Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 30/1. (2010)
Articles
Fig. 5. 1. The section of the helmet from Ciume^ti (after Rusu 1969); 2. The fragments of the helmet from Apahida (after Zirra 1976); 3. The section of the helmet from Castelrotto, Italy (after Schaaff 1974); 4. The section of the helmet from Trbinc, Slovenia (after Schaaff 1988a); 5. The section of the helmet from Amfreville, France (after Duval et al. 1986); 6. The helmet from Siliva§ (photo provided by A. Rustoiu). * * * Due to the differences of the attaching modalities (by rivet with pin in one case and simple rivet in the other), the dimensions and the casting (the inner part of one piece is smooth, the other has cavities - the ‘negatives’ of the ornamental knobs), as well as the different ornament (different ornamental knobs, triskele realized by three lines) we consider that the two discs from Tárgu Mure§ were not part of the same suite. However, the same place of discovery and close technique of casting indicate a common workshop and a single owner. Most probably the larger artefact was the ornament from the fixing plate of a chain mail. Accordingly, the amorphous rusted iron piece from the inner part of the piece could be from the fixing plate of the chain mail. The interpretation is also plausible because of its size, similar to the analogous piece from Ciume^ti. The combination of iron and bronze elements was a common practice of the La Тёпе workshops as it is shown by the iron pins with bronze buttons from Courte, Belgium or Paris (?), France.30 Based on its attaching method and size, the smaller piece from Tárgu Mure§ could be an ornament from the bowl of a helmet, such as the ones from Amfreville or Siliva§, or a fixing element of the leather to which the mobile cheek-guard was attached, like in the case of the helmet from Ciume§ti. It is also probable that this smaller artefact was a decorative element of the enforcement from the mouth of a scabbard or a harness-mount. 30Megaw 1970, nr. 149,166.
