Talk:Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós

Treasure of Groß Sankt Nikolaus
Maybe Treasure of Groß Sankt Nikolaus sounds better but can't find one single source with that name. Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós brings 20,000 hits on Google and Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare about 1500. Tezaurul de la Sânnicolau Mare brings another 4800 hits.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, I think that best solution might be Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare since Sânnicolau Mare is most common name of this town in English. Best choice for historical name would be Treasure of Groß Sankt Nikolaus, but since it is not supported by the sources (which really surprises me, by the way), we have to choose between two modern names, i.e. Nagyszentmiklós and Sânnicolau Mare, which are both supported by the sources. I do not think that we should decide about this only by counting which of the two names have more google hits, but other relevant historical and linguistic issues should be taken into count. It is clear that name Nagyszentmiklós was not officially used for this town in the time when this treasure was excavated and that it came from later time period. Therefore, I think that article should be renamed to Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare since this name is: 1. supported by the sources and 2. most common name of this town used in English. PANONIAN  19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We should use the current most common name in English. All the few sources for Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or reprints - I can't see any English RS book refs, since I don't count a Romanian grammar-book as an RS for archaeology. "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklos" (without the accent) is in several books in English. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Town name
OK, let now discuss the proper name of place where treasure was found (which is different issue from the name of treasure itself). If we say that treasure was excavated in 1799 in one place then we should use proper historical name of that place. Hungarian name Nagyszentmiklós was in official use only from 1867 to 1918 and certainly was not official or historical name in 1799 (in that time, this town was under direct administration of Habsburg Monarchy and proper historical name that we should use for this town in relation to year 1799 is German name Groß Sankt Nikolaus). By my opinion, Hungarian name of the town came to some English sources that are speaking about this treasure from the simple fact that original sources that spoke about the treasure were published in the time period when Hungarian name was official. The treasure was excavated in 1799, but it is certain that years or decades of research were needed before sources that describing results of these researches were published. Anyway claim that town was named Nagyszentmiklós in 1799 and that it is "now" named Sânnicolau Mare is: 1. incorrect, 2. POV, and 3. contains clear anti-Romanian political attitude implying that Hungarian names are "original" or "historical" and that Romanian names are "new", "modern" or "invented". I cannot accept the view that Romanian name is only "new" when there is even an historical Serbian name that was used for this town: Veliki Semikluš. I am not an Romanian, but I am defending NPOV approach to this subject. Hungarian-Romanian political disputes related to naming issues are well known issue and we would have very POV article if we implement Hungarian nationalistic approach into an article about Romania-related subject. Therefore, we either should use historical German name for the town either Romanian one, but there is no any historical basis for usage of Hungarian name in relation to year 1799. PANONIAN 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm Romanian and I don't care about imaginary naming disputes. If the sources say the treasure was discovered in Nagyszentmiklós in 1799 then so it is, unless you have sources to support the claim the Hungarian name was not used at all in 1799. So the current version is NPOV, at least according to the available bibliography. The rest of the speculations about how the Hungarian name came in use fall under WP:OR and are thus irrelevant. Daizus (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not think that fact that you added "ro" tag to your language boxes gives you right to speak in the name of all Romanians. These naming disputes are well known and are not at all "imaginary" and approach that you forcing is certainly insulting for most Romanians (you maybe trying to follow something that looks to you like "Romanian anti-nationalist ideology", but you clearly failed to see that you now went to the level where you in fact supporting views of an "foreign nationalist ideology"). Also, you twisting facts here: as I said, the sources are using name Nagyszentmiklós because of the simple fact that such name was officially used in the time when these sources were published, but it was not officially used in the time when treasure was excavated. And In am not saying that Hungarian name was not used "at all" - it was probably used in private conversations of some Hungarians, but I do not understand why you forcing an name that was neither official neither spoken by local population - according to this map uploaded by an Romanian user, the town had mixed Romanian-German-Serb population in that time. PANONIAN  11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Private conversations you say? Check these books published before 1867:     etc. Daizus (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot find word "Nagyszentmiklós " in any of the sources that you linked. PANONIAN  12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? First book: "Nagy-Szent-Miklos, bourg de la Hongrie, III, 463." Second book: "Nagy-Szent-Miklos (literally Great St. Nicholas), a market town with 15,000 inhabitants." Third book: "Anast. Náko de Nagy-Szent-Miklós, née Vuatich di Pesth." Fourth book: BESSENOVA [...] 2 St. von Nagy-Szent-Miklós, am Flusse Aranka." Fifth book: "Christoph von Nako de Nagy Szent Miklos, Grundherr von Nagy Szent Miklos und Marifalva im Banate." Daizus (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should quote your sources in the beginning instead of providing just links to them. Anyway, this is not evidence that Hungarian name was official in 1799. I have book that mention this town under name Veliki Semikluš, but that does not mean that we should use that name in this article. Also, are you claiming that Romanian name was not used "at all" in 1799 since you wrote "now Sânnicolau Mare"? The only thing that we can conclude is that all 4 names (Romanian, German, Serbian, Hungarian) were used in some ways in 1799, but fact that Hungarian name was not official one in that time remains unchallenged. PANONIAN  13:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should not do anything, it was your (unsourced and unproved) claim we should not use Nagyszentmiklós, that this name merely "was probably used in private conversations of some Hungarians". You're the one challenging virtually all the literature used to support this article and agreeing on the fact it's a discovery made in 1799 in Nagyszentmiklós (which now is known under the name Sânnicolau Mare, check Romania maps and you'll see). There's no reason to ban this name - it is sourced and moreover it was widely used even around 1800 (you can find books written in English, French, German, Hungarian). We're going in circles here. I also expect some apologies for all the ludicrous accusations thrown at me (that I'm supporting the views of "foreign nationalist ideologies" and all the rest). Daizus (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, it is you who challenging all literature that saying that Hungarian names were not in official use before 1867 - you simply ignoring this fact and trying to provide some simplistic explanation based on partial and selective examination of selected sources. Also, I am not saying that we should "ban Hungarian name" - what I am saying is that we should use it in NPOV way and in respect to well known fact that it was not official name in 1799. Also I did not said that you are nationalist or that you (knowingly) supporting nationalist ideologies - I only said that you are obviously not aware that you supporting views of these ideologies. That is not an insult, just a friendly criticism. PANONIAN  13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not cite any literature to support your position. You also removed the Hungarian name completely from "your" article.
 * As for the insult, you made it even worse: now I'm so confused that am not even aware of the views I'm supporting. Enough of this! Daizus (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. for literature: see below, 2. we discus here this article, not other one (relevance of Hungarian name is not same in two articles), 3. I did not had intention to insult you - it was just a joke (you have to work on your sense for humor). PANONIAN  04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Some references

 * "gold treasure from Sînnicolau Mare (Hungarian: Nagyszentmiklós"
 * "so it was called Great-Saint-Nicholas or in Hungarian Nagyszentmiklós"
 * "Fund von 1799 aus Nagyszentmiklós (= Groß-Sankt-Ni- klaus) in Siebenbürgen"
 * "NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS (= SÂNNICOLAUL MARE)"
 * "Sinnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós) az Aranka patak mentén fekszik"

I believe that this disapproves claim that "only name Nagyszentmiklós" is used as a reference to place where treasure was found. In presented sources, name is mentioned together with German or Romanian name, and it is interesting that we also have an Hungarian source where Romanian name is preferred over Hungarian one. And these sources are also disapproving claim that Romanian name is "new" and used only "now". PANONIAN 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly see the connections between the previous debate, these sources and your comments about them. Daizus (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the NPOV version I did yesterday, which mentions the 3 different names, and also is in grammatical English, unlike the various ones before. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing NPOV about the current version. Please cite references, and not only personal views concerning what is NPOV. Daizus (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for its "German speaking rulers", it's about the Kingdom of Hungary inside the Habsburg Empire. There were no Hungarian-speaking "rulers" (local administration)? Please don't transform this article into a coat rack so each of you can push his own personal views about various and rather unrelated issues. Daizus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my last edits I focused on removing this nonsense: "town then known to its German-speaking rulers and inhabitants as Groß Sankt Nikolaus".
 * "German-speaking rulers"? All the officials holding important positions inside the Kingdom of Hungary were German-speaking? Of the county of Torontal? Of this town? Please! That all its inhabitants were German-speaking is equally dubious and probably false.
 * The claim that the German speakers of the Habsburg Empire knew this town as Groß Sankt Nikolaus (only/mostly) is demonstrably false. In this book published in Vienna in 1837 the town is called Nagy Szent Miklos, and moreover it's about a local landlord. Daizus (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are arguing too much about the name (I would personally vote for Treasure of Sînnicolau Mare since this is the official name of the town today), while the article needs much more content. For example, we should add information about where is the treasure now. I know it is in Vienna with a copy in Bulgaria (should make a note about the images of the copies vs original), but some of the pictures on commons, like this one seem to be from Prague and classified as Bohemia/Moravian history!? Also, if the inscription is in Turkic, why do we talk about Magyars and Slavs here? Bulgar or Avar seem highly probable and need some due weight. Someone must of translated it by now and hopefully we can find a more accurate dating somewhere (6th to 10th century is too wide, most sources say 8th - hence no Magyars). --Codrin.B (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If only! This puts the situation well, from 2003. I think C10th dates for asome pieces are still fairly common. As here, the academic sources are also subject to nationalistic issues. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The modern studies argue about the 7-8th centuries (and occasionally early 9th) and Avars (and sometimes they also point out this treasure was accumulated over a century or so):
 * Csanád Bálint 2010, see p. 153: "Its connection with Avar culture of the 7th and 8th centuries is today beyond any doubt" and p. 155: "I suppose that each generation of the (local) dynasty who intended to add new items to the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós was always able to find highly specialised craftsmen who fulfilled only these commands. (It will most probably remain a mystery to us how they organised this selection. Maybe they used itinerant craftsmen.) The treasure of Nagyszentmiklós was made in an oriental society whose aristocracy was influenced by Byzantine culture."
 * Falko Daim 2003, p. 516 (the book linked by Johnbod above): "It now appears that the vessels from Sînnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós) were made in the seventh and eighth centuries. As the results of antiquarian analysis of the treasure show that it is most closely related to the Avar material and as Sînnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós) lies within the region of Avar settlement, it is possible that the objects in the gold hoard are in fact “left-overs” from the Avar royal hoard, which remained in the Danube region when most of the treasure was brought into the Frankish Empire after Charlemagne’s Avar wars. This, however, does not neccessarily imply that the Sînnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós) Treasure was buried in the course of the Avar wars — this could also have taken place later."
 * Florin Curta 2006, p. 94: "Moreover, with few exceptions, no gold finds are so far known for the entire Late Avar period. One of the few exceptions is a hoard of some 22 pounds of gold, with a chronology stretching back over a period of 120 years, which was found in 1799 in Sânnicolau Mare, near the present-day Romanian-Hungarian border."
 * Matthias Hardt 2003, p. 106: "The hoard discovered at Nagyszentmiklós in 1799 consisted of 23 gold vessels, with a total weight of roughly 10 kg. [...] Scholars have connected the treasure with the Avar khaganate, although whether it really is a part of the 'Avar Treasure' that was successfully concealed from invading armies of the Franks cannot be decided with certainty."
 * András Róna-Tas 1999, p. 131: "The objects originate from a variety of periods, and several objects have copies in the hoard. [...] Based on analogies with the above-mentioned bone needle-case inscription of Szarvas, whose date of origin can be established comparatively accurately, we are now able to date the inscriptions from the Nagyszentmiklós hoard to the second half of the 8th century." and p. 264: "The treasure find known today as the Nagyszentmiklós treasure may have been the wealth of a fleeing Avar high dignitary. We do not know when it was hidden, but parallels with the Szarvas finds bearing similar runiform inscriptions, seem to indicate that the treasure was last “used” in the latter half of the 8th century or possibly the first half of the 9th century."
 * Uwe Fiedler 2008, p. 218: "The famous hoard from Nagyszentmiklós (Sânnicolau Mare, Timiş district) now in Vienna has also been given a Bulgar attribution, despite the fact that there is little reason to doubt its association with the Avars." Daizus (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Couple brief comments, again highlighting some problems with certain interpretations. (1) There is no need to view the hoard as having hurriedly been buried due to some cataclysm (ie Frankish invasion into Avaria). Deposition of hoards was a long observed ceremony done by wealthy elites to display their power (2) The debate about whether it is Khazar or Avar or Bulgar or Slavic is a moot point. It was found within an Avar context, and that it shows similarities with Bulgar and Khazar regions is hardly surprising given that these regions (middle Danube, lower Danube, pontic steppe) have always had stylistic contacts irrespective of wethether at a given point Bulgars and Avars, and them and Khazars were allies or foes Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to read about the treasure and instead am reading about history and geography. Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós is how this set of items has been historically known. Were there even any Romanians living there when the find was made? Not one word written about the circumstances of the find, but every single word has to be written in multiple languages. This is an English Wikipedia, so please take this recent attempt at rewriting history to Romanian Wikipedia. Flooding Google search results with artificial mentions of "Treasure of Sânnicolau Mare" (when even the town's website isn't as concerned) looks quite transparent. So just as Hagia Sophia was built in Constantinople and not Istanbul, this treasure should not be renamed centuries later due to demographic changes. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basic problem here is that name Nagyszentmiklós was not official in the time when treasure was excavated - it was excavated in 1799 and name Nagyszentmiklós became official only in 1867. If name Sânnicolau Mare is not "historical" then the name "Nagyszentmiklós" is not historical neither if we speak about year 1799. "Proper" historical names from that time would be either German or Latin name versions. PANONIAN  14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point here. The rulers of Area X where the treasure was found, and whose descendants now have it want to call it "Nagyszentmiklós" and have been calling it by that name for generations. If they wanted, they could have called it 'Treasure of Jupiter", but, instead they decided to officially refer to it as 'Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós". If you happen to find a treasure, or a comet, you too will get a chance to name it. Why not call it "Treasure of Romania's Heritage"? or how about "Soul of Roma"? Sounds much better than the name you and nationalist revisionists have recently made up. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the rulers of the area in 1799 used name Groß-Sankt-Niklaus for this town. Name Nagyszentmiklós does not originating from "rulers of the area", but from those who "wanted to be rulers of the area" (and they in fact were not). Name Nagyszentmiklós is simply not historical name in this case. There is of course other issue of how this name came to some English sources. And please keep this discussion civilized and do not accuse other people that they are "nationalist revisionists". Naming issues in Central Europe are much more complicated issue than you are aware of and I suggest that you collect more knowledge about regional history before you form your opinion about this subject (and you obviously already have one). PANONIAN  18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your question "were there even any Romanians living there when the find was made", I do not see what that question has to do with anything, but answer is certainly yes. On this ethnic map from 1774, you can see that this settlement had mixed population composed of Romanians, Germans and Serbs: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Banatul_la_1774.jpg PANONIAN  14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You dont see what the presence of Romanians have anything to do with calling a 200+ year old find by a Romanian name. If there were fewer than 10% Romanians in that town during the find, and 30% almost 1/2 a century later, then why should a pre-Romanian find be re-labeled? Especially since the inscription is ancient Bulgarian-Turkish. How does - Gold of Istanbul sound? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my proposal was that German name should be primarily used here because it is the only one that can be proved as "undoubtedly historical one". As I already said, name Nagyszentmiklós was not official in the time and usage of that name is exactly an example of "re-labeled name" in an language that was neither official in that time neither spoken by somebody in that town in 1799. PANONIAN  18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
A huge amount of info was added without any discussion here. The info is included in a new section titled: Protobulgarian. However, here is a section called Bulgar annd Magar, i.e. the new section is a repetition of the old one. Also, here is an encyclopedia and the amount of info resembles a monograph and maybe is a part of such one. Jingiby (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This new content is a copy-paste from the website listed at the end: http://bolgnames.com/text/Treasure.html. There is no copyright claimed on those pages but it still should be summarized not copied wholesale. Joja  lozzo  12:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some dubious edits were also made by the same IP here . I reverted them 79.117.151.164 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The image of the Horseman
Guys just look closely on the image. The eyes of the horseman is clearly Mongolic. This is pure Bulgar,Magyar or Avaric origin.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024141809/http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?%2FstaticE%2Fpage1592.html to http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?%2FstaticE%2Fpage1592.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023220439/http://www.khm.at/system2.html?%2Fstatic%2Fpage1592.html to http://www.khm.at/system2.html?%2Fstatic%2Fpage1592.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)