century BC, yet the remaining elements specific to this vessel type are missing. The rudimentary attachment procedure of the foot to the body, rim shape, its making manner, as well as how the handles start from the vessel rim, are according to the author, specific to the Sauromatae and early Sarmatian cauldrons (types Demidenko I-III, V) used in the first centuries BC, which hinders its ascribing to a certain type. Therefore, it was concluded that the Velikoploskoe vessel seems to be intermediary between the 5th - 3rd century BC cauldrons, mainly Sauromatae, and those of the early and mid armatian periods between the 2nd century BC and mid 2nd century AD. Its elements and making manner allow, according to the author, for its dating to the 2nd – 1st century BC, likely only sometime during the 2nd century BC, which is not contradicted by the remaining artefacts in the find.