Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 34-35. (2014-2015)
Articles
по A. A. Rusu enables the execution of compositional variations that cannot be found in others. For such reason we have to discuss them combined by classes of forms, with different basis. The first actual metal finds from Romania were only recently identified. These were made from bronze and belonged to the 14lh century material of the Franciscan friary from Tärgu Mure?.28 Concerning their place of production only suggestions were put forward, admitting that a more simple one was probably a local production while the other one had unknown origins (Fig. 1/b-c).29 Since these are described in a catalogue we shall not repeat it. Still, the one categorized as ‘local’ (Fig. 1/b) has features that urges us to reconsider its interpretation. The tip is very carelessly treated, while its other end is much widened and sharpened, like a real knife blade. For these reasons, we consider that this could have belonged to another monastic tool but not to a writing tool. More can be written about the second find (Fig. 1/c). The piece is definitely the most elegant writing tool found in present day Romania. At the level of the Hungarian Kingdom, analogies are almost impossible to find, because of the lack of finds.30 The treatment of the handle of the imported stilus has very good analogies in Lübeck (Germany).31 Typologically, it is similar to the 2nd form, set by Klara Solton- Koscielecka’s analysis.32 However, its opposed end imitates a type of execution, in which the long handle, made from different material, was provided with a short needle, usually made from iron. Such ending shapes can be found on other pieces that do not have similar tips.33 From all that we know, even on a European level, not much can be written about centers that could have produced bronze stili in large series, which then, could geographically spread out. One can rather think of the local workshops on which the task fell to supply the bishoprics with bells and liturgical inventory of all kinds. After the 14th century, such products were most certainly undertaken also by craftsmen from towns. A few years ago, in Sibiu an iron object was unearthed by the team of Daniela Marcu-Istrate, which as many times as it had been published, 28 Soós 2011, 321, 324, 325 (catalogue), 333, pi. 1/3-4. 29 Soós 2011,324. 30 For example, from the Benedictine abbey at Somogyvár only one tip was identified as coming from a stilus. See: Bakay 2011,351, fig. 1352. 31 Lüdecke - Drenkhahn 2002, 65, Abb. 2/3. 32 Solton-Koscielecka 2005, 231. 33 Krüger 2002, pl. 10/2. Fig. 1: a. stilus from Oradea (bone); b. presumed stilus from Tárgu Mure? (bronze); c. stilus from Tärgu Mure? (bronze) was considered to be a ‘hairpin’.34 So that the discussion can be better understood, besides images (Fig. 2/b), we should give a short description of the object. It is a tiny iron object with the appearance of a nail, but twisted in the middle, and the opposite end of the tip is fitted with a transversal flattening in the shape of a small chisel. The easiest way to identify the function of the object would be to use it on a modern day coiffure. Certainly only in imagination, because in reality the central twist of the pin would only entwist in the hair strands and would not hold a hairdo. The mistaken classification of the object could originate from the fact that other similar pieces were not identified by other authorarchaeologists. However, as it can be read in the publication about the find from Sibiu, no analogies were identified nor were earlier works used for its correct identification. This means that sadly neither was the general local literature mastered. In the following we shall present the published group to which this piece belongs to. At the earth fortress in Bärlad (Vaslui County) another tool (Fig. 2/c) was presumed to be a fishing hook.35 The opposed end of the tip was actually decorated with two or three groups of small transversal incisions, which must have been too redundant for a simple fishing hook. The possibilities that the two extremities of the rod were in an altered state as a result of an accident 34 Marcu-Istrate 2007, 82-83; Crangaci-fiplic 2007, 105, fig. 146; 146, nr. 75, 279, pi. 55/22; 283, pi. 59/22. 35 Matei - Chi^escu 2002, pi. 44/2.
