Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 29/1. (2013)
Oliver Dietrich: A small bronze hoard from "Kronstadt-Galgenberg". A c ontribution to the understanding of cultural landscapes in Middle Bronze Age southeastern Transylvania
A small bronze hoard from “Kronstadt-Galgenberg“. A contribution to... “spiral” ring were preserved. Four rings80 went into a private collection in Bucureşti, the other objects entered the collection of the Museum of Pre- and Protohistory in Berlin. After Popescu's publication, the only references to the finds are apparently made by Hansel81 and F. Costea82. This neglect may be due to the fact that the finds from Berlin were part of the works of art transferred to Russia after the Second World War and have not been accessible for study until recently83. The find can be dated easily through the forms of the lock rings. Four pieces (fig. 4/10-11, 13-14) belong to type 2 after B. Hansel and P. Weihermann84, dated between FD III and MD II. Inter alia the form appears in the hoard of Trucevac, which also yields axes similar to axe nr. 2 from Braşov85. Another lock ring (fig. 4/6)86, type 3 after Hansel and Weihermann87, has a close analogy in the Wietenberg sanctuary of Oarţa de Sus, from were also gold rings are known88 which slightly resemble the one from the hoard from Braşov (fig. 4/12). The gold hoard thus may well be contemporaneous with the Wietenberg settlement clusters and the bronze hoard from Braşov. This find emphasizes the importance of the settlement clusters in the area of Braşov and gives further proof to the existence of elites like those who are discernible behind the other important gold hoard of the region from Ţufalău89. To get back to the hoard from the Galgenberg, its conspicuous placement near the site of a settlement which was of importance in the times preceding the Wietenberg Culture is also of some interest. The Schneckenberg, which dominates the way coming from the Timiş pass and the passage through the ‘Burghals’ (Fig. 2) apparently changed its meaning from a place of settlement to one of deposition. It may be assumed that the settlement on the Schneckenberg had left some still visible marks on the plateau, and that it was known as an ancient site of importance in the times of the Wietenberg Culture. There is a possibility that through the hoard a memorial place90 important as a reference point for the Wietenberg Cultures' s elites was marked91. This does not necessarily imply any kind of direct continuity between the Schneckenberg and Wietenberg Cultures, but just a general notion of the importance of the place and maybe of remembrance of the deeds of those who had inhabited the area before and had formed and now become part of the cultural landscape themselves. Figure 4: The gold hoard from Braşov (after Popescu 1956, fig. 121/6-14). 80Popescu 1956, fig. 121/6-9. 81 Hansel 1968, 221, list 120, nr. 19. 82 Costea 2004, 36. 83 Information on the whereabouts of the finds by Dr. Alix Hansel and Mrs. Katja Vollert, Berlin. The finds seem to have entered the Museum collection already in 1931 (Reference Nr. 606/1931, Entry Journal Nr. EJ.II 19/1931) and were registered under Inventory number II20/1931 (RE 156) with the location ‘Burzenland (Brassó, Komitat; Hungary, Kingdom)’. At the end of the war the finds were confiscated by Russian troops and brought to the Pushkin Museum, Moscow (Inv. Nr. Aap. 1391). The objects from Braşov have recently been published summarily: Tolstikov/Hänsel 2013. It is not possible to state without doubt whether Popescu's localization of the find inside the city of Braşov is more accurate than the information from the Berlin inventory books. It seems anyhow that Popescu had access to more complete information on the find, as the pieces of the hoard which went to Bucureşti are not mentioned in the Berlin records. The in 1931 or 1934 anachronistic localization of the find in the kingdom of Hungary does not speak in favor of an interest in the exact localization of the find by the writer of the entries in the inventory books. 84 Hänsel/Weihermann 2000, 17, 19. 85Garasanin 1954, 11, pl. IV; Hänsel 1968, 239, pl. 13/1-15; Hänsel/Weihermann 2000, 19. 86 Popescu 1956, fig. 121/6. 87 Hänsel/Weihermann 2000, 17, 20. 88 Kacsó 1987, fig. 22. 89Mozsolics 1965-1966, 54-55, pl. 2-3; L. Dietrich 2010, 196. 90 Hansen 2008, 293-294 on the importance of fixing memories in the landscape. 91 For the role of hoards in marking special places (“andere Orte“) in the landscape see Hansen 2008, esp. 305. 175
