The first part of this article focuses on a discovery that, at least at first sight, could be considered homogeneous regarding the context and the place of discovery. In the inventory of the British Museum this appears under the label „Copper alloy horse trappings (Bronze Age)”, having as place of provenance „Grosswardein (Oradea county)” (fig. 1).The museum’s online catalogue informs that the objects were acquired in 1926 from László Mauthner. One year after the purchase, Reginald A. Smith argued that they represented a funerary discovery, coming „from a grave of the late Bronze Age at Grosswardein, Hungary” (fig. 2). It is a known fact that Mauthner was a controversial figure of the trade with antiquities at the beginning of the 20th century in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. More than probable it was Maunther the one who presented them on the antiquities market as the inventory of a grave. He put together pieces with different sources in order to increase their market value. This article surveys 27 pieces such as chain hangers (Kettengehänge) discovered in „Hungary?, coming from the old collection of the Gödöllo Museum” (pl. III/1, IV/1); a shield buckle (Schildbuckel) that was part of the deposit at Oradea I (pl. I/3, II/3); a phalera (Bronzescheiben), probably from the deposit in Oradea IV (pl. I/2, II/2); four crescent pendants with vertically perforated shanks (Durchbrochene halbmondförmige Anhänger mit vertikal durchlochtem Stiel), probably from the deposit at Oradea IV (pl. V/1–4, VI/1–4); four wheel pendants (Radanhänger) probably from the deposit at Biharea or Oradea IV (pl. V/7, VI/7); seven conical pendants with triangular openings (Kegeligen Anhänger mit dreieckigen Durchbrechungen), probably from the deposit at Oradea IV (pl. VII/1–7, VIII/1–6); two hourglass pendants (Sanduhrförmigen Anhänger) from Oradea IV (pl. III/2–3, IV/2–3); and seven bronze tutuli (Runde Bronzeknöpfe mit abgetreppter Mitte und Knopf) (pl. I/1a-b, II/1, IX/1–6, X/1–6).The analysis also focuses on the controversial content of the so-called deposit Oradea IV as it was published by several archaeologists like Márton Roska („Micske puszta”) (fig. 3), Mircea Rusu („Mișca (Micskapuszta), part of the town Oradea, Bihor district”) (fig. 4), Amalia Mozsolics („Micske, MIȘCA, ehem. Kom. Bihar, R.”), Mircea Petrescu-Dîmbovița („Mișca, part of Oradea”) (fig. 5), Nicolae Chidioșan (Oradea „Pusta Mișca”) and Carol Kacsó („Oradea IV”) (fig. 6–8).The question is if we may accept the idea that the above-mentioned objects from the British Museum come „from a grave of the late Bronze Age at Grosswardein, Hungary”? On one hand it is important to point out that they were not funerary objects, an idea also supported by Ioan Nestor. The information provided by Mauthner was obviously false! Moreover, some of the pieces come from other places than Oradea IV (the old collection of Gödöllo Museum in Hungary, Oradea I, Biharea?). The different places of provenance suggest that these objects were not part of the same discovery. However, at least some of the objects sold by the Budapest antiquarian surely came from the deposit Oradea IV. The rings of the hourglass pendants are lighter in color (Pl. III/2–3, IV/2–3) like the ones presently found at Budapest published by C. Kacsó (fig. 8/10–12). The almost identical content of objects in the collections at London, Bucharest (Oradea) and Budapest, the detail of the rings of the hourglass pendants as well as the fact that the greater part of the discovery had the same owner suggest that these objects were all part of the deposit Oradea IV. In order to support this hypothesis we tried to compare objects that belonged to the same type. Unfortunately only two tutuli from London were shaped in the same mould (pl. IX/1–2), the rest have different dimensions and ornaments. The same may be said in the case of the four conical pendants with triangular openings, also from London (pl. VII/1–4). The phalera and the half-moon pendants were not identical. In that case it is debatable that the objects from London belonged to the deposit Oradea IV. C. Kacsó’s hypothesis about the content of the deposit at Oradea IV is also problematical. Maybe more correct would be to use the denomination apocryphal deposit Oradea IV. C. Kacsó clarified the problem of dating the objects kept in London in his analysis of the deposits Arpășel type. With another occasion, Florin Gogâltan argued that from a chronological point of view the Arpăşel type deposits were typical for a longer period of time during the stages D and Ha A of the Bronze Age (Late Bronze Age II–III). The great majority of these deposits were discovered in the Western Romania, corresponding to the habitation area of the Igriţa and Cehăluţ groups. This was the chronological and cultural context of the objects in the museum in London as well.
Read full abstract
Sep 30, 2024
El Gozmir Hasnaa + 1
Open Access