Later prehistoric and Roman rural settlement and land-use in western Transylvania

loana Adina Oltean

Submittedfor the degreeof Doctor in Philosophy

University of Glasgow Department of Archaeology

May 2004

r-; W-f Z.

@ loana A. Oltean,2004

THESIS CONTAINS VIDEO CD DVD TAPE CASSETTE

Abstract. -

Roman-nativeinteraction from a landscape The presentstudy analyses perspectivein a core territory Dacia. The includes heartland Roman Dacian (the Orastie both Iron Age the study area and royal of Mountains) and its surroundinglowlands, and also the hinterlandsof Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa important Roman in Apulum, two the towns the province. most and in the pre-Romanand The research considersthe natureand distribution of lowcr-order settlements Romanperiods,humanimpact on the local landscape which occurredas a result of and the changes the Romanoccupation.Also, it addresses previousbiasesof interpretationthroughre-evaluationof earlier data and consideration of new datasets provided by the interpretationandmappingof recent New detailedplans of the sitesdiscoveredthrough aerial photography oblique aerial photographs. havebeenintegratedwithin a significant amountof scattered (excavation data and field published walking reports; gazetteers) and relevant information from historical maps. All the material hasbeen linked to a GIS. In this way the spatialdistribution of analysedutilising a relational database settlements of varioustypesand function, or the relationshipbetweensettlements and natural resources or topography,hasrevealedpatternsindicative of the factorswhich may have influenced their evolution. The resultsprovide a complexreconsiderationon a more realistic and up-to-datebasisof previous theoriesregardingthe native settlementpattern and the impact of Romancolonisation in the context specified.Also, through the resulting database chronologicaland geographical and GIS, it tool for finther analysisof the landscape providesa methodologicalframework and a custornised and of the evolution of the settlement patternwhich can be extendedthroughoutthe province of Dacia Finally, it createsa useful sourceOf analogyor contrastfor Empire-wide and into neighbouringareas. studiesof romanisationand Roman-nativeinteraction.

Chapter breakdown

Chapter 1: Background, limitations, aims, approaches and methods Chapter 2: The study area: natural environment Chapter 3: The historical background Chapter 4: Late pre-Roman Iron Age landscape; Iron age rural settlement pattern and society Chapter 5: The Roman landscape Chapter 6: Romanisation of the rural landscape

Acknowledgments:

This studywould not havebeenpossiblein Romaniaonly a few yearsago, before the first aerial purposeswas startedby Prof W.S. reconnaissance programmeexclusively for archaeological Hansonand myself in WesternTransylvania.Apart from providing the vital photographs andmaps for this study, the project, financedby the LeverhulmeTrust and the British Academy,has introduceda new perspective in the region. This hasbeenpromotedthroughoutmy to archaeology thesis.Many thanksmust go to Prot W. S. Hansonfor settingup this project, and to all the collaboratorsand local authoritiesthat ensuredits running. This new approachto the archaeology of Dacia was apparentthroughoutthe sessionon RomanDacia Archaeology Dr. L Haynes Roman Conference in (London) Hanson by Prot the and at organised have beenextremely in that session Glasgowin 2001. The paperspresented and the discussions Prof. Hansonand Dr. Hayneshavebeen extremelykind in making available beneficial to this study-, Seriesof the Journal of Roman the materialssubmittedfor publication in the Supplementary Archaeologyprior to their publication (Hansonand Haynes2004). Moreover, Dr. L Haynes,and Dr. K. Lockyear from the Apulurn Hinterland Project,kindly allowed me to include in this study their Seusa results at surveying and Oarda. geophysical I would like to thank to Prof Hansonalso for the high standardof academicexcellencein the which has greatly influenced the way my own thoughtsand ideas supervisionof my Ph.D. research havebeenexpressed throughoutthis study-, also, for patiently providing his full supportand ensuring everythingI neededfor its completion.Many thanksto Dr. K- Brophy, Dr. P. van Dommelen,Dr. R. Housley,Prof A. B. Knapp and all the academicstaff and to my fellow postgraduate studentsin the Departmentof Archaeologywho provided an extremelychallenging and stimulating environment throughoutmy time there.Also thanksto Prot L Piso and Dr. A. Diaconescu(Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj Napoca)for providing me with a solid basis of knowledgeof Romanhistory and archaeology, and for guiding my first attemptsat academic research. Many thanks,too, to R. Palmer(Cambridge)for additional instruction in air-photo interpretationand and advice,printing of photographicillustrations for the thesisandhis mapping,useful comments senseof humour, to him, and also to Prof 1. Scollar (Bonn), Dr. M. Doneusand Dr. W. Neubauer (Vienna), H. Corley (Glasgow)thanksfor help in persuading the computersto help me in site mappingand GIS designand analysis.Also, thanksto Dr. D. Ruscu (Cluj Napoca) for useful Dr. E. commentson parts of this thesis;to him and to Dr. L. Ruscu,Dr. C. Ciongradi, V. Radeanu, Bota, my gratitude for help in gatheringthe relevantbibliography for this study and for constant facilitated G. Ciongradi Dr. Gheorghiu (Cluj Dr. C. Napoca) to and my access moral support. in University PhD Cologne information their theses the contained at and the BabesBolyai relevant University of Cluj Napocarespectively.Many thanksto Lorraine McEwan and the supportstaff of last but not least,to my family for all their moral the Departmentof Archaeologyin Glasgow-, supportand patience. The financial supportwhich madethis studypossiblewas provided by the University of Glasgow, Research Scholarship,and by the OverseasResearch through its 2001 Postgraduate StudentAwards Various fiinds from the GraduateSchoolof Arts and Humanities and from the Schoolof scheme. History and Archaeologyat GlasgowUniversity have also supportedvisits to siteson the groundand to relevantmuseumsand libraries in Cluj-Napoca,Deva and Alba lulia, and productionof for my thesis.The Derrick Riley Bursary for aerial archaeology photographicillustrations necessary supportedthe acquisitionof Coronasatellite imageryusedin this study. IoanaAdina Oltcan May 2004, Glasgow

Dedicated to thoselong summer nights at Sar7nizegetusa

List of illustrations

1.1 Romanremains on the 1870-1875 Austrian cadastralmap of Transylvania:the auxiliary fort at (sections183 and 23 1; Copyright the Austrian Micia; the colonia Sartnizagetusa and surroundings StateArchives, Vienna). (section232) and of 1.2 Remainsof the Romanroad in Tara HateguluibetweenUnciuc and Subcetate the Romanroad along the Mures from the river crossingnearGelmar, towards Sibot (Copyright the Austrian StateArchives, Vienna). from Iron the 1.3 Wpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa the the east village with modem view of -general Gatesof Transylvaniain the background forum. 1.4 Wpia Traiana Sartnizegetusa -the 1.5 Apulum -general view and detail of the easternenclosure(wall and rampart) visible as cropmark 1.6 MappedRomanbuildings from cropmarkevidencein the colonia and the municipium at Apulum 1.7 Low-altitude aerial photographof a Romanbuilding (as a negativecropmark) somewhere north of Alba Iulia by V. Barbuta 1.8 Flight track logs in the study areasince 1998 1.9 Map of Dacia and its neighbours 1.10Generalview of the GradisteaMuncelului hill, the site of the Daciancapital, Sannizegetusa Regia 2.1 Map of the main topographicalunits and the location of modem settlements mentionedin text 2.2 River meanders on Mures and Strei valleys at the Mures-Streiconfluencenear Simeria and near Calan 2.3 Aerial photographof areascoveredby industrial refuseat Hunedoaraand near Deva 2.4 Water reservoirsin Tara Hategului 2.5 Extensivemodem drainagesystemin Tara Hategului eastof Sarmizegetusa 4.1 Dacianhouseplans in upland settlement 4.2 Man-madeterracesin the GradisteaMuncelului area,probably late Iron Age in date 4.3 Aerial photographof the village of sunkenhousesandpits at Vintu de Jos 4.4 Site plan: Multi-prehistoric village at Vintu de Jos 4.5 Plan of the Dacian hillfort at Cigmauoverlain on a DTM of the area 4.6 Aerial photographof the hillfort at Costesti-Cetatuie 4.7 Aerial photographof the hillfort at Costesti-Blidaru Regia 4.8 Aerial photographof the area sacra at Sarmizegetusa 4.9 Aerial photographof the hillfort and tumuli at Cugir by 4.10 Aerial photographshowingthe remainsof the fortified site at Bretea Muresanadestroyed modem quarrying 4.11 Aerial photographof the multi-period settlementat Simeria 4.12 Aerial photographof the hillfort on the Sampetruhill, Hunedoara;the large enclosuredatesin the Hallstatt period, but a smaller circular enclosureis visible towards its edge,perhapsrelatedto the Dacian occupationof the site attested by artefactdiscovery 4.13 Aerial photographof the late Dacianinfant cemeteryexcavationat Hunedoaranearbythe medievalcastle 4.14 Aerial photographof the citadel hill at Deva 4.15 Quarry on Bejan hill nearbyDeva 4.16 Magura Calanului quarry 4.17 Distribution of Daciansettlement 4.18 Distribution of pre-Romansettlementin relation to topographyand current landuse;settlement buffers at 2 kilometres 4.19 Distribution of Dacianhoardsin relation to settlementlocations;settlementbuffers at 2 kilometres

4.20 Prc-Romanindustrial activity 4.21 Distribution of pre-Romanspiritual activity 5.1 Plan of the Aiudul de Susvilla houseshowingdifferencesin walls width and a possible interpretationof internal spacedivision 5.2 Non-villa building at Alba lulia 5.3 Multiple buildings of the Romanvilla at Oardarevealedas negativecropmarksin cereals 5.4 Plan of the Romanvilla at Oarda 5.5 Geophysicalsurveyingresults from Seusa and from a secondvilla site at Oarda(courtesyof Dr. Ian Haynes) 5.6 Generalview of the site of Romanvilla adjacentto the pit and sunkenhousevillage eastof Vintu de Jos 5.7 Romanteguldeand prehistoricpottery from the site 5.8 Site plan: Romanvilla nearbythe prehistoricvillage eastof Vintu de Jos 5.9 Multiple buildings visible as cropmarksundermodem cultivation at Vintu de Jos indicating a possiblevilla or village 5.10 probableRomanvilla or village at Vintu de Joson the southernbank of the river Mures (map) 5.11 Romanand medievalmaterial collected from the site of possibleRomanvilla or village at Vintu de Jos 5.12 Strei villa and early medieval church 5.13 Villa site at Sibot partially revealedas negativecropmarksbecause of cultivation in long narrow different crops,someof them not influencedin their growth by the archaeologicalfeatures of strips underneath 5.14 Site plan of the Romanvilla at Sibot on the northernbank of the river Mures 5.15 Probablebuilding of Romandatenearthe Romanroad line at Sebes 5.16 Site plan: PossibleRomanbuilding alongsideroad line 5.17 Building of a probableRomanvilla at Hobita visible in pasture 5.18 Site plan: ProbableRomanvilla at Hobita 5.19 A second possibleexampleof villa at Hobita 5.20 Plan of possiblevilla eastof Hobita on Sucioni hill 5.21 Generalview over Tara Hategului from Hobita villa (fig. 5.17) and millstones coming from the secondsite (fig. 5.19) 5.22 Possiblevilla building visible under grasscoverageat Salasude Sus 5.23 Site plan of the possiblevilla at Salasude Sus 5.24 Plansof villa complexesand buildings in Dacia 5.25 Aiud-Cetatuie mound in the Mures valley settledat multiple momentsthroughouttime; in the Romanperiod a homestead or villa was locatedat the easternend 5.26 Distribution of Romanvillas and individual homesteads 5.27 Tracesof quarrying and associated settlementat Cozia of probableRomandate; the circular in late date be Prehistoric structurecould 5.28 Extensiveremainsof gold quarrying activity since Roman(possibly Dacian) time at Pianude Sus b7pia 5.29 Limestonequarry of probableRomandateto the west of Sannizegetusa 5.30 Romanandesitequarry at Uroi (possiblePetris) in the Mures valley 5.31 Excavatedareaof the military vicus at Micia -thermae and amphitheatre 5.32 Partsof the north-eastemareaof the vicus at Micia revealedas cropmarksin successive strip fields 5.33Micia: domesticbuildings to the west of the fort 5.34Micia: buried buildings and roadsin the southernsectorof the vicus 5.35 Site plan: Vetel-Micia Romanmilitary vicus 5.36 Cigmau-general view of the auxiliary fort and of the central part of the Wcusshowingbuildings and internal roads;in the foreground(centre)the triple ditch and rampart enclosuresystemof the preRomanhillfort are still visible partially extant 5.37 Cigrnau-view of the road leading from the main core of the vicus eastwards, to Geoagiuand Gelmar, faint tracesof buildings inside the vicusalong the road and elsewhereare also visible Romanauxiliary fort and military vicus 5.38 Site plan: Cigmau-Germisara,
2

(in ArcView GIS) 5.39 Layout and terrain model of the fort and military vicus at Cigrnau-Germisara location 3-dimensional fort factor terrain height the the model of of and military vicus exaggerated and at Razboieni(in AirPhoto) 5.40 Razboieni-vicus buildings and roadsto the north of the fort 5.41 Razboieni-vicus buildings and roadsto the north-eastof the fort 5.42 Razboieni-vicus buildings androadsto the south of the fbrt towardsthe river 5.43 Site plan: RazboieniRomanfort and military vicus in the context of Romansites 5.44 Distribution of aggregated settlement 5.45 PossibleIdIns in the vicus at Mcia 5.46 Romanspolia in the wall of the early medievalchurchat Densusand a funeraryaltar re-usedas a

insidethechurch pilaster industry 5.47Roman 5.48Roman terrestrial andriverinetransport network in relationto roads 5.49Distribution construction materials of Roman

landscape 5.50 Romanarchaeological at Apulum 5.51 Roadssystemas possibleindication of centuriationsouth ofApulum, eastof Vintu. de Jos 5.52 Calan-Bai(Aquae)Romanstonepool nearbymodem installations 5.53 GennisaraRomanspaand ritual complex nearmodempools at Geoagiu-Bai 5.54 Romansub-urbanvilla at Sarmizegetusa 5.55 Distribution of Romanspiritual activity 6.1 Comparativediagramshowing the settlementtype and hierarchyin the late Iron Age and the Romanperiods 6.2 Distribution of Daco-Romansettlement 6.3 Comparativedistribution of Dacian and Romansettlements 6.4 Distribution of military sites and materials

Chapter 1: Background, limitations, aims, approaches and methods

1. The current state of research on rural life in Roman Dacia: The particularity of RomanDacia is that its rathershort life within the empire coversthe 2d andmost P Principate both it Roman AD. Therefore, the the experienced the covers period when century of the peakof its power, as well as the onsetof decay.Createdby Trajan, in the ageof the greatest P in later it being the centuryAD territorial extentand power of the empire, endedup abandoned infighting its boundaries. The reasons failure because to the the within control empireand of political for the conquest were both strategicand political. By the end of the V centuryAD the empirehad to conquestand further organisationof new provinces.The period coveringthe refined its approach P imperial Roman 2nd the and early centuriesAD is generally accepted of rule as most characteristic Consequently, and, therefore,servesas a model in various comparisons. studyingthe implementation and impact of Romanadministrationwithin new territories, as exemplified by Dacia, gives a unique opportunityto reveal the patternof conquestat the height of Rome's power. One of the greatexpressions Of Romanpower in the conquered territories is the impact on the natural The currentorthodoxy concerningthe impact of Romanoccupationon Dacia, and cultural landscape. the implementationof Romanrule and developmentof the provincial landscape, could be in four main points that seemto havebeengenerallyaccepted. Firstly, the Roman surnmarised literary dramatic involving Several is event, sources as a massivecolonisation. conquest seen Dio describethe process,amongwhich CassiusDio and Eutropiusseemto give most details. Cassius 4, dwda 'PC0, (L XVHI 14,4) refers to Trajan's policy of colonisation: " Kai o'brcoC Ua! (0V 'WrIK00C v vrq- Tpaiavbqmr0moev " C'In this way Dacia becamesubjectto the Kai ;r6Aczc eyevero, Romans,and Trajan foundedcities there"). Later Eutropius(VIII 6,2) wrote, concerningHadrian's de his "Idem Daciafacere beginning Trajan's the of reign: at conatumamici conquests policy on deterrueruntne multi civesRomani barbaris traderenturpropterea quia Traianusvicta Dacia ex toto hominum Romano infinitas transtulerat ad agros et urbe-s orbe colendas,Dacia enim eo copias " (he wantedto do the samein Dacia but his friends diuturno bello Decibali virisfuerat exhausta him not to deliver large numberof Romancitizens to the barbariansbecause persuaded after his numberof people from all aroundRoman victory againstDacia, Trajan transfereda considerable indeed depopulated its Dacia by the long war against lands to was occupy cities; world and Both examplessuggestthat the phenomenon Decebalus). was important enoughto come to the discussion (for historians the recent most of ancient seeRuscu2004) and, at leastat a attention is level, it to Secondly, the these evidence appears support stated archaeological records. superficial that the native Dacianpopulationwas moved from their hill forts and settledin the lower areas,
4

keep The Roman for to the under control. archaeological study of the major army easier which were Dacianhill forts seemsto indicatethat their violent destructionoccurredwithin the chronological it Moreover, 1993,15). is (Glodariu that there seems the no evidencethat any of contextof conquest that thesesitescontinuedto be occupiedduring the Romanperiod. Thirdly, it is generallyasserted the Romanpolicy of colonisation. was ratherbrutal, with the authoritiesdepriving the nativesof their for lands for town foundations,for colonistsand veteran's land holdings that established villa estates, however, Finally, it is 10). believedthat the 1968,5 (Protase imperial for army needsand estates during lived in harmony themselves the two centuriesof the and romanised colonists natives with Togetherthey constitutedthe population that continuedto setfletheselandsafter Romanoccupation. P from Dacia the centuryAD (seeProtase end of at the Romanadministrativeand military retreat 1980,228-252).The inconsistencyand internal contradictionswithin theseassumptions will be highlighted below. by I Kolendo (1994) statesthat the Romanprovincesalong the line of Danubewere all characterised be because in the these the could city appliedonly type ancient of civilisation, areas model of a rural in part. His conclusionis basedon a comparisonwith the urban development patternseenin the he Northern Africa Gaul. In the the to evolution of or area, of order make an analysisof provinces that provide him with information on the urban statusof settlements. usesmainly epigraphicsources Also, throughthe interpretationof the useof the natio (natione) for designatingthe origo of the personwithin the text of severalinscriptions from the Danubearea,he tries to explore the mentality behind thesepeoples'attitudes.Unfortunately, this results in his supportingargumentbeing based He, as entirely on the study of the urban contextand not on a study of rural sitesand the landscape. with many others,takesinto accountas falling into an urban categoryonly thosesiteswith municipal status,whethermunicipia or coloniae proven by the epigraphicsources, without any considerationof Also, eventhough he is awareof someof the factors themselves. the real function of the settlements that would have influencedthe numberof charteredsettlements within a province, suchas the imperial inae, or the natureof the pre-Romancultural estates, or ciWtates pereg? of presence background,he fails to address the issueswithin a broaderlandscape context and producea his judgements As based the quantitative settlement a result, analysis of pattern. on an conclusion his interpretations basis have seemto pushthe evidenceto extremes. and some of a realistic cannot it is, in my opinion, symptomaticof the I have chosento begin with this particular study because for in in Romania has been kind of archaeological that sometime now. In order to vogue study I will try to analysethe way rural life in RomanDacia justify the approachtaken in my own research, in general,hasbeenapproached in particular,as well as provincial archaeology so far. Despitethe researchon rural settlementin RomanDacia so efforts madeduring the 20th century,archaeological low far hasbeenapproached hastendedto a priority. Research with and only sporadically concentrate on military and urban sites,the latter restrictedpredominantlyto siteswith proven Thus, (see a significant number of sitesthat, as far as we are above). or colonial municipal status been have did somehowneglected.This categorywould cover status not achieve municipal aware, least having Wacher function (e. Burnham that at a semi-urban as and are accepted elsewhere g. sites 1990).The first decades of the 2CPcentury saw the beginning of considerations of rural settlements

in Manerau them that time, many of still sites, extant villa at such as at several excavations with 1912,Apahidaor Garbouin 1913(seeMitrofan 1973,127-150,with full bibliography for the first More these attentionwas given to the rural sitesafter the World excavations). early publication of linked to the agendaof the communistregime. War II thoughfor different, this time political, reasons The Romanswere depictedasthe imperialist robbersof Dacian land whosepreviousoccupants becomeservants of the Romancolonists.Also, attention focusedon the native on the estates (detailed later in cc the the this chapter). than elite survival of native on working masses" rather belonging to them (eg. Obreja, Soporude Excavationswere conductedon sitesof vici or cemeteries Protase 1980,38-85 bibliography-, Protase 1998; Husar Campie,Bratei, Cristesti,Micasasa. with -see such as Hobita, and Man 1998,Mitrofan 1999).Similarly, severalvilla sites were also researched, Orlea,Aiud, Cincis, Chinteni (Mitrofan 1973,1974 and 1976;Floca 1953;Popa Deva, Santamaria 1972;Winkler et aL 1968;Floca and Valea, 1965;Alicu 1994and 1998). Efforts havebeenmadeto recordall archaeological sites within the territory, improving the older data with new information obtainedthrough field walking. Unfortunately, an ambitiousproject to decades Romania archaeological ago was never started a general gazetteer was of which produce in it though some cases of several resultedin the publication of regional gazetteers completed, in For most of the discoveries,however,the information is scattered areas. countiesor geographical studiesat variouslevels of comprehensiveness published in various Romanianarchaeological Tudor's book 'Orase, targuil si sate in Dacia Romana' periodicals.At the time of its appearance, (1968) was the largestcollection of publishedinformation on Romansettlements in Dacia that specialistscould rely upon, despiteits bad reviews (Daicoviciu, 1969).But now after more than 30 yearsthe information needsto be updated,and the sameappliesto the TabulaImperii Romani (L 34BudapestandL 35-Bucharest) whoseinformation continuesto be usedby the editorsof historical atlases(suchasTalbert et al. 2000). In 2000, the Institut de Memorie Culturala,Bucharest(clMeC), sitesof Romania of the archaeological startedanotherambitiousproject to createa large database on the internetto scholarsinternationally,through a EuropeanUnion fundedproject accessible (http://archweb. cimec. ro/ -last visited 08.05.2004). The antiquitiesof RomanDacia have attractedinterestsince the Renaissance, andit is the reportsof antiquariesand scholars,along with early mappingprojects (seeFigures 1.1- 1.2),that constitutethe Indeed, degree to the testimony of archaeological sites. of preservation up to the 20' century main thesewere still visible on the ground,despitesporadicor sometimesextensivedamagesuchas stone beginning hundred later, burning. But the at a years only robbing or marble of the 2 1" century,the landscape The two World Wars of the previous century resultedin great is very much changed. in damageto archaeological in Europe. Romania Moreover, successive the of as rest sites political leadershipmovements thereaftergenerated changes within the property systemand,therefore,in allotment systems and ploughing patterns.Modem development,and especiallythe deliberatepolicy of heavy industrialisationof the country mainly after the SecondWorld War, alsoproducedgreat (Oltean2002,224). The transformationof the agricultural processinto a disruption in landscape in 1949 in 1962, and ended started system, which was basedon the creationof new communist by collectively exploited groups of individuals (CAP) or the state(IAS) and agricultural units owned

fact, involved 86). In 1970,3 this (Constantinescu. on the one handthe recognised et al. expropriation (The Nationalisation law by larger Act of II of the Main ProductionResources of private estates June 1948),and on the other the 'persuasion'of the peasants to gathertheir propertiesinto CAPs.As Within the 'planned economy' system,intensive a result new field boundarieswere established. exploitation replacedthe traditional extensiveapproachto agricultural production, which meantthat arablecultivation covered63% of the surfaceof Romania(Constantinescu et aL 1970,410) andthat deepploughing techniques, de-forestation, into arable re-forestations and the conversionof marshes lands were all taking place. On the other hand,the main focus of the 'planned economy' was the industrialisationof the countryside,with a specialpreferencefor heavy or chemical accelerated in the rate of developmentfrom only 4% in 1938to industrieswhich registereda dramaticincrease 13.4%since 1960(Constantinescu et aL 1970,410). Massive industrial installationssuchas (seechapter2 and Hunedoara,Calan,Mintia, Orastieand OcnaMures emergedin the landscape figure 2.3). Artificial lakescoveredmodemsettlements sites.The biggest as well as archaeological Gates Iron I is the on the Danube,but within my researchareathereare similar examplesat example Cincis (see Floca at scale smaller a and Valea 1965)Ostrov and Hateg (Popa 1989;seefigure 2.4). The road, gasand electricity networksalso developedon a large scale.All thesecombinedfactors have impactedon the visibility of siteson the groundor even destroyedthem completely.Now Romaniais going througha new phaseof massivedevelopmentespeciallyin transportfacilities, with the constructionof motorwaysand the development of the current road network, and industrial in the exploitation. The most famousexampleof the latter is the gold exploitation concessions Apuseni Mountainsthat will completelyremoveseveralarchaeologicalsitesof variousdates, including the Romansmall town and gold minesat Alburnus Maior (modemRosiaMontana). Therefore,a study of the settlementpatternsof RomanDacia from a landscape perspectiveis now requiredbeforemodemdevelopmenthasan irreversibleaffect on both the natural andhistorical landscape of the country.

2. Biasesand limitations of current research: hasbeenfocusedmainly on military and urban sites,all the rest havebeen Becauseresearch brief for the attentiongiven to rural life particularly in the 1960's. seriouslyneglected, evenallowing The limited numberof specialistsand the funds availablehave beenconcentrated on the more promising and spectacular sites,which havegenerallynot included rural sites (Alicu 1998,127-128). As a result there arenumerousbiasesthat apply not only to the quantity, but mainly to the quality of current information.Therefore,sinceonebias canbe a direct consequence of another,the end result is that the theoriesgenerated from the datacannotbe other than ill-founded.

2.1. The influence of histoty andpolifics on archaeological research. First of all, I shall considerthe mannerin which archaeologicalevidenceis currently perceivedand has in been Romania. Archaeological historical theories research subservientto established accepted This is deeply by literary attitude sources. rooted in conceptsof the pastheld by modem generated

The ultimate goal of archaeological individuals, and especiallyprofessionalscholars. researchis, of historical Unfortunately,the visible directed towards evolutionsand phenomena. explaining course, tendencyover the pastcenturyhasbeento rely primarily on the existing literary sources without taking into consideration their inherentbiaseswhoseeffect could potentially be reducedby reference to the totality of the evidence. The fact that archaeological evidencehasbeenconsidered only when it supportedthe historians' arguments, ratherthan attemptingto build up a theory basedalso on the archaeological evidence,is a generalproblemin the study of Roman Empire. A greatdangerin such the conclusions.Consequently, the most a situation is that the literary sources alonetend to generate this issue. studieshave tried to address recent comprehensive In Dacia this situationmight be explainedsometimes by the paucity of archaeological information, but unfortunately,evenwhere that evidenceis available,other factors distort its considerationand There is nothing new in the recognition of the importancethat historical resulting the conclusions. modelshavefor political discoursein general,but for a long time in Romaniahistory itself was to politics. As a result varioussubjectsof archaeologicalresearch entirely subordinated were and fundedonly when they were seento servethe political fashion of the moment. This approached in Romaniaespeciallyafter the SecondWorld War, when politics becamemore visible was attitude intrusively and, indeed,aggressivelyinvolved in different aspectsof researchaswith life in general. Above all, the way of thinking and writing history had to be Marxist (basedon the theory of historical materialism),and no other approachwas perceivedas 'suitable'. Ever since 1947,when the communistrepublic was formed, and especiallyin the 1950sand 1960s-during the leadershipof Gh.Gheorgiu-Dej-,the key role of historical research was to feed the discourseof communist theoriesregardingthe social classes'antagonisms and the rejection of westernimperialism. In this j or Romansites,including Wpia Traidna Sannizegetusa, context research at the ma the provincial to be financed,and both funds and personnelwere re-directedto undertakeresearch capital, ceased of pre-Roman,Romanor post-Romandate.On the one handsucha decision on native settlements had a positive value, given the fact that it determinedthe re-direction of research towardssitesthat before, or not adequately, had not beenapproached But on and addressed a bias of previousresearch. had to fit the generaltheory of the oppression the other the conclusionsof the research experienced by the native masses under the imperialist occupation.This idea, bom in the middle of the industrial by history through archaeological testimoniesand prove not just that it era, had to be sustained existed for a long the time, but alsothat social antagonisms existedtoo. This is the momentwhen the Romanconquestand occupationof Dacia was described, at least in part, as a negativeeventboth in relation to the treatmentapplied to the natives,but also because of the introduction into the conqueredterritory of a socio-economic systembasedon slavesand the exploitation of the lower classes(Constantinescu el al 1970,53). According to thesescholars,who were projecting ideas usually connected with the conceptof modemnationsinto the context of an ancientsociety,the natives lost their liberty/sovereigntyas a peopleand their propertiesin favour of their Roman by M. Macrea(1969,457) is that "the Romanconquestbrought The opinion expressed conquerors. but also an entire cortegeof sufferance, for Dacia notjust economic,social and cultural progress, lowest for the and strata,all inherentto an antagonistic slaves pillage and unmerciful exploitation Similarly, (my the authorsof 'Inscriptiile Daciei translation). based on slaveexploitation" society
S

Romane' (Russuet aL 1975,22) wrote in their historical introduction: "Ibe Romanoccupation brought[ ] real progressin modesof organisation, material and spiritual culture, technologyand ... it but life; in the was at the sametime, a regime of pillage and rough of way production, and of the societyand especiallyof the masses of native exploitation of the lower, working classes in their own country" (my translation). inhabitants expropriated subjugated andworkers, The other main political and historical themewasthe concernto producehistorical arguments to became in Transylvania Romania December 1918. the through a part of which support political act This themeis recurrentbefore and after 1918,and is the subjectof a long-term debatein Romanian (the Romanian is historiography Hungarian point of view unresolved mainly remains which and is Hungarian 1963, in Daicoviciu thesis the presented most recently by while el al., summarised Vikony 2000). During the communistyearsthe subjectwas particularly in fashion in the 1970sin Romaniagaineda strong 1980s,during the rule of N. Ceausescu, when communistpropaganda historians Romanian Within this the of was to contextoneof main concerns nationalist message. for the rapid and durableromanisationof the nativesin Dacia as major bring forward arguments developed This during in 'theory Dacian-Roman thesis the the context was of element of continuity'. the past 3 centuriesmainly as a response to the correspondingHungarianpropaganda which attempts to sustainits political position towardsTransylvaniaand tries to prove on a scientific basisthat this territory was devoid Of any population on the arrival of the Hungariantribes. It is arguedthat the Romaniansemergedin the region througha massivemovementof population from southof the Danubelater on, because AD 10 1102 the Dacianshad disappeared the of and AD wars as a result of 105-106and the Romanshad withdrawn all the population in the Yd centuryAD. Therefore, Romanianscholarsfocusedon disproving this thesis,bringing foward argumentsto supportthe romanisationof the native Dacians; under Romanrule and the continuity of life in Transylvaniafrom prehistory to the Middle Age. The currently accepted theorieson the Romanconquestand rule of Dacia and most of all, on the I flagrant had be in fitted in that to contradictions accordingly, spite of several process, romanisation briefly here.The archaeological evidenceso far atteststhe presence of colonising wish to address funerary, if in But in both the and military sites urban contexts. epigraphic urban and rural elements indicate large to types quite population with an origin other than a seems of evidence and other indigenous(seealso Ciongradi 2004 a andb), the current level of archaeologicaldata for the rural impossible it Dacia Roman at this point to asserta similar percentage makes of colonised areasof hill forts Dacian destruction The the and the movementof the populationhasbeen there. of elements acceptedwith little if any surprise,given the hugeeffort of the Romansto conquerthesesites.But on a closer examination,currenttheorieson the natureof the conquestand the treatmentappliedto the that the natives lived on the tops of the nativesare in blatant contradiction.One of them suggests mountainsand were forced to settlethe fertile lowlands,while anotherstatesthat the Romanscame forced fertile for lands their took the the natives to move away or work on own properties and and their propertiesas cheaplabour. Unfortunately,it is often forgotten that the sole reasonfor the is forts hill the as elite sitesand the purposeof their location is strategicand statusof existence defeat introduction Accordingly, the the military and after of Romanrule, suchsitesno related.
9

longer had a reasonto exist. The extrapolationof this model of hill fort destructionto the entirety of this interpretationto an unsubstantiated the Dacian settlement extreme,but patternnot only pushes decision Romans. idea The the been the have that the policy on part of a questionable also would Romancolonistsdeprivedall the nativesof their landsdoesnot sit well with the benefits of a rapid between inhabitants durable the through and peaceful relationships close all of the and romanisation If true, the resulting attitude of the civilians or soldiers. or colonists, new province,whether natives to acculturation,rather than Dacianstowardstheir conquerorsis likely to havebeenresistance factors into for does take It other cultural consideration or economic, not receptiveness. certainly example- which must have influencedattitudesand the whole processneedsa more refined and detailed interpretation. Therefore,it is no surprisethat the theory hasbeenchallengedin the 1990snot just by the Hungarian is here It intention but by Romanian not my archaeologists. some scholars, especially colleagues, also to analysethis polemic in more detail, but to show that it hasinfluenced the perceptionevenof the in Dacia in Roman it has distorted terms of the the and of end view evidence general existing conquest,colonisation,administrationand, indeed,romanisation.The eventualreaction of some Romanianarchaeologists to this theory is an attemptto evaluatethe existing archaeologicalevidence that might offer a different picture than the one at its true value, without dismissingthe elements desiredby political discourse.It would be wrong to acceptany form of political interferencein either or historical practice any longer.The political attemptsto influenceinterpretationsof archaeological the past usuallyreflect a failure to find solutionsto presentissues(a distractingfactor from real Moreover, adding a supplementary bias to thosethat currently apply to political issues). archaeological researchwould distort our perceptionof the past even more.

2.1 Reflability of and accessto infomation. Reliable evidenceis surprisingly limited. This statement might soundodd given the amountof data information for for far Roman Dacia, but the the provides only part most unfortunately recordedso discoveries. Many efforts have beenmadeto identify and the generallocation of archaeological in 20'h in Transylvania the century sites of and somecases archaeological research systematically Both field TIR L-34 through and at various scales. walking excavations especially earlier, even (Budapest)andTIR L-3 5 (Bucharest),along with D. Tudor's book (1968) and the severalcounty Unfortunately, to the vast majority of of sites. significant number a refer archaeological gazetteers, thesesiteshavesomewhatstereotypicaldescriptions, most of the time mentioning ceramic fragments,sometimesassociated with constructionmaterials.In fact, thesestereotypes relateto the methodsof collection, interpretationand, indeed,evaluationof the data for the whole territory. There is still a lack of systematiccoverageof the territory and no unitary method of recording.Only some 10% of reportedsiteshavebeenthe subjectof more extensiveexcavationprojects.The remaining 90% arejust indicatedby finds (artefactsor building materialsscatteredon the ground surface). There are no site plans availablefor them and,therefore,their size and significancehasnot beenfully failure be to because techniques issue This apply modem of a of site will prospection. appreciated in more detail later on in this chapter,but it is responsiblealso for the fact that seveml discussed
10

landscape of a are still overlooked. Potentially this could be the characteristic of sites categories fact Iron for Age, or indeedRoman,land-usesystemshavebeen instance, for the that no explanation, found in Dacia. But eventhe information that is availableis extremelydifficult to considerand evaluateas a whole, in the absence national systemof record of archaeologicalsites.Dealing with a type of an accessible of information that is, by its nature,accumulated over a long period of time, naturally brings problemsof storageand accessibilityof data.In Romania,the systemof publication of the resultsis TIR L-34 and L-35, and Tudor (1968) are well out of date.More not very helpfid in terms of access. recent discoveriesare accessed primarily throughsporadic,random publication in various Romanian in a few casesin more generalstudies,which periodicals.The material might havebeenaddressed aim to collect the datadiscoveredover a wider area,usually in terms of historical geography, chronologyor specific categoriesof sites(e.g. Wollmann 1996for mining and quarrying; Popa 1989 for Tara Hategului).There are also few cases (e.g. Alba gazetteers of modem regional archaeological County -Moga and Ciugudean1995). There are no regularly updatedarchaeological databases. The recent efforts to completea general database (by cIMeC important archaeological and the value of suchaction above) are extremely -see hasbeenproved alreadyby the availability of information on-line underthe format of a searchable from excavations database from the years 1983-1997,1999and 2000. The useof the Internet environmentfor information, as well as the availability of digital datato supportcomputerised quantitativeand settlement pattern analysis,will provide a valuable supportfor future research. Unfortunately, eventhis latest attemptto preservearchaeologicalinformation doesnot include the locationsof the sites,continuingto use location descriptionsby place-names precisegeographical (seebelow). which havealreadyproved to be inadequate

2.3. Site location. The experience of the last 100years showsthe importanceof the accuratetransmissionof information in the contextof successive in archaeologicalmethodologicalrequirements changes or The failure to locatearchaeological even in the territorial administrationsystemand place-names. sites by their geographical co-ordinatesand relianceon place-names producessignificant difficulties in attemptingto locatesomesitesthat havebeenpreviously reported.This occursespeciallywith place namesof very local significancewithin the areaof a particular village, for example,which are not in useanymore,nor traceablethrough archivemapsor documents.As a direct consequence of this failure to locatearchaeologicalsitesprecisely,someof them are very impreciselylocatedwhen referredto by variousauthors. This confusionpersistsevenin the most recentpublications.For example,N. Gudeain his study on the Romanmilitary campsin Dacia (1997,101-2) locatesthe Roman fort of Cigmau (Germisara) and its civilian settlementapproximatelyone kilometre to the N of its true position (Hansonand Oltean 2002,114). The processof alterationof information is visible in the caseof D. Benea'sarticle (2000). Acknowledging Dacia from the difficulty of access to information (see on military vici
II

data for the to available tried civilian settlements all assemble outsideRomanauxiliary above),she forts in Dacia,and thus producea useful tool for both Romanianand internationalarchaeologists. Shemakesuse,amongstothers,of the publishedinformation from the rescueexcavations at Vetel (Micia) (Marghitan 1970).Unfortunately, the location of the building complexesin questionis East least 50 Such by 250 to the to the and at metres north. a mistake metres misplaced some highlights the difficulty of assemblingdata,especiallyfor the sites where an overall site plan hasyet to support mapsof larger territories necessary not beenproduced.As a result accuratearchaeological largely landscape missing. analysis are pattern and settlement studies

2.4. The quality ofexcavation methodology.

The excavationmethodsappliedto the Romansitesof Dacia over the last centuryhave varied.As distinctive features by Condurachi Daicoviciu "after the the of and war second world shown Romanianarchaeological methodwere the absolutepriority it gaveto stratigraphyand its preference for the exhaustive excavationof large sitesto the maximum extentthat the circumstances permitted" (1971,20). Unfortunatelytheseprinciples were not applied to Romansitesuntil much later. This fact is well illustratedby the list that they give of siteswhere modem methodshad beenappliedby the date of their publication, which containsnot a single Romanexample,and canbe further confirmed by consultingother excavationreports. Thus, for someof the excavations,especiallyof villa sites,the publishedresultsgive little indication This is most unusual,especiallysincerepairsOrchanges of constructionphases. of plan within buildings, or evenchanges of use of buildings, are frequentlyrecordedin civilian archaeological At Hobita, despitethe fact that is so far the only exampleof a villa site to have contextselsewhere. defined, there is no indication of any the whole enclosed areadelimited and its internal arrangements phasesof constructionand repair (Floca 1953). Publishedexcavationreportsrarely expressany complexes.In the caseof at of archaeological concernabouttheir failure to identify earlier phases by Marghitan at Micia some30 least 2 civilian buildings (no. I and no. 3) in the vicus excavated years ago (1970), earlier timber phaseswere revealedby excavation.Despitethe fact that therewere other indications,suchas the existenceof artefacts,including constructionmaterials(tiles), within the filling layersunderthe floors, thesediscoveriesoccurredonly incidentally while the excavators foundations level deepest the to the trying of stone wall when the earlier construction reach were trenchesfor the timber walls intersectedtheir trenches.However,the excavatorsmadeno attemptto to considervariations of plan or internal space establishthe extentand layout of thesefeatures, division from one phaseto another,or to makea study of the quantitative and qualitative or stylistic of finds. Excavationssuchas thesehave, therefore,produced evolution of the different categories incompletesite planswherechronologicaldevelopments are now impossibleto pursue.Similarly, in transformationsor repairs,theseare complexeswherethe stonephasewent through successive apparentneitherin the reports,nor site plans if available.This issuewill be consideredin more depth later, when dealingwith specific classes of sites,but it is worth stating for the momentthat in such internal is interpretation the arrangements the of almost impossibleto establishaccurately. cases
12

2.5. The limited application of archaeologicalprospection methods. According to Bewley and Raczkowski,"Excavation is still synonymouswith archaeologyin many has been in Romaniauntil very recently.It is true (2002b, 3) the that very much case countries" and that excavationcan give the most preciseand detailedinformation about archaeological sites,but not This is not just due to the high costsinvolved or the amountsof time every site canbe excavated. to completean excavation.Excavationis, by its nature,an invasive methodof research necessary The areasaffectedby excavationwill no longer the site itself in the process. which damages evolve over time, and evenwhat is representan intact testimonyof the past.Excavationstandards insufficient first be be technically to this considered rate, could perceivedat moment or inappropriate heritageconservationis focusedon nonin future. Therefore,the modem approachto archaeological invasive methodsof research, sitestend to be excavatedonly when they are and most archaeological by development. Within this context,modemmethodsof archaeological prospection endangered both for understanding have developedas a necessity, sites,but also and monitoring archaeological for prior evaluationof the site and its potential as accuratelyas possible.But perhapsthe major contribution of modemmethodsof prospection,and especiallyof aerial photography,is the possibility of providing better understanding and indicating the perspective, of sitesfrom a landscape interactedwith the naturallandscape way that humansettlements and with eachother. Traditional field walking is the only methodof archaeological has been which applied prospection historically in the studyof RomanDacia (seeabove). Unfortunately, in its applicationno attention hasbeengiven to the unitary planning of the field coverage,or to systematicdatacollection and analysis.Only very recentlyhasthe Apulurn Hinterland Project internationalteamstartedsystematic field walking in the vicinity of Alba lulia in collaborationwith the University of Alba Iulia (information Dr. Ian Haynes).But even at its best,field walking alone can give only limited cluesas to the natureof the site. What can make the differenceis understanding the site's full extent and (farm) or a nucleated morphology, allowing the differentiation betweenan individual homestead for In internal individual layout homesteads, buildings, the the the example. case of of settlement, their individual plan, or the building materialsusedcan distinguishbetweena villa site and a native farm. Field walking alonecan locate a site, provide someindication of its extentand, from interpretationof finds, evaluateits chronologyor offer suppositionsabout its nature.It doesnot provide a clear idea of the morphologyand layout of the site, which can be known only from the interpretationof aerial photographs or geophysicaldata. Geophysicalsurveyhasonly recently startedto be appliedto Dacia. The usual lack of funds,trained specialistsor surveyingequipmentare probably the main reasonsfor this, as for aerial archaeology (seebelow). As in the caseof excavations, the first attemptsat geophysicalsurveyhave focusedon urban and military sites.Someresultsfrom a geophysicalsurvey financed by The County Museumof History and Art of Zalau in 1996,which appliedmagnetometry and resistivity to a 2.2 hectareareato the southof the Romanfort at Porolissum,were recentlypublished (Scurtu 1997).The same more limited surveysat Cigmaufort (information from Dr. A. and Mr. E. specialisthasconducted At Apulum, geophysicalsurvey in the colonia and the municipium by Lockyear Pescaru). (information from Dr. 1.Haynesand Dr. A. Diaconescu, the Apulurn Project) hasrecently startedto
13

extendinto the territory aroundthe Romantown with surveysat villa sites at Seusa and Oardawithin the new frame of the Apulurn Hinterland Project.(seefigure 5.5). But geophysicalsurvey,whether resistivity or groundpenetratingradar, is by its naturelargely confinedto the utilising magnetometry, limits of individual sites.Despiteits recognised value in recording details of site layout, it offers only limited opportunitiesto evaluatethe site from a landscape perspectiveand considerother possible adjacentfeaturesthat might be related. The aerial view gives humanperceptiona broaderperspective. Archaeologicalsitescanbe is very poor, whether still visible to someextent recognisedevenwhen their degreeof preservation on the groundsurfaceor eventotally buried. Over the 60 yearsor more it hasbeenproved on that, given suitablesoil conditions,buried archaeologicalfeaturescanbe numerousoccasions recognisedfrom the air as crop marks (Wilson 2000,16-23, Bewley 2002). This hasmadeaerial extremelyvaluable,especiallyfor the identification of previously unknown reconnaissance features.Furthermore,a trainedinterpretercan acquireconsiderable information archaeological in both termsof its morphologyand its probabledate,through analogieswith similar a site, about by other methods(Wilson, 2000,65-67,84-87). Also, siteswhosechronologyhasbeenestablished the speedof coverage and consequently of analysisof even large territories is significantly higher than through field walking, or indeedgeophysical methods.Both thesecharacteristics make aerial photographythe preferredmethodof archaeological prospectionin Europe,especiallyfor landscape Theseadvantages havedeterminedthe initiation of programmes involving researchandmanagement. to acquirenew imageryand evaluationof available imagesfrom aerial aerial reconnaissance basis(see photographicarchivesin severalcountriesof Europeat national scaleand on permanent Bewley and Raczkowski,2002b,Fig. 1). Most recently, satellite photographic,multi- and hyperhave beenaddressed spectralimagery,or airbornescanningtechniques too. Therefore,modem survey of a given areafor its hidden archaeology should include at least the study of vertical or oblique aerial photographs, geophysicalsurveyand field walking. Probably the first aerial surveyand photographyof an archaeologicalsite in Romaniatook placeas took aerial photographsof the Romanfrontier wall in early as March 1918,when Carl Schuchhardt Dobrudja. Despitethe fact that thesephotographs remainedunpublisheduntil 1954(Crawford, 1954, 208 and plate VI), Schuchhardt usedthem to correcthis own publishedmap of the wall. Unfortunately, this remainedvery much the only exampleof its kind for a long time. The only aerial over the following decades were made for different reasons, photographicsurveyprogrammes whether military during the world wars and after, or civilian for mapping purpose.Accessto these aerial photographicarchivesfor archaeologists remainedlimited for a long time, though a startwas madein utilising them for archaeological purposes mainly on Romanmilitary sites(e.g. BogdanCataniciu.1981), but concentrating in most cases In on extant or known archaeologicalfeatures. Romaniathe whole processhasbeenconstrained by legal difficulties, lack of financial resources and in the interpretationof aerial photographs(seeBraasch2002; a shortageof specialistsexperienced Oltean 2002; Hansonand Oltean2002; Hansonand Oltean 2003). Until the last decade, Centraland EasternEuropewas thoughtnot to be sufficiently responsiveto crop mark formation because of the heavily alluvial topsoil that coversthe arableregionscombinedwith a less contrastingdeeper
14

1957,15 23). Moreover, (Bradford background the recognition of crop markswould and geological have beenmore difficult from archive vertical imagery.Apart from the variable quality of the is likely be data to their of more limited archaeological such scale, value because photographsand the imageswere obtainedoriginally for purposes other than archaeologyand the very specific features to archaeological many may not have beenin force. conditionsnecessary record There havebeena few attemptsto makeuseof aerial photographicinformation in archaeological studiesand in the occasional publication of sites,but without a clearly structuredmethodof the information available was insufficiently exploited approach.Unfortunately, in all of thesecases because with of the limited training and expertiseof thesepioneers.They were either archaeologists in mappingor photo-interpretation, or topographicand geographicphotovery little or no experience from Romanian A the interpreterswithout archaeological cartographic specialists group of expertise. institute of Bucharestbelongto the latter category.They published short articlesutilising principles (Satu Sanislau Mare) and Dersida identify to at sites possiblearchaeological of photo-interpretation Romania,or at Sarighiol de Deal, SatuNou and Isaccea. (Salaj) in north-western along the Danubein Romania,where they provide interpretationand mappingof the archaeological the south-eastern features(Rada,Cochinaand Manea 1989,Radaand Cochina *, Rada,Cochinaand Corcodel **). is Unfortunately, their archaeological images interpretation the vertical of not and evenphotographic they seemto focus on the identification of the always correct.Also, in someof the cases featuresobserved(which in most of the casesis hypothetical),ratherthan on the archaeological descriptionof more methodologicalissuesof archaeologicalsite recognition and generalprinciples by a systemof of photographicinterpretation.In the caseof the small Bronze Age site enclosed multiple ditchesandrampartsat Sanislau,for example,the interpretersfailed to recognisethe existenceof ditchesin front of the ramparts,as well as a fourth external ditch with its rampart(Rada, Cochina andManea 1989,203 and photo 1). However,their effort is still of value because of the produce sites and, in somecases, attemptto identify previously unknown archaeological interpretationsof featuresin the form of maps.In her study of the Romandefences of Dacia, I. Bogdan-Cataniciu publishedsomeexamplesof extantmilitary enclosuresvisible on existing archive (1981). But, as was the casewith the material publishedby Rada,Cochina vertical photographs Manea or Corcodel,the quality of the reproductions or in somecaseseven of the original interpretations for by is the the that the must rely part on most reader so poor provided photographs haveusedaerial photographs the author.Archaeologists sporadicallyto illustrate lectures(e.g. C. Craciun mentionedin Ardevan 1998,76), publicationsof sites (e.g. Alicu 1998,plate 3; Tamba 1997, plate 8) or as exhibition illustrations. Othershaveundertakenoccasionallimited flights for illustration from known the air purpose,such as G. Stefanin the SouthEast photographing sites in Hunedoara county,the latter using a helicopter as an aerial platform. of Romaniaor E. Pescaru, Less fortunateenthusiasts, suchas V. Barbutawere constrainedby lack of funds to make using kites as aerial platforms (figure 1-7),with some success photographs especiallyfor the identification of the temple of Liber Pater at, 4pulum(information Dr. A. Diaconescu). Becauseof restrictionson civilian air traffic in force during the Communist years,the inability to fund lack the and of relevant equipment,experience programmes, and expertiseto aerial reconnaissance
15

undertakesuchwork, theseefforts were no more than sporadic.However, in 1998the University of in the mid-Mures River valley and Tara Glasgow starteda programof systematicaerial reconnaissance by Prof W. S. Hanson,fundedby the Leverhulme Trust and subsequently Hategului undertaken by the in co-operationwith the National Museumof Transylvania British Academy.The work was undertaken in Cluj, the Museumof Dacianand RomanCivilizations in Deva and the University of Alba Iulia. The for the application of aerial reconnaissance in the purposeof the project was to establishthe parameters different environmental,soil and agricultural conditionspertaining in Romaniaand also to increase of the landscape of westernTransylvania,particularly understanding of the history and development from later prehistoryto the immediatepost-Roman period. The geographicalfocus of the project was South-Western Transylvania,particularly the middle and upper Mures valley and the plain of Hateg to Romanprovince of the south,which lies at the heart of both the Iron Age kingdom and the subsequent Dacia. This project hasestablished the first relational database of aerial archaeologicalsitesof different date and hasprovidedvaluableinformation for this thesis(seebelow). However,it is generally recognisedthat the bestresultsare obtainedthrougha combination of thesevariousmethodsof survey, and hopefully future financing will finally allow sucha programme.

3. Aims and approaches:landscape and romanisation. The relevanceof ancientlandscape studiesin finding the answerto general,theoreticalor evenmore focusedissuesof the ancientworld hasbeenbroadly recognised.Data interpretationhasalwayspresupposed an evaluationof the distribution of similar sites.But understanding of the generalpatterns or, indeed,unique featuresrevealedby the sitesmust be consideredfrom a broaderperspective. "Archaeological mapsof settlementdistribution can tell us much more than wherethe sitesare.They dynamicand largely can be readas summaries of a whole complexof ecologicalconsequences, predictable.Taking eachpoint as representing a vortex of social and economicactivities, it is readily apparenthow the cumulativeeffects of that activity over time can lead to more or lesspermanent environmentalchanges"(Delano-Smith 1996,174).The landscapesuffers a continuousevolution degradation. from be Someof it is an environmentalist of view, would regarded as a process which, causedby natural erosion,but the most of it is, in fact, due to human or animal activity. Amongst all in using the natural habitat. Moreover,humanshave species,humanshavebeenthe most successful landscape, its habitat the to that using resources and transforming it accordingto their create adapted landscape bearsthe marks of the humansthat haveinhabited From the this necessities. point of view, it through time, reflecting their needsand way of life, or their level of technologicalknowledge. Apart from active ecologicaldestructionleadingto more or less permanentenvironmentalchanges is able causedby sites occupiedby man (Delano-Smith1996,167-8), the developmentof landscapes to tell a different kind of story, that of the cultural evolution of human communitiesthroughtime. The natural environmenthasbrought into the equationfactors such as topographyand climate, the for life (either beneath the earthor on its surface,as local flora and fauna) availability of resources locations. indeed, defensive To this, humanshave addedtheir own the of particular potential or, knowledge, social regulations,politics, which leading mentality, needsand technologicalresources,
16

has impactedon the use,and therefore,re-shapingof the landscape. landscape itself the The approaches accepting are above as an objective reality transformed presented by the subjectivity of man.But, whateverthe study approach,it is acceptedthat the interaction betweenhumansand the environmenteventuallyresultedin a transformationof both parts, a process that would have left significant traces,identifiable by modem archaeologicalmethods.When reading thesetraces,however,it is possibleto go Rirtherthanjust an ecological impact evaluationof past human activity. The numberof humansthat were accommodated within a given landscape at each moment in time is anotherfactor that would haveinfluencedthe amount of physical spaceaffected. Going beyondthe physical boundaries of eachsite, the study of settlementpatternsis far from being solely a mappingor locationalprocess.It would normally involve analysingthe spatial,along with the functional, relationshipsof contemporary siteswithin particular cultures (Knapp 1997,5). Both of thesedimensions,spatialand functional, arenot to be understood,however, in a strict economic but also in political, social,religious, or cultural terms (Knapp and Ashmore 1999,van sense, Dommelen, 1999). Mediterranean The evolution of landscapes those offers a different understanding ancient of civilisations that were largely town-based,suchasthoseof Greeceand Rome,both in their Mediterraneanheartland(Shipley, 1996,8) andbeyond(e.g. Dark and Dark, 1997).Apart from the obvious effect of revealingwhat provincial settlements would have looked like, the study of the settlementpatternwithin Romanprovincescan address more generalissues.The decisionto settle and use a particular spacewasbeing taken by people,in groupsor as individuals, in direct relationto by studying the resulting impact of their action on the landscape, their interests.Consequently, one can presumablytell whetherthe original effort involved was madeby severalindividuals or by an organisedgroup following a certainpolicy. Therefore,the natureof the colonisationprocesscanbe analysedfrom the way the new Roman-typesettlements emergedwithin the provincial territory and their effect on the previousnative pattern.According to the current orthodoxy, after the Roman the first large influx of populationsfrom outside its cultural boundaries, conquestDacia experienced described by ancienthistoriansand re-enforcedby the epigraphicevidence.These a phenomenon from Roman itself, Rome the than mostly other parts of world rather newcomers, whether granted Romancitizenship or not, had to be accommodated within Dacian territory, as did the manifestations of the new legal and administrativesystemand the military. The native settlershad to comply with the situation. Subjectof debatefor decades, the approachto romanisationhasbeen marked by severalsuccessive theoreticaltrends(materialism,colonialism,post-colonialism),all trying to find a satisfactory Traditionally, the two parties explanationfor an extremelycomplex socio-culturalphenomenon. involved, the nativesand their conquerors, havebeenpresented as facing eachother from different, sometimesevenconflicting or antagonisticpositions,reflecting of modem political (national) thought on ancient societies.But romanisationstill gives unexplainablydifferent, evencontradictorypictures different just but also when seenfrom different comers theoreticalapproaches, to when subjected not in Indeed, defining romanisationas a process Empire. the Roman one of main the questions of (e. the Romans provinces the romanised g. Gamscyand Whittaker 1978)or the natives whether
17

1990) has Millett (e. found different On the one themselves answered, g. responses. romanised -if hand,this makesa global understanding of the processvery difficult and, therefore,research on level local has to tended at a of remain studies.On the other, it hasresultedin extreme romanisation in particular regions (e.g. Africa B6nabou attitudesand sometimesits natureor very existence, -see 1976;Dacia -e. g. V6kony 2000) or as a concept(e.g. Hingley 1996;Barrett 1997),hasbeen challenged.However,Woolf (1995) rejectsideaslike conflict, competition or interactionand advances a new interpretativefi=ework, with the creationof a new imperial culture as a structured systemof differencesreplacingboth previouscultures(Romanand native), its spreadcomparable with the growth of an organismthat metabolises matter.A similar approachto romanisation,as"a largely consciousprocessby which sectionsof the indigenouspopulation soughtto emulateRoman it, motivatedby the needto establishtheir own culture, at least in the form in which they experienced by the Romanauthorities" was earlier employedby Hanson(1994) social statusand directly assisted in British context.This understanding in his own interpretationof the phenomenon of romanisation to the subjectand is the one that hasbeen combinesbest the theoreticaland empirical approaches employedthroughoutthis study. hereis the way that Romanrule affectednot just the native populations, Romanisationas considered but also the whole landscape in the conquered territories. Ibe emergence of Roman-typetowns, the broad diversification of the rangeand function of settlements, and the particular way of organising spaceprobably had a more significant impact on the pre-existingsystemthan any other previous changesduring prehistoryand canreveal, in comparisonwith other provincesof the empire, particular aspects of the romanisationprocess,as well as giving the real scaleof the whole process information, historical data and information within the territory. By combining archaeological it is possibleto understand better the generalevolution of the regardingthe natural landscape, landscape and the humanimpact upon it, both in the pre-Romanand Romanperiods. In sucha context, it should be possibleto distinguishfrom the amountof data available exactly what constitutesthe generalpatternand what canbe considered unusual.Moreover, it is possibleto identify evolutionarypatterns,as well as considerthe occurrenceof specialcases, whetherdictated from a more realistic standpoint. by natural or man-made causes, The natureof current research on rural RomanDacia describedabovesignificantly biasesthe evidencefor any suchanalysisof the economicand social life of the province. Sincethis bias hasnot beenrecognisedbefore,it raisesseriousdoubtsaboutthe validity of currently accepted theoriesabout The potential densityof human settlementin the period hasnot the developmentof this landscape. beenfully appreciated and the typology of rural sitesmight not be complete.Accordingly, the native pre-Romancomponentin the life of the province hasprobably beenmisinterpreted.All theseissues territory and the natureof the affect the evaluationof the Romanimpact on the conquered romanisationprocessin Dacia. is to redresssomeof thesebiases.I intend to focus my study on the The purposeof my research effects of the Romanoccupationon the indigenoussettlementpattern and land-use.From an interpretativepoint of view, thereare severalquestions to be addressedL In what way did the Roman What were the mechanisms behind the choice of settlement conquestaffect the native landscape?
18

location and which of the factorsthat influence the decisionare predominantin the caseof different in RomanDacia?Can we detectthe evidenceto supportthe idea of a statetypes of settlements directedpolicy of settlementemergence and patternin the caseof RomanDacia, as hasrecentlybeen suggested, or is the impact of the Romancoloniststhe product of multiple small-scaleindividual Did the conquestresult in any perceptibleresistance strategies? phenomenaamongstthe natives? Finally, how did the processof romanisationdevelopin Dacia?Tbrough thesequestions,it will be possibleto address and assumptions: whether archaeologicalevidence a numberof currentdebates bearsout the literary references to depopulation, whethermuch of the hinterland of Sarmizegetusa was unoccupiedin the pre-Romanperiod, or whetherland was parcelled out and given to the colonists.The understanding of the real Romanimpacts(whethermilitary or civilian) and of the true betweenthe conquerorsand natives will ultimately lead natureof the social relationshipestablished to a better understand of romanisationin Dacia.

4. Methodology: My study encapsulates an area situated within the territory surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains, which was in fact the geographical core of both pre-Roman and Roman Dacia. It covers the hinterland of Sarmizegetusa (Colonia Upia Traiana Samizegetusa), the provincial capital and possible former legionary base in the area of Hateg (figures 1.3-1.4), extending further along the upper Mures Valley, beyond the colony and legionary base at Alba Iulia (Apulum) (figures 1.5-1.6). Although the region has been chosen to include in particular the lowlands of the Tara Hategului, and mid-Mures valley, it also covers the surrounding uplands that are structurally related (figure 2.1). More extensive upland areas included in this study are the Orastie Mountains as the main core of Iron Age Dacia (figure 1.10), and the Roman iron-mining district from the Poiana Rusca mountains (in order to balance the Dacian focus of iron extraction in the Orastie Mountains). However, the most extensive mining area of the Roman Dacia, the gold-mining district located in the Apuseni Mountains just to the north and west of the mid-Mures valley, has been deliberately excluded. The reason for this is that its extent and exclusive focus on mining makes the area a specialised landscape in its own right without much comparison with the either the lowlands or the uplands included here. Given the current bias of research, I have included a larger range of sites than might normally be accepted as rural, extending my study to sites with an urban function (vid) but lacking the explicit proof of a municipal status. Such sites have traditionally been perceived by Romanian archaeologists as non-urban. Therefore, even though I will operate within the terminological framework currently in use for Roman Dacia, my main concern will be to address the ftinction of each site whenever possible. This should provide a more realistic basis of study and redress the previous biases created by an approach focused on status, without totally dismissing it as an issue. From what I have shown so far, it is clear that the traditional approach is very much out of date, issues. The it to rural perspective for analysing the data must now focus on comes when especially the evolution of the landscape. This is the primary aim of my study on the evolution of the settlement it, I have In to augmented the current data-set with new information obtained achieve order pattern.
19

Apart through modem methodsof archaeological prospection,particularly aerial reconnaissance. from the fact that it haspreviously beenlittle appliedin Romania,this methodhasbeenshownto for landscape best the studies(e.g. Palmer 1984;Stoertz 1997).My research results provide someof information from the aerial reconnaissance the photographic makesprimary useof programme conductedby Prof. Hanson(seeabove)since 1998which coversthe samestudy area(figure 1.8),and with which I havebeendirectly involved as a part-time researchassistant. datacurrently known is hardly satisfactory.The quantity I have shown abovethat the archaeological it hasmademy task and quality of information on particular sitesandthe problemsin accessing entries)havebeenconsidered extremelydifficult. In quantitativeterms,a total of 627 sites(database in this study, but 60% of them are merely accidentaldiscoveries,mainly in the form of artefacts(or hasnot beenmentionedin publication); a ftu-ther10%come from the way of their discovery/research antiquarianreports.Some 17%havebeensubjectto excavationat varying scalesand a finther 8% havebeenreportedthrough fieldwalking (althoughmany cannotbe accuratelylocated).Only 3% discoveriesfrom the air. However, the qualitative balanceof the data representnew or augmented provided in thesedifferent categoriesis effectively reversed(seebelow). Nonetheless, all the information hasbeenbrought togetherinto a coherentsystemto permit its evaluationas a whole, in order to facilitate both overall and detailedanalysis,and producegeneralconclusions.In parallel, the evidencethat formed the fragile basisof the previoustheorieshasbeenreviewed in order to seewhat is reliable and what is not from a21' century archaeological This would haveallowed perspective. is, indeed,basedon facts and how much hasstarted me to seehow much of what is currently asserted fact. The sources for this type of data are the various reports as hypothesisbut endedup as accepted of occasionalfield walking, the existentgazetteers, excavationreportsand other publications,mainly from the 20thcentury,but also of earlier date.Of course,sincethe alreadypublisheddata-set has beeninadequatelyadministered,any new additionshighlight the needfor exhaustive,flexible and interactivemanagement of data, and its analysiswithin a computerised environment.Nowadaysthis is possiblethrough the increasinguseof computerfacilities, in the form of databases and GIS (GeographicInformation Systems).

4.1. The conversion of information into a relational database: is widely recognised databases The useof archaeological as the best way of handling large amounts data existed of information from various sources,locations,and dates.Since no digital archaeological when this study began,I had to collect and processa hugequantity of published information Accordingly, a relational database in numeroussources. scattered of the known sitesfrom various augmentedwith all the new sitesof proven publicationshasbeendesigned,createdand subsequently and potential late Iron Age and Romandate revealedby aerial archaeologyin the areasince 1998. A is provided on CD with this thesis. copy of this database designwas the fragmentationof information into its partslinked The principle of the database Apart from the practicality of ensuringbetter togetherthrough a complex systemof relationships. information included, benefit the the of main sets of of this systemis that it imposesa clear storage
20

describe definitions to the terms sites,which allows advanced and of quantitative use standardised details location, table database The their a main of sites with of contains along with analysis. of previousresearch, on the size of the settlementor on the type of specificationon the character housesdocumented. For eachsite, relatedtablesprovide information on their chronology(site information The finds. type on site chronologycontainsthe specifieddate occupation),site and relatedto that site entry, along with a schemeof the occupationon that site throughoutthe main wheneverit was possible,a single entry was usedfor prehistoric and historical periods.Because complex sites,the table containingthe site typesprovidesa list of type options; settlement (unknown); small town, hillfort, tower-house,village, individual homestead, cemetery,individual quarry/mine,or artefactdiscovery.One or grave/tumulus, road, religious site/temple,aqueduct, severalof theseoptions can,therefore,be viable for one site entry. A final entry containsthe interpretationof the statustfunctionof the site. Particularcategories of finds havebeenconsidered as significant for the purposeof this study: stonewalls, murusDacicus, timber, bricks, mortar, daub, hypocaustpilae, tiles, painted wall plaster, pipes, architectural pavement, ceramic wall plaster, roof hearths, inscriptions, funerary diplomas, storage pits, agricultural monuments, military pieces/statues, tools/millstones,fumaces/kilns,hoards,coins,jewellery, styli, pins. A generalfield was also include to any other details or commentson finds. Pottery finds were includedin a separate provided table, to include (wheneverpossible)details on their manufacturingtechnique,colour, clay texture, as well asbroad indication of date (Dacian, Celtic, Roman). Terminological standardisation hasnot beenseenasparticularly important in the contextof Romanianarchaeology, so having to apply it now for all of the reportedsites in the areaproved extremelydifficult. On the one hand there was an unevenquantity and quality of information for the better-knownsites,reflecting the interestsof their researchers. While abundantand detailed information was provided for someaspects on artefacts, suchas fortifications or artistic decorations considerablyless,or evenno information was provided on chronology,function, or site structureand layout. Moreover,the various definitions which havebeenappliedto sites havebeenparticularly focusedon reflecting their status,rather than function (seee.g. chapter5). But the archaeological in has is traditionally the and methodology cases scarce research most extremely employed evidence been far from satisfactoryin defining the natureof the settlementin the large majority of the reported only by artefact sites in both the late Iron Age and Romanperiods.Many of the sites are represented discoveriesand in numerouscases, with the exceptionof their broad date,their naturehasnot even been specified.Accordingly, they havebeenconsidered within the presentanalysisas settlements of definitions in General the publisheddata suchas 'Iron Age, Ta type'. used unknown chronological Tene', Tacian' or 'Roman' is the reasonfor having to operatein the main with extremelyloose hence,the possibility of defining contemporaneous chronologicalboundarieswithin the database; in including artefactdiscoveries. sites was very limited. Furtherdifficulty was encountered Especiallyin the caseof thoserelatedto the late Iron Age, therewere many caseswherethe natureof theseartefactsdid not explicitly indicate a settlement(e.g. hoardsor isolated artefactdiscoveries). hereas an indicator of potential settlement.Also However,the presence of pottery was considered funerary sitesrecordedoutsidea known settlementcontexthavebeenconsideredas indicatorsof
21

in the vicinity. settlement possible

4.2. Building an archaeological GIS: But simply analysingtabular information on archaeological sites is insufficient when it comesto Information relatedto the geographicand topographicsetting of sites, the landscape. understanding thoserelatedto the road systemor the proper considerationof site plans cannotbe handledby the Therefore,the database tabular format of a database. only provided a framework for handling site tool capableof complex attributeswithin the larger framework of a GIS. This is a more advanced management of information in relation to its preciselocation within the physical world, facilitating the placing of sitesinto their spatialrelationshipwith eachother and ultimately offering a landscape Roman late The from to the the pre-Roman period. patterns evolution of settlement perspectiveof information include GIS (created designed ArcView 3.2) the to published on using was system but especiallywith other dataarchaeologicalsitesin their relationshipwith the natural landscape, sets. One of theseadditional data-sets was provided by historical geographicaland archaeological information. The TabulaPeutingetiana offers a unique accountof settlementevidencefrom Dacia but the correlation with archaeologicalevidenceand especially that haspreviously beenconsidered, with the location of thesesiteshasprovided the overall analysiswith additional groundsfor interpretationof the functionsof thesesites and their place within the landscape. Archive mapsavailableto me consistof sheetsof the 1:28800Austrian cadastralsurveyof Transylvania(1870-1875),which contain a significant amountarchaeologicalinformation that needs to be consideredand evaluatedin connectionwith other data (figures 1.1-1.2).But apart from direct information information on archaeological on sites,archive mappingand early aerial views provide For this purpose,I have compared the evolution of the landscape prior to much modem development. have various editions of modemmapswith the latesteditions available.Archive aerial photographs unfortunatelynot beenavailable;however, for an areaalong the Mures valley the equivalenthas beensuppliedby first-generationsatellite imagery(CORONA) declassifiedby the United Statesin is a declassifiedintelligenceimage DS I 022-21104DF025 1995.CoronaKH4A satellite sequence acquiredin 2e of July 1965.It coversthe Mures river valley betweenVintu de Jos and Zam with a best 10.6 the and provides a groundresolution of approximately3 metres. ground, on width of miles But despiteits poor resolutioncomparedto conventionalaerial photographs,the value of the July it gives the opportunity to evaluatethe landscape 1965recording is high because before it was of the area.This information was of particular help also in the affectedby the later development processof interpretationof archaeologicalfeaturesvisible from the air and in the estimationof their potential date. GIS is capableof establishingthe morphologicalbasisfor the recognition of different site types,or distribution patterns,both in relation to eachother and againstother facilitating analysisof settlement natural factorssuchastopography,soil or vegetationcoverageand land use. Ideally such in digital format at the desiredscale.But the information is providedby mappingagencies
22

developmentof digital map data information in Romaniais no less in its infancy than it is for In theseconditions,everythinghad to be producedfrom scratch.The Romanianarchaeology. location in for background the natural landscape the of sites and in relation to modem appropriate land usewas providedby LANDSAT-5 satellite data freely available from the NASA internet With a pixel resolutionof 28.5 //zulu.ssc. gov/mrsid/-last visited 10.05.2004). nasa. website(tti2s: metres(considerablylessthan the earlier CORONA images),this multi-spectral imagetaken in the early 1990sis far too poor to be usedfor detailedmapping,in relation to the interpretationof aerial However,it provided sufficient detailedinformation to supportthe creationof a map photographs. baseof the area,including an indication of modem land-use,againstwhich could be set all the sites included in the database, the main Romanurban centresand the sitesdiscoveredthrough aerial photography(all as point themes),and the hydrographicalnetwork overlain (as a line theme).But despiteall efforts to locatethe sitespreviously identified and publishedby the Romanian possiblemistakesmadein the original publicationsare likely to havebeenpreserved archaeologists, in the presentstudy, unlesssubsequent data acquiredthrough aerial reconnaissance and the mappingmethodologyemployedhave improved our knowledgeof the location (e.g. associated Cigmau,seebelow chapter5 and Oltean and Hanson,2001). But improvementin site location was only a minor benefit of the use of aerial photographsin this study, in comparisonwith the huge contribution to the clarification of the characterof the occupationand evenindicationsof site function provided by their facility to generatesite plans. The GIS createdfor the purposeof this study hasbeenthe real supportthat has facilitated the reinterpretationof archaeological evidence.Simply to saythat its main purposewas the productionof the amountof distribution mapsprinted and included herewould meanto minimise its contribution, as well aspotential. Through addingthe spatial dimensionto the attributesof eachsite containedin it enablesa multitude of analyses. the database Only a numberof them formed the subjectof my study and the set of printed mapsincluded hasbeenlimited. However, a set of the digital datathat was usedthroughoutthis study hasbeenincludedwith the text in order to facilitate further queriesby the readcr/user. custornised Finally, occasionaluseof the GIS capacityfor handling attributesin relation to spatial facilitate individual to reinterpretation was of publishedsitesof both late representations employed Iron Age and Romandate. This facilitated the production of improved plans with a consistentscale in figure houses 4.1) for (e. Dacian differentiated the uplands or with and orientation g. a -see display/legendaccordingto different featuresindicating possibleconstructionphases or useof internal space(e.g. for excavated villa sites-see figure 5.1). This exerciseresultedin providing some internal the of spacewithin late Iron Age and Roman villa housesin Dacia. new understanding use of

4.3 Interpretation and mapping of oblique aerial photographs: GIS is an appropriatetool for interpretationand mappingof the aerial photographsand, further, for the creationof site plans and regional archaeological maps.Settlementsites and other relevant featurespotentially of Iron Age or Romandatediscoveredfrom the air havebeen landscape
23

7he integratedin a coherentsystemand usedto amplify what is known from previousresearch. technologyemployedfor the rectification and geo-referencing of the oblique aerial photographs AirPhoto the by the relied on software (under variousversions). reconnaissance aerial provided Reliable and flexible, AirPhoto was also usedto geo-reference any other baseimages(maps,plans, GIS. latter in ArcView The imagery) be to was the software wherethe baseimages satellite used (maps,orthophotos)were imported and wherethe mapping of eacharchaeologicalfeaturecontained in the site plans was made. One of the basic requirements for site transcriptionis the availability of backgroundmapsat a suitablescale(1:2,500-1:10,000).1was able to get most of the 1:5000 mapsI neededfor the aerial of Tara Hategului and the Mures Valley through the auspicesof the National reconnaissance Museum of Transylvania,the costsbeing coveredby British Academy and LeverhulmeTrust who by ProfessorHanson(seeabove).The most serious financed the aerial reconnaissance undertaken is however, their availability and its terms.The cadastralor topographicalmapsat a scale problem, greaterthan 1:25.000can be owned only by accreditedRomanianinstitutions (thoughthe list might include also cultural or scientific institutions) and they retain a certain degreeof secretstatus.This meantthat mapsto supportphotographicrectification and mappingfor severalsiteswere not available and alternativeshad to be found. One early attemptwas madeto usethe Coronasatellite imagery (in the caseof Micia, seeOltean2002),but later access to proper mapsimproved greatlythe quality of the mappingacrossthe whole site. An alternativemethod,which was preferredlater in this study, was to establishthe geographical co-ordinates, of the control points (to be usedin the process of photographicrectification) on the groundduring site visits using the availablehandheld GPS (Global Positioning System)technology.Applied consistentlywithin the limits of the samesite, the 3-metrerange of error. Initially GPScontrolaccuracyof the co-ordinates was within an acceptable Vintu de Jos,-site 409 and point coordinates were taken for a numberof sites-e. g. Razboieni,Sebes, 411, Sibot, Simeriaand Hobita- but only at Simeriahas this remainedthe only availabledatato supportrectification and mapping. The applicationof this methodfor site location and transcription during this study was very much pioneeringand had to be done within the limits of the technology context,the inaccuracyof the technologycould have available.In wider landscape and resources of sitesof approximately15 metres.However, the recentavailability on the producedmisplacements is GPS of accuracy under one metre expectedto enablethis methodto with market of products becomea standardin areasof the world whereappropriatemap data is unavailableor unreliable. But eventhe Romanianmapswhich are availableare old; the most recent of them were printed in the '80s, but basedon evenolder ('70s or even '60s) photogrammetricsurveys.When comparedwith the details differences between the provided by the mapsand the features aerial photographs, significant in the modem landscape were noted (e.g. the land system-seeOltean 2002,224). After the changes in property systemsand land division recordedwithin the last decade,thosedepictedby the mapscan be consideredas 'historical'. The larger fields of the CAP (former commonly owned and exploited in been by long have replaced many areas narrow strip-field cultivation. Given the agricultural units) 1: 5000 better topographical the maps are a alternative for site transcriptionthan circumstances, cadastralmaps,eventhoughthey record only the track ways within a field, ratherthan eachfield
24

boundary.An additionalproblem of the cadastralmapswhich had to be usedin a numberof cases (e.g. Sebes, Vintu de Jos,Sibot) is that they do not record important topographicalinformation, such be digital terrain that the modelling could not produced. as contours,so At times the cultivation systemhasprovedto be an impedimentto site visibility from the air, particularly in areasof strip-fields, sincethe creationof cropmarksis heavily dependent on the type of vegetationcoverageand not all crop types are equally responsiveto archaeologicalfeatures beneaththe ground. For example,at Vintu de Jos(site 409) reconnaissance in the summerof 2000 identified the plan of a settlementwith sunkenhousesand storagepits immediately adjacentto a Romanvilla both visible as cropmarksin a field when this was under wheat cultivation. The com sown in the field in 2002 madethe site invisible from the air, though it facilitated ground by ProfessorHansonand myself which led to the discoveryof archaeological reconnaissance material, including Romantegulde,supportingthe positive identification of the site as a Romanvilla (seeHansonand Oltean,2003; Oltean2004). At Oarda,like at Vintu de Jos, someof the fields are building the the more extensiveso that a reasonable complexwas more of proportion of remains However, in 2003 only some50% the areaof Oardawas visible because it was visible. readily to cropmark formation. The most coveredby two different cropswhich had different responses eloquentexampleof the strongbias in site recognitionand mapping inducedby cultivation of different crops in adjacentlong narrow strips is visible at Micia (figure 5.33), wherethe extensive plan of the site included in this study (Figure 5.35) is the result of sustainedsurvey over severalyears during which different partsof the site becamevisible as crops were rotated.Therefore,some 100 features photographs were examinedand severaldozenwere rectified and their archaeological mappedin 3 different stages(in 2000,2002 and 2003). Similar conditions have beenencountered at Cigmau; while the extensivevicus at Razboieni,despiteregular surveillance,only startedto revealits featuresin 2002 and more extensivelyin 2003. Additional problemsfor site identification from the air were createdby the specific climate and soil conditions.The partial floods along the Mures river in the surnmerof 1998and the generallywet weatherconditionsthe following year badly affectedthe creation of cropmarksin the surveyarea. By contrast,extendeddrought in 2000 also affectedthe vegetationand crops: on the one hand, parchmarksof buried buildings were visible in early June,while on the other, on extensivecultivated areascropsdid not grow at all. At both Cigmau and Micia different buildings have beenvisible not during but different in different times eachsummerbecause at only summers, of variationsin crop and soil conditionsacrosseachsite (Olteanand Hanson2001). (alluvial Because local the the clays, retaining moisture better than sandysoils), soils of natureof mainly negativecropmarksare visible indicating the presence of stonebuildings and thus favouring the discoveryof Romansites(Hansonand Oltean 2003). Positive cropmarksrepresenting ditches, are rarely recorded. They are more common to agricultural villages and pits, drainsor sunken-houses by aerial pre-Romansettlements, which meansthat the recoveryof native-type of settlements photographyhasbeensignificantly reduced,creatinga potential bias that needsto be takeninto demonstrated Micia (Oltean Also, at as el aL forthcoming) this bias in the data consideration. meansthat the cropmarkevidencereflects the stonephases of provided by aerial reconnaissance
25

in best for the the traces the very conditions only the are slight of settlements, at construction buildings Also, timber visible as positive cropmarks. only rarely can trenches of construction in basis differences in different indicate stone constructions on of phases alignmentand cropmarks featuresoverlapping(e.g. Cigmau,Oarda,probably Razboieni-see chapter5). It is inevitable, therefore,that the recoveryof site plans basedon aerial photographsis partial. Given the changingclimatic conditionsand vegetationcoveragein eachseason, aerial surveyshould in order to be becomea regular annualactivity, as it is in Britain, and throughoutdifferent seasons frost future detect through to soil and marks; also, shadow, research also archaeological able remains including dating. information, these precise additional with site plans could augment layer of The detailedmappingbasedon the interpretationof aerial photographsconstitutesa separate information within the GIS. Other layerscover generalinformation on published archaeological sites data The different data. The two grid systems. satellite the using mappingwas generated satellite and is calibratedaccordingto the UTM-WGS84, which seemsto be more and more the universally for Accordingly, it the the of areaand views/maps system. general was used also mapping preferred information). But for individual site the representation of the sitesas points (in relation to database (Proiectie Stereografica Romanian National Grid the used aerial photographs, was of system plans 1970/Dealul Piscului). This was donepartly because the mapsavailable (1:5000) were using this field systemand partly because of the recognitionthat this of data-setwould be usedin subsequent For thesesites,a certainamountof research,including excavation,by Romanianarchaeologists. information (e.g. topography,major rivers and streams, digitised was railways) modem roadsand from the relevant 1:5000papermapsin order to provide backgroundinformation for the site maps. However, all the sitesdiscoveredthrough aerial photographyare presentin the generallandscape analysis.The views as a dot themeand, therefore,havebeenincluded in the generallandscape landscape before base development the the the and of of area maps provide an overview of resultant issues Roman to the the the the complex of more conquest on which of some of answers some after colonisation and,ultimately, romanisationin Dacia havebeenbased. It would be unfair to say which of the methodsusedin the presentanalysishasproducedthe greatest GIS format has information into brought database The or each conversion of published outcome. handle huge by increased to bencfits towards possibility analysis amountsof general significant by imprecision flawed (seeabove),it from data information. Nevertheless, a set of already starting imposed by Furthermore, terminological the conversion them. standardisation could only perpetuate bias, by itself introduce format database data in digital simply by losing a certainamount the can of in become information relevant someaspects.In order to minimise of which at somepoint could find balancebetweenfields of has database to danger, tried design the an adequate the such of attributesallowing limited options(yestnoor pre-definedlist) and otherswhere no suchrestrictions have beenimposed,but one must be awareof suchpossibility. The aerial study has improvedour knowledge of siteslocation and layout which determinedobjective evaluationson the character of of its nature(seeabove) it provided any result for a the occupationand site function, but because (not able to identify settlements limited numberof cases and for particular typesof settlements which had a reducedimpact on the natural landscape by their natureand morphologicalcharacteristics -e.g.
26

individual Daco-Roman Dacian homesteads (seebelow chapters 4 or non-villa unenclosed possible and 5).

27

:32 M

xjik-000

jk-

tA;

Figure 1.1: Roman remains on the 1870-1875Austrian cadastral map of Transylvania: the auxiliary fort at Micia (above) and of the colonia Sarmizegetusa, with the Roman road eastwardsstill in use at the time (in red) (sections 183 and 23 1; C the Austrian StateArchives, Vienna)

28

Figure 1.2: Remainsof the Roman road in Tara Hategului betweenUnciuc and Subcetate (section 232) and of the Roman road along the Mures river from the river crossing near Gelmar, towards Sibot (C the Austrian StateArchives, Vienna)

29

I-

U,

"v 2

-I 'Z

C)

,*

co

30

31

:'i

-UI'

Figure 1.5:Apulum -general view (WSH) and detail of the easternenclosure(wall and rampart) visible as cropmark (10)

32

Figure 1.6: Mapped Roman buildings from cropmark in the colonia evidence (below) and the municipium (left) at Apulum

Figure 1.7: (below) Lowaltitude aerial photograph of a Roman building (as a negative cropmark) somewhere north of Alba lulia by V. Barbuta (unknown date; courtesy of V. Barbuta). -top

.01

A& A

33

Figure 1.8 : Flight track logs in the study area since 1998

N 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

34

------------

l>

, et

//
1"

/
1%lo Ilk,
Figure 1.9: Map of Dacia and its neighbours

35

.=

(Z

'Z

-0

5 :3 :,
:Zm ci

-"m m j u.

c2

CJ

73 Q)

>

7 .-b 73 a) Lum Z) 15 Z.. Z-7 CD r(A 0 'Z Z c

wAt

3 36

Chapter 2: The study area: natural environment

Before proceedingany further, it is necessary to evaluatethe potential of the natural environment areacoveredby the presentstudy. As highlighted in the previous chapter,the within the geographical interactionbetweenhumansand environmenteventuallyresulted in a transformationof both, a processin relation to the latter that would haveleft significant tracespotentially identifiable by landscape determines However, the the the also modem archaeological nature of modem methods. tracesare revealedand identified by the methodschosen.There are a numberof way archaeological natural factorssuchas climate (temperature, rainfall and wind regime), geologicalbackgroundand topsoil cover,which are relevantfor aerial photographicinterpretation,because they are involved in features the creationof crop marks that could indicatethe presenceof buried archaeological Also, the alterationof landscape through natural erosionis important for site survival underneath. (e.g. landslides,flooding, earthquakes) the incidenceof suchphenomena to assess so it is necessary is not a single event.Most of the physical spaceis rewithin the study area.But the useof landscape usedover and over again,and the effect is that later action often affects earlier traces.This highlights the humanfactor as one of the most dangerous for the survival of archaeological sites,so an is also evaluationof the economic(industrial and agricultural) later /modem useof the landscape hasbeen The impact of theseissueson the methodologyemployedin this research necessary. discussed in chapter1. But more importantthan thesemethodologicalissuesis the relevanceof the naturalenvironmentfor analysingand understanding past societies,throughthe reciprocal relationshipbetweenlandscape and humans.Therefore,this study must begin with an evaluationof thosefactorsthat facilitate human life both for individuals and communities:gentle climate, availability of food and tool Topographyis or securityagainstthe forcesof nature,animals and human enemies. resources, to fertile lands,water sources and minerals,access relevant for settlementlocation in terms of access from and to main circulation/transportroutesand defensivecapabilities.Similarly, the climate must in temperatures, of annual and wind regime rainfall order to ensuresurvival of appropriate provide an both humancommunitiesand various useful species of plants and animals,whetherdomesticated or of the local geomorphologycan reveal the existenceof wild. Last, but not least,understanding (metal ores,salt, stone),or the location of fertile arablelands suitable for natural resources cultivation.

1: Introductory data: Modem Romaniais locatedin EasternEurope,to the north of the Balkan Peninsula,between20' 15'29*42' eastand 43*37'48' 15' north. Ile neighbouringcountriesare Ukraine to the north, Moldavia Bulgaria to the south,Serbiato the south-westand Hungary to the north-west,with to the north-east, 37

The climate is of temperate-contincrital type, with hot and wct the Black Seato the south-east. summersand cold, fairly dry winters, in fact a transition betweenthe oceanicand extremecontinental latter former the too dry (Morariu et al. 1969,10). The geographyis the moist while very climates, distributed in being hills equal proportions within the territory of the and plains varied, mountains, country. 30% of mountains,with altitudesover 800 m, 37% of hills and tablelands,ranging from 800 to 200 m altitude, 33% of plains (Morariu et al. 1969,10). It also has a rich network of watercourses, is largely Romania fauna The these typical of areas. geography of structured and a vegetationand branch Alpine-Himalayan (that Mountains Carpathian the the a of are south-eastern around hills and the plains, spreadout from Mountains).The lower altitude units, suchas the sub-Carpathian them in a radial pattern.The main branches of the mountainsare oriented from north-westto the (the from from Meridionals) (the Orientals), to south-westto the north-cast cast west and south-east (the Westerns),surroundinga large lower areaof hills, tableland and alluvial plains that is called Transylvania.

2. Physical geography: geomorphology, topography and geology From many points of view Transylvaniais very much defined by the surroundingmountains.The Vh in Latin in Hungarian I first itself written early medieval century chronicles of occurs name (Anonymus, Simonde Keza) as the land "beyond the forests" (Pop 1998,75) that oncecoveredmuch be by This Transylvania Carpathians. the can understood mountains. the as a space enclosed of that this spacehas topographicparticularity hasdeterminedvariousinterpretationsof the advantages history. 'meeting Opinions 'citadel' from human to throughout point', that to vary settlement offered it is its but in the topographicand geographical exactly particularity of contradiction, apparent are setting that makesboth interpretationsequally true. Carpathianswere formed in the postFrom a geornorphological point of view, the south-eastem by medium and low altitudes, which average1000metres, Mezo-Cretaceous and are characterised fragmented, both in depth. These 500 are very metres; mountains of around with valleys longitudinally and transversally,by numerousdepressions and river valleys, making them more easy to crossfrom one side to another.Someof the mountainsare of younger,volcanic origin, but most of them were createdby the folding movementsthat happened at the end of Plioceneand the beginning period (Gherasimovet aL 1960,1,197). They were followed in someareas of the Quaternary by uplifting movements (southernCarpathians) at the end of the Cretaceous and during the Tertiary period (Gherasimovet at. 1960,1,212). However, thesemovementssimultaneouslyaffectedthe inner areatoo. Transylvaniawas first slowly sinking comparedto the rising mountainsaround.This processtook place from the beginningof the Cretaceous until the Pliocene,when it was in-filled by marine and continentaldepositsof up to 4000 metresin thicknessand transformedinto a largeplain. Later on this areawas influencedby opposite (rising) orogenicmovements at the beginningof the Quaternaryand was transformedinto a hilly Hills locatedat the contact region (tableland)defined by the piedmontsand internal sub-Carpathian areawith the mountainsand the TransylvanianTablelandin the middle (Gherasimovet aL 1960,1, 38

197). The water from the interior drainedawaythrough the main river valleys, though someof the 'gulfs' locatedat the contactareawith the mountainsremainedunder water until much later, in the Quaternary(Morariu et aL 1969,27), when they becamedepressions (the so-called'tari' 'countries', suchas the Tara Hategului). focus of the presentstudy is the westernside of Transylvania(figure 2.1). In The geographical topographictermsthis includesthe mid-Muresvalley betweenOcna Mures - Razboienito the north to the west, and the whole Strei River valley and the Hateg depression to the and Zam-Savarsin by higher groundsrising gradually on the both sidesof the valleys as south. The areais surrounded Hills and the Western and Meridional Carpathians to terracedsidesof the Internal Sub-Carpathian the west and south,and the TransylvanianTablelandto the east.This gives an amphitheatre-like the to the whole area,centredalong the valleys of Mures and Strei. For consistency appearance hereby its main geographicunits, following a circular route from topographyof the areais presented north to southalong the Mures and Strei valleys, startingwith the highestaltitudesof the mountains bordering the study areato the west and southand continuing with the hills at the contactzonewith those mountainsand the westernside of the Transylvaniantableland (that constitutethe eastern limit). Finally, the presentation to the river valleys, the plains and corridors createdby will descend river action. havea complex structureresulting from their formation processin different The WesternCarpathians in Hercinian, Their the when they had formed a single structuralunit along started genesis phases. Carpathians. The processcontinuedin the Cretaceous, during the the the eastern and with southern (the Austrian and Laramic phases) Alpine orogenesis when they were refolded, and later at the end of into low height fragmented during the horststrifts and grabens(depressions) the Cretaceous were thesemountainsinto main units giving tertiary throughvertical movements.This processseparated them their final shape(Gherasimovet aL 1960,1,218) The Apuseni are the highestgroup of mountainsin the WesternCarpathians(1848 metresat CurcubataMare). The core (central nucleus)of this massif is crystalline, but their geo-morphological structureis very varied, building a whole puzzleof rocks from crystalline to Palaeozoicand Mesozoic sedimentaryand even eruptive-volcanic.The TrascauMountains are locatedon the eastern side of the ApuseniMountains and along with the Metaliferi and the ZarandMountains,constitute the north-westemlimit of the study area,along the Mures valley. Thesemountainsare of low altitude, rangingbetween800 and 1200metres(Gheorghiu2001,2). The geology of the Metaliferi limestonewas broken by many and TrascauMountains is influencedby the fact that their Cretaceous Mesozoic andNeogenevolcanic eruptions,andUs specialblend createdmany defiles and canyons. This hasbeenreinforcedby tectonic and erosionfragmentation,so that the generaltopographyis that of low mountainsand hills. However, if for the Metaliferi it is their volcanic characterwhich is most evident, in the Trascauthe sedimentaryaspectdominates,where limestone is predon-driant, The particularmosaicof various rocks of different origin and moderatedby denudationphenomena. Jurassiclimestone,volcanic rocks suchas physical propertiesof the Metaliferi Mountains:sandstone, dacite, andesiteandbasalt- make them significant also for their content in metal ores,in particular
39

gold (Floca 1957,16), as their nameimplies. The ZarandMountains have a different character,with of crystalline rock with granite intrusions, a monolith aspectdeterminedby their geologycomposed though their altitudesare low (up to 860 metresat Highis Peak,but an averageof 400-600 metresMorariu et aL 1969,25). Their metal ores are locatedmostly in their northern area(Floca 1957,16). The PoianaRuscamassif is delimited by the ApuseniMountains and the RetezatMountains,by the Mures Defile and by the 'passageobligee' of Poartade Fier a Transilvaniei (The Iron Gate of Transylvania).At the end of the Cretaceous thesemountainswere connectedstructurally with the Mountains (the Banat Mountains) (Retezat Carpathians the south-western along with unit of southern During the Mesozoicand the Tertiary the vertical movementshad the WesternCarpathians). in height (Gherasimov A 1000 through them of over metres valleys-defiles et completely separated 1960,1,218). Their maximum height is just above 1400metres(1378 m at PadesPeak),but gives a formed by because impression their metamorphicschists of massiveness of geology more powerfid (Floca 1957,15). They have broadridges delimited by radial valleys and extremelyrich resources of but also copperand andesitein the vicinity of Deva (seebelow). iron aroundHunedoara, The mountainsthat border the study areaat its southernlimit belong to the main group of the Parang Retezat the to the Carpathians the to the group consist of and group and south-west southern in highest Parang Retezat the The the the country, and groups of amongst mountains are south-east. 2509 Parangul highest Mare 2518 (the Peleaga metres at and and with with alpine peaks (schists, Carpathians, by formed Like they the rock southern crystalline of are rest respectively). Cretaceous. folding the that the through of movements stoppedat end micaceousschists) (Gherasimovel al. 1960,1,212). Then, but especiallyduring the Tertiary, they continuedto rise (e.g. the by depressions through uplifting movementsthat broke them into main branchesseparated background from Retezat Parang). Their Petrosanidepression of geological separating crystalline thanksto denudationprocesses that took place in the Hercynic structureis heremore apparent, Plioceneand Quaternaryand producedsignificant quantitiesof alluvium depositedat the baseand in is in limestone Hateg Depression. However, the also present plains producedpied-mountaneous the compositionof somemountains(in the Retezat),but mostly in the valleys. Their upper sideswere by glaciers,whoseremainscan still be seenas multiple glacier lakes.Under these strongly shaped 1000 deep (sometimes located than the glacier more metresin depth) of valleys sources peaksare descend falls into lowlands, in 90* that the courses and a steps and water oriented at slopes, and steep angle from the mountains(Gheorghiu,2001,3). The suddensharprise of the RetezatMountains peaksalong with the continuouslongitudinal display of the anticlines, seenfrom the surrounding impenetrability impression (Gheorghiu, 2001,3). increase The SureanuMountains (also the of areas, limit of the called 'Sebes' or 'Orastie' Mountains) part of the Parangbranch,are the south-eastern territory that is the subjectof this study.They are lower than the Retezat(2061 metresat Sureanu Mountains),and have large areaswith tracesof Peakand 2130 at Virful lui Patruin the Sebes denudationand erosion,and also of glacial topography.Their altitudes range from 950- 1000metres to 2000 metres.The upper parts of most of thesemountainsare fairly level on different steps,without much fragmentation.Thesenaturalterracesare organisedsymmetrically to the north and the southof a central axis, with a higher centre(1600-1800metres),then an intermediatelevel at 1200-1400 m
40

and outer limits of 900-1100metresto the north, in Transylvania(Gheorghiu2001,3). Their is evenmore evidentat their westernend, which extendsinto a large appearance platform-like elevatedplatform (the Luncanilor Platform). Locatedat the south-westemend, at the point of contact with the HategDepression,is a large carstic zone(OhabaPonor-Banita)that was formed on a basis rivers (Gherasimovel aL of Jurassiclimestoneswith many caves,dolincs,canyonsand subterranean 1960,1,216).

belowthemountains Immediately thelowerstepof altitudeis formedby thehills located at thepoint (inner between the to the the alluvial and plain and west south sub-Carpathian mountains of contact is of hills with smooth Tableland Thegeneral Hills) andtheTransylvanian to theeast. topography by dissected (Geografia terraces grouped watercourses, around and valleys river slopes regularly To theeastof Trascau 1111987,345). thehills belowcanbe Rornaniei andtheMetaliferiMountains, fragmented by frequent described of 600-300 watercourses metres anda lower, asa highpiedmont (Gherasimov from 180 350 to terraced with plain altitudes ranging metres et aL piedmontaneous is by hills. the 19601,228).To thesouthof theMetaliferiMountains, third space occupied of only a Thehills on theright bankof theMures,between theriver andtheMetaliferiMountains, aremade of is its The by Mures formed 1957,16). (Floca terraced the rest a river and alluvial plain slate in Sureanu determined have Mountains. These the the tributaries watercourses originating in theareasouthof theMureswherethesouthern innersub-Carpathian development of thedeposits limit of theSureanu bordering hills arelocated, Mountains thenorthern andbuilt up on diluvian both On 1957,16). 6-7 Mures (Floca the terraces there sides predominantly of river are structures (Gherasimov horizontal 1,tableI andfig. 33).The slopes et aL 1960 or slightlydivergent (podsols) terraces, all overthepiedmonts, of theMures soilsareeroded river meadows predominant hills from high Uroi, north its The the the tributaries, on slopes as at of as well altitudes. geology and is Deva by (Floca. 1957, (augite-andesite) Simeria, those represented around volcanic stone and of Hunedoara, 16).Thehills around thosealongtheStreivalley,andthosein thesouth, alongthe in theHateg Mountains havethesame limit of Retezat Depression, general aspect of northern Largequantities andriver terraces. steps of alluviumresultingfrom multiplepiedmontaneous by uplifting movements Retezat) duringthePliocene (Parang, denudations of themountains created into in Quaternary transported the thesouthern valleys piedmontaneous were creating plains and and Depression Hills (Gherasimov sideof theHateg andtheOrastie et al. 1960,1,212).The eastern is in facta piedmont Hategdepression terraces, with dejection plainwith fan-shaped cones of in 3 concentric steps, of watercourses. anda density alluviumarranged
The TransylvanianTablelandis the largestin Romania. Its hills, unlike thosein the outer subCarpathianring, which have the appearance of low mountains,are more bulky with milder slopesand horizontal to slightly sloping unfolded strata.Formationof the Tableland startedwith the first phase of the raising processof the Carpathians, sedimentation, with undersea until the end of the Tertiary period when the seawater drainedaway and it becomea large plain (seeabove).The later folding movementsof the samemountainspushedand lifted up the middle areaso that now in someplaces the TransylvanianTablelandreacheseven 600-700metresin height. (Morariu el aL 1969,32). The by argyles,marls and sand,with limestoneand volcanic geologicalbackgroundis represented
41

intrusions.The easternhalf where the aspectis that of high hills and plateauxfragmentedby river The is higher than the side. presentstudy coversprimarily the western western altitude of valleys is Secaselor Tableland. There Tableland, the Transylvanian the surface the also called areaof depressions, the by along sloping of the and small with sloping of monocline presence characterised in hills 1960,1,230-23 1). The (Gherasimov the westernand by aL et soil caused ongoing erosion broad River), Mures (450-500 lower the with archesand river along metres north-westernpart are 1). 1960 1,23 (Gherasimov the et aL terracing along river valleys of varietiesof The soils of the mountain,hill and tablelandregionsis, with few exceptions,composed forest soils: brown forest soils, podsolic or not in their specific variants for hills and mountains,along degrees. Also by forest there to brown various affected podsolisation soils acid of with other varieties Mures lower Sebes the to the the valley of few south and valley along chernozeorn of areas a are Deva, Razboieni Teius, in Alba Iulia Simeria, the and around betweenSebes and vicinity of and Sebes, Strei). Tamava, (Aries, tributaries the the of main confluencezones with which corresponds Not surprisingly,theseparticular areasare also known to be the most productive in terms of cereal cultivation. being They far them of all of The plains occupyonly a reducedarea. are more recentcreations, Tamava Aries, its Mures, tributaries: developed the the main river, and main along alluvial origin Strei (with Rau Mare and Galbena). (with the TamavaMare and TamavaMica), Ampoi, Sebes, in impacts terms of Cema Geoagiu, have Orastie, Cugir, like Others, or the rivers producedsmaller presentin the areaare nothing more than streams. topographyand outflow. Many other watercourses length 880 its Oriental (eastern) in Carpathians of the Mures The river and, with originated kilometres and outflow averageof 70 cubic metresper second(Floca 1957,20), is regardedas the Eis Its (Morariu Tisa River 1969,46). oriented generally the important course tributary of et aL most Hills internal it follows line between the its the sub-Carpathian in W, though contact medial segment from E-W its direction It Transylvanian Tableland. an Carpathians the changes and of the western its River Aries its E 23* 72'just the N 46' 36', NE-SW on with after confluence at orientation to a left Tarnava is by the direction N-S the The and on side confluence with also maintained side. right by direction determined ENE-WSW lulia Alba but to Ampoi on the right side, an changesagainnear Strei lcft from Cugir Sebes the the the the confluence with side, until rivers and the confluencewith River determinesanotherchangeof angle to ESE-WNW at N 45* 85', E 23' 11'. After that the river Western Carpathians its direction E-W the through a narrow constantly, crossing coursecontinues River. it Tisa the to the the meets west until plain corridor and increases is that that The generalappearance the valleys, with a corridor variable of width valleys of in their lower coursesimmediately after they exit the mountains.The Mures is a very active river, its 5-8 kilometres fertile to have large deposits up valley wide. The main tributaries createda alluvial have an important contribution both to the generaloutflow of the Mures and also to the total quantity of alluvium. This resultsin the plain of the Mures being generally larger/wider at its confluencewith human for tributaries providing space and settlement.The contribution of the agriculture some tributaries is also responsiblefor the changes of direction of the main courseof the river and creation
42

is 2.2). The (Figure cover composed of alluvial soils, alluvial proto-soils soil of multiple meanders long in The (traces the meadow ago-drained some places. of sea) content with a salt and chernosem, land along the Mures, Strei, lower Sebes,Cernaand Orastievalleys, and the mid and lower valley of (Gheorghiu has flooding 2001,5), being threat Ampoi, reinforced of which under the are regardedas inhabited lowlands the as main excludes the traditional view of settlementpattern evolution which areasin the past. Along the valleys fairly parallel terraceswere developed, usually 6-7 in number,but up to 8 at the (Gherasimov in horizontal having hills tablelands, aspect a et aL the general and contactzonewith deformed by Tamave however. Around they the Exceptions were 1). Table region 19601, occur, is de Deva Jos between Sebes-Vintu their in aspect slightly the and area and rising movements, downward sloping. Most of them dateback to the Quaternaryperiod, though someopinions attribute (Cretaceous). times 8h 120-200 to 7h (the the older even relative altitude) at and the higher terraces below). (see in the increases topsoil the region However, this erosionconditions In terms does geographical the space. unitary a From severalpoints of view, constitute study area not Orastie Depression, Iulia into the Aiud-Alba be the severalsmallerunits: this areawould subdivided Hateg Depression includes the Defile Mures the the area Corridor and the along river, while southern (Tara Hategului) and the Strei valley. What gives unity to this space,however,are the The Mures human important for valley settlement. which are possibilities access and communication The (Pannonian) between Transylvania plain. the western and was the main communicationroute Mures Carpathians the beyond through Western the river valley providesa convenientpassageway is basins larger But defiles this terraces. not the only passage Defile, a seriesof short and small with fertile important being from alluvial tributaries River, a the with Strei The one of most apart option. in This Hategului to the Tara south. its lower valley, provides a convenientconnectionwith plain in Carpathians Meridional the to the of plains south turn provides a convenientnodal point, connected Gate Iron Banat Defile, the through to to the of Depression Jiu west and and through the and Transylvania.This addsevenmore importanceto this spacein terms of settlementemergence Transylvania. history the of use over

3. Climate is defined Europe Eastern Central that generally and usually The climate of the region reflects and of hot 2 one type spring and autumn, one cold and seasons, with moderate as of temperate-continental local define that However, there particularities microclimatic variations, small are eachyear. season local factors topography,variations of wind or rainfall regime, influence the as such of zonesunder damp from Atlantic In Romania indeed, the cool and of air meet masses of solar radiation. or in hot in from the the winter. dry the are summer which and cold east, air masses coming opposite Polar air from the north in the winter, or warm air from the Mediterraneanareain the summer,are barrier like Transylvania behave However, that the a surround mountains also occasionallypresent. to theseextremephenomena, and ensurea more constantmicroclimate within the enclosedspace. They stop both the cool, damp masses stormy of air from the west, or the cold and strong,sometimes 43

winds from the east(Morariu et al. 1969,39). The annualsolar radiation is 35-40,000caloriesper squarecentimetre.In general,the humidity is higher than in the regionsto the eastof the Carpathians. The variousmeteorologicalelementsare distributed unevenly, which creates several microclimatic areas.Foehneffects (warm, dry winds) producedby the topographyof the mountains influence the climate locally in the colder seasons, especiallyin westernTransylvania(Gherasimov in 1960 L 318), the spring they are usually the onesthat melt the snow cover (Morariu et al. and el al. is higher in the westernpart (an annualaveragetemperature 1969,40). The temperature at Alba Iulia of 9.5" Celsius-Gherasimovet al. 19601,317) while the relative humidity value and the rainfall (under 600 millimetres at Alba lulia) are lower than on the easternside of Transylvania. averages The variation in temperature valuesduring the year is significant. During the winter thereare some below 0* Celsiusand occasionallythis could drop as low as 100-150dayswith temperatures -28-30* Celsius,while rising to +38-40*Celsiusin the summer.Also, the highestrainfall valuesduring the year are recordedin June(85-110 millimetres) while the lowest are in February(below 35 drop However, during droughtsto annualaverages the rainfall could of'400-450 millimetres). 1960 1,304-6), but in Transylvaniatheseperiodsrarely last for more (Gherasimov et aL millimetres than 50 days,though the westernpart can more easily exceedthis number.Snow is a usualpresence during winter for an average of some50 days eachyear betweenlate November-earlyDecember and end of March, thoughnot continuously(Gherasimovet aL 19601,3 10). In the mountainsandthe different. Ile figure for the solar radiation per annurncanbe nil depressions the are values mountain of the longcr-lasting snow cover than at lower altitudes or, indeed,havea negativevalue, because in climatic terms behaves (above 100or even200 dayson the highestpeaks).The Hateg Depression like a mountaindepression which in someareascould haveup to 7 cold months from Octoberto April, and the relative humidity is higher than on the lower Strei valley and the Mures valley with rainfall figures of 700 millimetres per annurn(Grumazescu1975,119). This is, though,significantly lessthan in the much smallerand enclosedPetrosaniDepression, wherethe average rainfall is 1001 temperature8* Celsius,higher than the -7* Celsiuscharacteristic millinietres and average of the mountainareas.The differencein climatic regime betweenthe northernpart of the study areaand its southernpart is explainedby the fact that the Mures Valley has a greaterexposureto the circulation than the Hateg area,which is isolatedby the surroundingmountainsand hills and of air masses like an enclosedspace.This differencehaslittle relevancein termsof human thereforebehaves settlement,though it doesaffectsthe agricultural patternand local economy.Even within the Hateg Depression the effect of climate hasmadearablepredominantin the westernhalf that is influenced by warm air currentsfrom the west (Banat),which penetrate the mountainsthrough thepassage obligie from The Iron Gateof Transylvania,while the easternhalf remainspredominantlyunder pasture.

4. Modern flora and fauna The modem landscape is extensivelyexploitedL The current land usein the lower areasis focusedon arablecultivation, though cultivated small fields can be found at high altitudes in the mountains(up
44

to 1000-1400metresin the SureanuMountains- Gheorghiu2001,3 - and up to 1200-300in the Apuseni Mountains-Morariu et aL 1969,24), though only as subsistence production.The in fertile however, land the changes alluvial plains, gradually towards of arable preponderance higher The finther to topographicand climatic at altitudes. on pastures orchardsand vineyardsand lower but also on the terraces, the arable cultivation not only on allow valleys river particularitiesof The steeperslopeswith good sun exposureare the large, flat or slightly sloping higher terraces. in is doubled Vineyards to by the the areas where exposure also present sun are orchards. occupied by mild climatic conditions,suchas in the areaaroundAiud and Alba Iulia and on the hills to the is 1957,46). The land (see Floca Mures Mountains the Metaliferi the rest of valley along south of forest. by and pasture occupied The cultivated plants in the areaare mainly cereals.The fields of com/maize,wheat,rye, barley and by is land 18 % % 78 the the crops of potatoes, occupied arableareas. arable of of oats cover some for feeding hemp, that beet, animals. used are tobacco, sunflower and other cultivated plants sugar Vegetables(other than potatoes)are cultivated on 4% of the area.Fruit treesare commonin hilly lower in the areas at altitudes,producingplums, apples,pears,cherries,sour mountain areasand even favourable for vine there areas some and walnuts, and are also apricots,peaches cherries---visine', Of 1969,53). data in Morariu 1957,46-7; (Floca course,severalof also, general aL et cultivation Iron Age Late introduced the to and the study areaafter thesespecies of cultivatedplants were methodology. Romanoccupation,but havebeenincluded here for their relevanceto the research both factors, been has by time natural and The natural landscape greatly affected over several also (especially)human.However,below 250 metresaltitude the surviving wild vegetationis of steppe Morariu 1969,57) (as a secondary and pasturesmixed with marshland et aL effect of deforestation bulrush, while the most commontypes of tree are acacia,poplar, alder and vegetation,such as reed 700 250 According Floca (1957,26-30), between 1957,26). (Floca to metresaltitude and and willow largely by oak, turkey oak, sycamore-maple, ash,elm, maple, the forest vegetationis represented linden, lilac, wild apple,pearand cherry. There are also bushesof comeal, sweetbriar/hip, and (Geranium lettuce, (Festuca fescue herbs geranium vallesiacaand sulcala), suchas others,or Robertianum),commonlungwort, marigold, moneywort and hawkweed(Hieracium transsilvanicum).At higher altitudes,between700 and 1000metres,the wild vegetationis beech level in Poiana Rusca, Sureanu Parang (though beech by the the can mountains, or represented is it Higher 800 in At 700 high 1400 usually mixed with oak. up, at metres places). metres as go as its limit, hombeam, fir, is towards it and, spruce sycamore-maple, ash, elm upper mixed with metres, fir. Theseforestsare mixed with bushesof blackberries,raspberries, comeal, hazeltree, or herbslike bedstraw,toothwort (Dentaria bulbifera), asarabacca, bedstraw,sweet-scented pulmonada montana (rubra), blueberrybushes, wood sorrel, broadleafenchanter'snightshade,herb paris and lupine (Alium ursinum).The altitudesbetween1000and 1700metresare occupiedby coniferoustrees (fir/pine and sprucefir) mixed with beechonly at their lower levels. Varieties of moss,wood sorrel, hawkweed,groundsel(Senecio Fuchsh) fem (Atyriumfilix-femina andfilix-mas) lily of the valley, blueberrybushesand black currant are also present.Above 1700metresthe vegetationis a mixture (gramineae),greenalder, of small treesand bushes(small pine, smalljuniper) with grasses 45

highest bushes. On blueberry the areasthe only plants are the rich, alpine grasses and rhododendron blueberrybushesand edelweiss. in pastures, by hares,rodents,sparrows,swallows and The modem wild faunain the plains is represented in belt badgers, foxes, deer, (1957,26-30), Floca tree According the to oak wolves, nightingales. boars,martensand weaselsare to be found, in the beechforestsdeer,stag,roe deer,boars,wolves, foxes, martensandbuffaloes,while in the coniferousbelt there are bears,chamois/ibex,stags,lynx (RetezatMountains),grouse,woodpeckers and vultures. Hunting is focusedon hare, fox, wolf, otter, partridge,quail, badger,wild cat, marten,lynx, boar, deer,black goat, stag,bear, grouse,pheasant duck, dove, vulture, falcon, merlin, goshawk,raven,crow and magpie.The rivers, pondsand lakes (Floca 1957,30-2). fish, barbell, fish, trout by or carp as sheat such are populated many speciesof However, animal husbandryis one of the principal economicfoci in the area,facilitated by the for include The traction meat and milk, cattle animals exploited pastures. extensive of presence Lipizaner, Nonius horses (in lower buffaloes, the the and domesticated are area most common some half-breedsof theseraces,while in the higher areasthe horsesusedare smaller,more robustraces), breed), is local, black (in Hateg Strei there fat the for a valley areaand meat, and meatproducts pigs ducks, (hen, birds in turkeys, the geese) (the mountain especially areas) and goats, animal main sheep 1957,45-9). (Floca bees and

5. Environmental change during history describedabovereflects the imageof the A fundamentalquestionis extentto which the landscape be In follows, to the assess two made ago. what will millennia some attempts space samephysical Hategului: Tara landscape the of the presence the of mid-Mures valley and ancient of main character Over landscape. indeed land the the within use, or changes my other speciesof plants and animals, human from both someof which causes, as as well resulting natural can occur, time many changes below. will be analysed

5.1 Natural changes: Natural soil erosionin most areasis low and moderate(in the hills in the Strei Valley, Tara Hategului it in is Tableland), high Secaselor Mures the though hills the generally and the valley southof and (see bank Iulia Mures beyond Alba hilly the in to the the on the right north of area mountainsand Gherasimovet aL 19601,table 2 and Annex XXH). It is causedmostly by the rainfWl regime and is Tableland deeper Transylvanian fragile in higher the the the as a result area of of northern usually hills the (see mountains of or slopes when the natural steeper and on strata above), geological terracesare slightly diverging facilitating the erosionof the topsoil through rain or snowmelt-water. In theseareashigh quantitiesof rain water or melted snow can result in the creationof torrentsor landslides.The lower areasalong the river valleys are regardedas falling under flood incidence, a which can occur frequentlyeventoday (seeabove).Indeed,the main river valleys have experienced lot of movement(seeabove)and in somecases this hasresultedin significant changes of local
46

topography(seethe caseof its impact on settlementemergence and evolution at Apulum-Alba Iulia in Diaconescuand Piso 1993,70). Wind erosionis minimal especially in the lowlands, which are protectedby the surroundingmountains.Volcanic activity in the WesternCarpathians would have of early humans.However, earthquakes a long time before the appearance ceased can occur with comer of the somefrequencygiven the location of a seismicareain the outer south-eastern CarpathianMountains. Seismicactivity monitored in modemtimes proved to have a much greater outer-Carpathian regionsthan in the inner-Carpathian area,in effect in the southernand eastern Transylvania,but an extrapolationof the current situation to the Late Iron Age and Romanperiod is risky. There are no written accountsof major cataclysmsof this sort within the 3-4 centuriesof late later seismicactivity could have affectedthe survival of Dacian and Romantimes. Nonetheless, archaeologicalsites. Major climatic changesgenerallyoccur over long time-periodsin a cyclic succession of general influence Minor by followed time periods. of can also changes colder within shorter periods warmth in geographicregions a significant manner.All of them can determinethe erosionprocesses is influenced life, human, faunal, indeed Similarly, floral all whether or mentionedabove. impact in latter has In by termsof the the a great case effect of climatic change considerably climate. basic living necessities suchas drinking water and food supply, warm and dry housing/shelter and is have little for Within there the that area significantly study evidence would such changes clothing. In late life/settlement. human the to general, climate of archaeological consider studiesseem affected Glodariu 1996,10). (Gheorgbiu 2001,6; than the wetter modem et and pattern al. colder as antiquity This seems to be confirmed by the brief referenceby Pliny to ice bridging over the Danubein his descriptionof Trajan's preparationfor war againstthe Dacians,a phenomenon that producedserious Moesian Danube barbarian limes for Roman it facilitated the troops on attackson the since problems Indeed is by the the phenomenon river. of someas not uncommongiven south regarded provinces that Dacian attacksduring Domitian's reign some 15 yearsearlier were taking place in similar in in (Bennett Southern (see discussion 10 BC Dacian 1997,95) the raid and also climatic conditions 1997,86). The strategicproblem createdwas seriousenoughand, therefore,frequentenoughfor Trajan to consideran alternative,more efficient limes using the Carpathiansas natural boundary (Bennett 1997).River freezing also occursin the modem climate, though lessin the caseof Danube, been has, therefore, this usedto illustrate that the climate was colder than the phenomenon and based Unfortunately, when attempting comparisons on suchevidence,lessattention pattem. modem hasbeengiven to the impact of industrialisation/pollutionon the Danube,an aspectthat must be consideredas the different chemicalcompositionof the Danubewaters may have lowered their freezing temperature. However,the presence of vine cultivation in Romantimes would not allow for than the presentones.In someexamplesof Romanbuildings in much colder averagetemperatures Dacia, as for instanceat SarmbegetusaWpia, the early rigola (rainwater drains) have beenreplaced in their later phases by much larger ones.That could be interpretedas an indicating an increase in rainfall, but could also simply reflect better/moresolid constructions. Someindication of more Wpia at somedateafter the Romanperiod may be suggested severewater-loggingat Sarmizegetusa
47

by the network of drainagechannelson the site of the forum. Further environmentalstudieswould provide more datawhich might help to clarify this issue.

5.2. The impact of human exploitation on the landscape: The effects of humanexploitation/useare clearly visible. They range from the creation of drainage systemsto artificial lakes,and from quarrying at various scalefor materialsranging from gold to clay, to huge sterile depositsaroundindustrial centressuchas Hunedoara,Calan,Deva, Mintia. (Figure 2.3). As shownabove,the large majority of soils in the areaare of forest type. However,the forestsnow mostly cover only the mountainsandhigher hills as they have made spacefor as extensivedeforestationhas a long history agriculture.This is not just a modemphenomenon, (Apolzan 1987,4448). In the modem era,however,a plannedpolicy of reafforestationwas introduced,especiallyat high altitudes,but generallyon steeperslopesunder erosionthreat.One intensive 20"' involved half in the the the of policy agriculture of century state of second objective $conquering'marshlandand convertingit to agriculturewhich saw the infilling of marshes and the building of extensivedrainagesystems(Figure 2.5). All thesechanges make it more difficult to Thesehave forever changedthe local provide a preciseevaluationof the ancientland-use. is topographyand needto be consideredwheneverlandscape envisaged. analysis modelling or

listedabove thatconstitute Thereareseveral to thelocalflora andfauna species of additions Evidence date. fauna hasbeen in a few studies of ancient modem of bone or medieval revealed Gudea from archaeological date(e. sitesof prehistoric andRoman and remains g. El Susi1996, Unfortunately, from Gudea 1999and2000). noneof theRoman purelyrural comes evidence (relating to settlement townat Alba around a military siteat Porolissurn contexts anda majorRoman like cattle,horses, in Domesticated Iulia-Partos). animals are artistic goats present mules, sheep, pigs, Traidnifrom Adamclisi(Macrea on Trajan'sColumnin Rome or theTropaeum representations Otherscenes LepperandFrere,1988). 1969,297, attest on thelatterandon otherRoman monuments 1969,297, MacKendrick 1975,99andplate thatoxenandhorses wereusedfor traction(Macrea (domesticated 4.26)andwordsfor animals havebeen andwild) or connected with animalhusbandry Romanian (suchasmanzfoal, colt; Wezure-badger, branza-cheese, to modem transmitted zer-whey) from Dacian, domesticated while mostof thenames of traditional animals areof Latin origin.Lambs by a "shopping list" inscribed on theDacian market asproved andpigletswereavailable on the XVI = CIL HI 933,XV) discovered in paginapostetiorof a waxtablet(IDR 1,no.46 = TabCerD insidetheSf. Ecaterina Maior (Rosia 1855 Montana). It is moredifficult, however, mineatAlburnus A boaranda stagarerepresented in scene CXLIX of Trajan's with representation of wild animals. Column(Lepper thatthewolf wasquitean andFrere1988,181 andit appears andplateCDC) important theDacian martialsymbolamong warriorelite(Vekony2000,84).Dacianart reveals only feline,horse) a fewclueson localfauna(dog/wolfbull, snake, astheornamental motifson painted fantastic ceramics aretoo stylised (Florea andtheanimals are,withoutexception, representations 1998,206-32). Therepresentation 'bour') on the 'parade of a bull/ox(Romanian shield'fromPiatra Rosiein Orastie Mountains interpreted is, however asanexpression the though of localartistictaste,
48

is interpreted indication feline motifs as an of and vcgetal of the Mediterraneanorigin of the presence in artistic scenes, though on artist (Glodariu et aL 1996,196-8).Birds seemto be lessrepresented Dacianpaintedceramicsfrom the OrastieMountainsbirds are the more easily identified as those speciesliving near water or predators(Florea.1998,230). A study conductedin the early 1970's(Nandris1981) on plant evidencefrom Dacian sites (citadels) locatedwithin and outsidethe study arearevealedthe presence of some45 varieties of cultivated in Dacian by A Gheorghiu the study on settlement ri-id-Mures valley more recent of plants. plants (2001) lists plant evidencefor wheat (Triticum vulgare, Triticum compactum,Triticum aestivum, Triticum dicoccum, Triticum monococcum), rye (Secalecereale),millet (Panicum sp.), Galium tricorne andsputium, Lolium sp., orz-barley(Hordeum vulgare), Ornithogalumpyramidale, lentils (Lensculinare), mustard(Sinapisalba, arvensisand dinecta), rape seeds(Brassica),poppy (Papaverumsomniferum),garlic (Allium sativum), Chenopodium album, Setaria viridis, Setalia Italica, Polygonumpersicaria, convolvulusand aviculare, Rumem acetosa,Vicia hirsuta, Agrostemma githago for humanand animal consumption(Gheorghiu2001,165-6). Nandris (1981) in high diet that cereals,especiallywheat varieties,was preferred,while virtually the a concludes (pea). Viciajaba There Pyrus is for fruits, little traces legume only of as was evidence present only from is discovered the though samples, other sources within attested vine cultivation malus were (literary evidencein the Late Iron Age - Burebista'sban on vine cultivation for the moral improvementof Dacian male society- Strabo,Geog. VII 35; VII 3 11). Camelinasativa (gold-offrom Sarmizegetusa lighting (Nandris for in Regia found samples was used apparently pleasure) 1981,234-5). Unfortunately, both Nandris (1981) and Gheorghiu(2001) failed to considersimilar Dacian in from types settlements of order to checkwhethertheir evidencerepresented other evidence the generalcharacterof the diet of Dacian society,or only the upper social segmentthat was the The from is type this of site. presence of also other of cereal cultivation evident occupant normal Storage as millstones. such pits and other featuresof the similar type were evidence, archaeological in in 4. Some feature be frequent the settlement area chapter of prehistoric and will considered a been into Dacian have transmitted or animal products and animals of origin modem namesof plants The wax tablet 'shopping list' mentionedabove Romanian(such as mazare-peas or varza-cabbage). includesonion and saladalong with white bread,vinegar and salt. PedaniosDioskorides in his list of plants usedfor their curative propertiesgives severalDaciannamesfor plants, such as elderberry, blackberry,camomile, valerian,thyme and others(Vekony 2000,80-3 and brief mention in Nandris 1981,234-5). Other evidencealso supportsthe presence and useof certain (though unknown) sentto Rome with a varietiesof mushrooms,asproved by the episodeof the Dacian ambassador letter written on a mushroom(sceneVH on Trajan's Column -see Lepper and Frere 1988,59 and PlateX, which identifies the type as potentially a variety ofpolyphorus or bolettus).Treesand wood in scenes useare frequently represented on Trajan's Column, along with representations of cereal by the army during the secondDacian war (MacKendrick 1975,88-9 and plate 4.15). fields harvested A closer interpretationof the exact speciesis difficult, given the failure of the artist to represent detailsexactly and the concernfor aesthetics ratherthan accuracy.

49

In my attemptto reconstructthe late Iron ageand Romanlandscape of the mid-Mures valley and Tara Hategului,only the archaeological evidencefrom sites in this areacan be consideredas direct linguistic, artistic and literary, are to be seenmore as indirect proof. For evidence.Other sources, it is in terms evidence, generallyrecognisedthat the presence of artistic example, of someornamental motifs can alwaysbe influenced by the origin of the artist, by fashion, or the express preferenceof the client, and so the frequent occurrence of the funerarylion alone would not constituteproof of in WesternTransylvania.The artist of Trajan's Column had most probably their physicalpresence depiction his be based Transylvania would and on written and possibleoral accountsof visited never the direct participants(Lepper and Frere, 1988,114). Similarly, the fact that somerelevant Romanian does items in have Dacian the those the not necessarily constitute of origin proof of presence a words does, increase It however, landscape the the probability, of study area. ancientgeographical found in if the modem landscape. the are attested species especially to attempta reconstructionof land-usein the late Iron Age It is evenmore difficult in somerespects changesover time and Romanperiod. The traditional view takeslittle if any accountof landscape that conditionswere more or lesssimilar to modem ones(Gheorghiu2001), to assume and seems imposedby developmentin the Industrial Era. The river of the changes with someacknowledgement to havebeenintensely cultivated in the past, as today, and valleys and the lower terracesare assumed the extensionof arablein placesup to 1.400mwould seemto prove a highland economicexploitation back be indeed traced as early as the middle age.However, the exactextentof cultivated which can land it is not known and further studiesshould clarify this issue.Of somerelevancefor this issueis the information that the greatestproportion of the land has a soil structurethat demonstrates massive forest coverageat somepoint in time (seeabove).The view seemsto be supportedalso by the frequentpresence of trees(oak, conifers,poplars)on Trajan's Column (Lepper and Frere 1988).The by timber would havebeenextensivelyexploited evenin Dacian and Romantimes as demonstrated the large numbersof tools, civilian and military constructiontechniques,scenes on Trajan's Column to allow enough and epigraphicevidenceof collegia for woodworkers.Despitethis, it is reasonable provincesof the RomanEmpire. Cultivated arableland to placeDacia amongstthe cereal-producing fields would havebeenwidespreadin the study areasince soil and climate data(seeabove),as well it indicate historic that tradition, was amongstthe most fertile of Transylvania.Given the as importanceof animal husbandryattestedthrough other sources(seeabove)we also have to assume a on the Trajan's Column (Lepperand greatextentof pasture.Straw, or perhapshay stacksrepresented Frere, 1988,65) are no different from the onesfrequently seenin the modem landscape. Inscriptions in RomanDacia and mentioningconductores pascui (or pascui et salinarum) attesttheir presence 63,1209). also their importance(Macrea 1969,298; CEL11113 But no matterhow fertile the land, it was the subsoilresources of Transylvaniawhich were by far the most desiredby her Roman conquerors.Theseconsisted mostly of rich metal ores,but also included salt and stonewhich have beenexploited from prehistorythrough to modem times. Iron metallurgy high levels of technologyand production in the spreadunder the influence of the Celts and reached classicphaseof evolution of the Dacian civilisation (Iaroslavschi 1997).The most important mineral resources of all were the rich sourcesof gold locatedin the Metaliferi Mountains. Associatedwith
50

the gold oreswere silver and lead. Information on niining concernsmostly Romanexploitation. large quantities,as However, the Dacianswere exploiting the gold and silver and had accumulated the Romanshad transportedto Rome some 165,500kilograms of gold and more than twice this quantity in silver after the Dacianwars (Glodariu et aL 1996,192). The episodeis also depictedon Tra an's Column. Archaeologicalremainsnotedfew Dacian gold artefactsother than the golden jewellery for it (Glodariu et aL 1996,192). Given that was preferred silver coins Kowvand seems the geologicalstructurethat allows variation of the concentrationof metal within the native stone, exploitation utilised various methods,ranging from washing gold particles from alluvium and surface (Wollmann 1996,103). Calculations figures to of productivity revealed gallery exploitation mining in 165yearsof Romanoccupation(Wollmann 1996,126).The 1.3 tons extracted of gold of some identified Baita Crisul Alb the the were around on upper valley of exploitation of ancient areas main Ruda-Bradarea,Bucium-Corabia(north ofAmpelum-Zlatna),Alburnus Maior-Rosia Montana,Baia de Aries area.Another gold exploitation areawas locatedat Pianu de Susextractingthe metal from Sureanu Deva Mountains. Copper the west was exploited of coming contentof alluvium (Wolimann 1996,149 and plate LXXXIII). The main centreof iron exploitation in Romantimes, which hascontinuedin the modem era,was (Teliucu Inferior, locatedin the PoianaRuscaMountains (Wollmann 1996,2324) aroundHunedoara However,there are iron resources Mountainsfor locatedin the Sureanu Ghelari, Plotca,Hunedoara). have been is Dacian from Batrana there ores of exploitation, proof which suchas at someof which Regia. Other iron sourcesare locatedat Dealul discoverednearreductionkilns at Sarmizegetusa Mare, betweenValea Mlacii and Valea Provatului, on the hills to the northwestand Negru, Steaua between Federi, Rudele, Dosul Sipca Strei, Bosorod the and at valley stream and of south-west Vartoapelor-Sub Cununi (Gheorghiu20013-4 and 183-6). Mures, The most important salt exploitation on the Mid-Mures valley is locatedat Salinae-Ocna though anotherpossibleexamplecould be locatednear Deva. Even lacking explicit evidenceof deposits in conjunction with the presence identification the of salt epigraphically exploitation, is (CIL 119) Other 1111363 IDR 111/3 Micia suggestive. salinarum of a conductor = at attested important ancientsalt exploitations are locatedimmediatelyoutsidethe study areaat Potaissa-Turda 1996,240-9). (Wollmann Sibiului Ocna and The varied geologyof the areaoffered sources of both volcanic and sedimentarystonequarriedin late antiquity. The volcanic rock was mainly andesiteof 'Uroiu type' available in 2 colours,which could be found at Petris-Uroiu and in severalquarriesin the areaaroundDeva (Wollmann 1996,257; Hansonand Oltean 2000). This was usedfor architecturalpurposesand millstones.Amongst the (outsideAmpelum-Datna),calcareous sedimentary-detritic rocks we find quartzitic sandstone (in areaDeva-Micia), (Sard),carbonaticsandstone andTortonian sandstone sandstone limestone(at Bucova which was the main marble sourceof Transylvaniauntil 1884), metamorphous Sibiului) and Eolithic limestone(near Tortonian limestone(Ighiu, Apoldul de Sus,Miercurea. Sarmizegetusa Ulpia) (Wollmann 1996,259-67).The hills nearMagura Calanului, Santamaria de Piatra andDeva - Padurea. BeJanhavebeenquarriedsinceDacian times for limestoneand andesite 51

(especially limestone by Dacians from Magura, Calanului) for the the that were used respectively, Regia area,and Capalna building the hill forts and other constructionsin the Sarmizegetusa (Glodariu.el al. 1996,220-2). Summarising, that the arableland, the metal (especiallygold) and other this chapterdemonstrates forests, (water, stone,salt), and the geographical/topographical setting favourable natural resources by one of the nicestclimatic regimesin for both communicationand defencewere further enhanced the area.Thus, the natural conditionswithin the study areapresentedall the advantages of setting, neededto attracthumanactivity/settlementand to becomethe core territory of climate andresources the DacianIdngdomand of the later Romanprovince.

52

53

Figure 2.2: River meanders on Mures and Strei valleys: the Mures-Strei confluence near Simeria (above) and near Calan (below)

54

Figure 2.3: Aerial photographof areascovered by industrial refuse at Hunedoara (above) and near Deva (below) (10)

"""

55

Figure 2.4: Water reservoirs in Tara Hategului (WSH)

; 007

rw.

-L

Hgurc

Lxtcnsic modern dram age N\mcm in

ara

atc-uiui ca-stot

56

Chapter 3: The historical background

definition of my study area,this chapterwill set the historical Having established the geographical boundariesunderlying the time period coveredand will sketchthe historical conditionswhich led to the Romanconquestand the organisationof the province of Dacia. The westernhalf of the Transylvanianplateauhasbeenrecognisedasthe core of the territory occupiedby the Romansin AD 106.(Figure1.9). Despiteits long-lastingoccupationsincethe late Palaeolithic, it is only in later its territory this that times and populationcameto the attention of the ancientclassical prehistoric world.

1. The late Iron Age: 1.2. The Dacian and Getic populations in Roman history: Before reaching Latin writers attention, the Barbarians from the North side of the Danube and from Dobrogea were first mentioned in ancient Greek classical texts. Strabo,1,2,1 declares that "[Alexander the Great] has brought to our knowledge [ ] towards the North of Europe, all the area ... until the Istros; the Romans have made known [ ... ] the places beyond the Istros as far as the river Tyras". This fact is unsurprising since the Greek cities established colonies on the Black Sea coast of Dobrogea from the Oh century BC that quickly became involved in the economic system of Magna Graecia. Therefore, Dacia came to the attention of the ancient world much more and at a much earlier date than, for instance, Britain. The collection of classical texts with reference to the antiquity of Romania by Iliescu et aL (1964) includes significant references from Greek and Latin authors, though many more have been omitted (Dana and Ruscu 2000,223). The interest of both Greek and Roman writers in the native populations from the territories to the North of the Danube and the Dobrogea range from political events and figures covered in histories, to literary and scientific matters (e.g. geographical, ethnographic, anthropological). The earliest mentions are brief. Hecataeus (Europa; FR 170-172) mentions the tribes of the Crobydae and the Trixae and Sophocles (Triptolem, FR 547) in one of his tragedies mentions a local king, Charnabon. However, a more comprehensive description was made by Herodotus (IV, 93-96; V, 3-10) in the context of their unsuccessful opposition to the incursion to the North of Black Sea of the Persian king, Darius. The information provided by Herodotus describes the natives in the immediate vicinity of the Greek colonies along the Black Sea coast. It is not unusual for Greek or, indeed, Latin writers to refer in the first instance to the natives from the zone of immediate contact just beyond the colonies, city walls or hinterland boundaries, as an obvious focus of specific interest and of available information. This is a serious bias that has been addressed by modem interpreters of ancient texts and which substantially affects the objectivity of
57

Barbariansocietiesoutsidethe geographicallimits of the classicalworld. suchsourcesin assessing This could perhapsexplain the obviousbias of information in geographicalcoverageof the area inhabited by the Daciansas opposed to that of the Getae,who inhabited the south-eastem territories located therefore, the and were, closer to the Greekcolonies on the regions, and outer-Carpathian Black Seaand the line of the Danube.Over time the coverageof historical accountsextends intra-Carpathian Dacian the the towards region and the north-west.A finther bias in area, gradually While someauthorssuchas Herodotus,Ovid, Crito, the quality of information is also detectable. Balbus and othershad travelled top the areaand collectedtheir information locally, othersused information mainly from the works of other authors.The latter is still exclusively second-hand lost information in it because the to the original chance recover part of usually us a gives valuable into information from be Even but taken the thoseauthors must account. alterations source, possible for is Herodotus in the travelled admits, example,that the sometimes only second-hand. region who information aboutthe Getaein his work hasbeencollected from Greek inhabitantsof the colonieson the Black Sea(IV, 93-96; V, 3-10). Finally, a bias of interpretationin the ancientliterature is that theseaccountswere producedexclusively by authorsother than the Daciansor the Getaethemselves. Therefore,they reflect only an interpretationof the 'barbarians', their life style, habits,religion and Greeks Romans, based the time the the on external through or of eyes and most of so on, in fact be different. the could reality extremely while manifestations, With the exceptionof the accountof Quintus Curtius datedto 339 BC of a rex Histrianorum by Scythian leader invasion Ateas,and consequent the their authority of country of repelling an Macedonia'sking Philip H over North Dobrogea(Condurachiand Daicoviciu 1971,96), the first Dacia in is Roman historical to the the of political, related population native accounts of appearance diplomatic, legal and ideological context of the late Republic. The expansionof Romanpolitical and Southern during 2nd in Balkans BC included interest the the the with century contacts military to Thracianssoonafter the organisationof Macedoniaas a Romanprovince, and gradually extended The governorsof Macedoniahad to deal with the the north, to the banksof the Danubeand beyondL "plundering expeditionsof the neighbouringpeoplee' including Getic and Daciantribes (Lica, 2000, 3842). However, specific mention of the DaciansamongBalkan populationsin their confrontation in Minucius Rufus Scordisci later Dacians Rome the the claims when victory against and appear with 109BC (Frontinus,Strat. 2.4.3), or later on in the V century BC, especiallythe campaignsunderC. ScriboniusCurio (76/75-73n2 BC) and M. TerentiusVaro Lucullus (73n2-71 BC) (Florus, Epit. I, 152 -23 Helm), or the action 39.6; Eutropius,6.2.2; Rufus Festus,Brev. 7; Eusebius-Hieronymus, of C. Antonius Hybrida in 52-61 BC (Livy Per. 103;CassiusDio 38.0.1-3). Eachof them tried to by (i. Macedonia) the their eliminating random attackson Roman e. province secure areaoutside territory or, during the Mithridatic wars, the potential sourceof mercenaryrecruitment for their The military defeatswere meantto placenegotiationswith the Thracianson favourable adversaries. into partnersof Romanforeign policy through treaties ground in order to transformthe local dynasts; under the legal systemof socii, both personaland of the Romanpeople (Lica 2000,42-60). The interestin the presence of the native tribes on the Lower Danubereachesa significant point when Burebistabrought all the Barbariantribes over a hugeterritory betweenthe middle Danube
58

Bug River (Ukraine), Black Seaand the Balkan Mountainsunder (Slovakia),Northern Carpathians, his authority.The chronologyis still under debate(seediscussionin Lica 2000,65-7), thoughwe can locate it with certainty in the middle of the V centuryBC when Rome was dealingwith the power of Caesarand the Civil Wars. The main sourcesof information are Strabo,(V 16 ; VII 3 11-13)and backedup by the inscription containingthe Dio Chrysostorn(takenup by Cassiodorus and Jordanes) decreein honour of Akornion of Dionysopolis (Syll.H 762 = IGB e 13). These,along with other Hist. fliria 13 36), Cassius PompeiusTrogus,(Prol. 33) Appian (Rom. indirect mentionsin Caesar, ffist. LI 22 6) and various inscriptionsfrom the Greek cities of the Black Sea,show that Dio (Rom. Burebistawas perceivedas a powerful dynastat the bordersof the empire, important enoughto play for (as in Rome his kingdom but boundaries the just the games of also political of within a role not for battle before Pharsalus Pompey target last-hour the and a planned reprisals of of ally examplea by Caesar- seeLica 2000,71-92). The power of the Getic statein the region did not last though.After the deathof Burebista(possibly into later 5 into 4, him), his dominion broke partsunder and against plot as a result of a political different rulers (reguh) (StraboVIL 3 11). Later on the Daciansand the Getaeappearconstantlyin Odes 51-3; 11118,8 Il 6 Vergil (Georg. H 495-7), Horace (Satires, and of accounts classicalwritten Pseudo-Acro,111,8,17-24),in Script. Lai Minorae (Consolatioad Liviam 387-8), Seneca Scol. (BeUud. (Nat.Hist. 9), Lucan (Phar. R 524) Pliny the Elder (Nat.Hist. IV 12 80), Flavius Josephus VII 4 3), Frontinus(Strat. IV 110 4; IV H4 3) Martial (Epig. V3 1-6; VI 76 5-6), Plutarch(Caes. 2 and IV, 54 1), Suetonius(Vita Caes. 58; Ant. 63), Tacitus (Agricola, 41 1; Germ. 1 1; Hist. 111,46 XLI 1; Dom. VI 1), Florus (Epit. Bel. Dac. H, 28,18), Appian (Rom.Hist. fliria Aug. XXI, 2; 2-1b. 13,36), Lucian (1caromenip16) and Philostratus,(VII 3 1). They show that the Daciansandthe in the political and strategicissuesof Rome.This is Getic populationswere a fairly frequentpresence late in Republic, for however, the the the context of power within political struggle not unexpected, Rome's Balkan Mountains the to the of the and organisation power north of of expansion of or Danubianborder of the Empire both in military and diplomatic contexts.The Daciansand the Getae involved in local the their events, supporting candidates, of own political part an active are shownas fights with the neighbouringbarbariansand frequently attackingthe bordersof the Empire.

1.2. Ethnicity, tribes and boundaries: Bennett(1997,85), echoingothers,considersthe Dacianand Getic people to have a strongsense of is less It in barbarian identity the clear thoughwhat exactly this notion would have world. national coveredin thosetimes as modem issuesof national identity cannotbe applied in the specific context in literary inconsistency is First the there antiquity. sourcesregardingtheir of all, a recurrent of agreethat the Greek sourcesuse the name'Getae' while ethnic name.Most Romaniancommentators the Latin onesseemto prefer the name'Dacians' (Stefan1964,XIII). However, someLatin authors usedthe nameGetaetoo, and someof them evenmadea distinction betweenthe two (Pliny the Elder, IV 12 80; Lucanus,Phar. 11524). Therefore,it is saferto acceptthe location-related explanationprovided by Strabo(Geog. VII 3 12-13):"They usedto call Danubiusthe upperpart of
59

Theseregionswere in the main the river and the one betweenthe springs(source)until the cataracts. part under the power of the Dacians.The lower part, until the Pontus(i. e. Black Sea)- along which " Further on, he continues:"Thcre hasbeena different division of the Getaelive - they call it Istros. the territory, dating sincethe earliesttimes: because onesare being called [by authors]Dacians,and the othersGetae.The Getaeare thosespreadtowardsthe Pontusand East,and the Dacians[are] " The ethnic thosewho settle the oppositearea,towardsGermanyand the Istros springs/source. both Elder's Pliny by Strabo is that the the spokethe same statements and confusion resolved language(Strabo, Geog.VH3 13; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. IV 12 80). Sincethe very first detailed belonging (Herodotus Thracian IV 93, tribes to the by Herodotus, they as acknowledged are account V 3-4, V 6; StraboVII 3 2), but still distinct by particularitiesof customsand religion. Their languagewould havebeenvery similar to thosespokenby the other Thraciansand belongedto the Getae, languages. between Dacians; Differences Indo-European the the 4satern' the and and group of the SouthernThraciansor, indeed,the Scythiansare difficult to perceive,as severalauthorsmake had Getae Dacians Physically, the identification the the and with either one or other. confusionsof Scythians). They Celts, Barbarians (Thracians, to them are around other sin-filarcharacteristics describedastall, their skin whiter and with lesshair than the populationsto the south(from the light (red? ) hair and blue eyes(Aristotle, Animal. Gen.V 3; Galen, Mediterraneanarea)with straight De Temp.H 5-6; ClementofAlexandria VII, 4; Porphyrius28). by very different, sometimes The confusion is also increased contradictorydescriptionsprovidedby Therefore, direct in to the argument. author's of relation the ancientsources own opinion or context (i. life, describe and customs e. of wisdom, simplicity a paradise of social organisation someauthors XVIH 15; StraboVH 3 3-5), while othersnote illiteracy, spiritual poverty (before Flavius Josephus (of behaviour,mentality or the religious reformationsbrought by Zamolxis), violence and excesses De L 16; Seneca, IV 95-96; Origenes, Claudius 6, (i. Herodotus Aelianus, V, IM, even environment) e. Provid. IV 14; Florus Epit. Bellum Dadcum H 28 18; Pliny the Younger Paneg, 12 2). From the beginning,the written sources picture a patriarchalsocietywith differentiated social categories, living. The in higher be than to most relevant of ways regard placed peaceful where warfare seems difference defining the northernThracian tribes from the southernonesseemsto be relatedto their IV, Thracians (Herodotus, 93) being lifestyle, than the the to the much greater rest of as warlike defining feature (Luciari, by Lucian Samosata Icaromenip. it being their of as most chosen of extent lead to a perceptionof excessive 16).This should not necessarily savageness or cruelty, have in the caseof other Thraciansor ethnic groupsin to stood out more which seem characteristics the areathan for the Daciansand Getae(as for examplethe Scordisci- Florus, Bellum. Yhracicum1, 39 3). The other most preferredcharacteristicfeatureis their religion along with the mentality created by it, which would havehad a great impact on their robotic portrait, and also largely nourishedtheir high motivation in battle. Indeed,the significant differenceof mentality towards life and death(noted by severalauthorsto be characteristicof the Getaeand Dacians,but also of other Thraciantribes), facing birth eventswith sadness and deathwith greatjoy, indicatesa greateremphasison after-life, acceptedas the immortal condition promisedto the initiated by their greatestdeified prophet, Zamolxis (or Zalmoxis) (HerodotusIV, 95-96; Strabo,VII, 3,5).
60

An extensivereferenceto the native tribes and placesin Dacia can be found in the 9h tabula of Europeof Ptolemy's Geographia(HI, 8 14), along with a short descriptionof their geographical location, wherethere is a list of 15 tribes and a finther list of civitates. According to Ptolemy,the northernmosttribes startingfrom the West were the Anarti, the Teurisci and the Coertoboci (Predavensi), (Costoboci).To the southof them were the Predasense the Rhatacense and the (Bun), the Cotense Caucoense (Cauci). Southof them were locatedthe Biephi, the Buredeense (Cotinii) and in a next row the Albocense,the Potulatenseand the Sense, while the southernmost is This Piephigi. Ciaginsi SaIdense, the most comprehensive the the the and accountregarding were tribal divisions in Dacia,thoughthere areprevious brief mentionsof tribes and tribal leaderson the left and right banks of the Danube,or evenin Transylvania,to be addedto the list, as for example, the Trixae, Crobydae,(Hecat.Europe,FR 170-172),Appuli (Script. Lat Minorae in Consolatioad Liviam 387-8).Unfortunately,the territory occupiedby thesetribes is highly approximatedon The Ptolemy's map, which gives little chanceof preciselocationsof their territories and boundaries. be from derived that themselves, them the to can also place names most of are names sameapplies found in his account(HI, 8 4). Appuli might have settledthe areaaroundthe Dacian Apoulon (probably at Piatra Craivii nearRomanApulurn -modem Alba Iulia) and constitutethe only tribe that The be located the the ancientauthors within study valley. area certainty on with mid-Mures can location identification the of the over ethnic confusion geographical create and often mistakeand in general barbariansnorth of the Danube,though this seemsto be a common situation for barbarians In in list in Ptolemy's Dacia, texts. the the tribal they case classical of given appear names when include mostly namessimilar to thosefrom the list of civitates and very few others.This might indicate the existenceof mostly territorial tribes at that datewith only a few survivals of traditional tribes in the period aroundthe date of the Roman conquest.However, in underlining the temporal divisions Wells "the flexibility (2001,31-2) tribal the that archaeological of observes and structural into delineated Europe Age Late Iron from that the specific shows peopleswere not clearly evidence to the tribes namedby the Romanand Greekwriters. Ratherthan being groupsthat might correspond long-term social or political entitiesthat had developedduring late prehistoric times, thesetribes divisions betweengroupsthat had formed in response to the Romanincursions. probably represented Thus what the Romanwriters perceivedas fixed, historically developedentities were in fact shortby the Romansthemselves". term creationsgenerated The issueof the extentof Dacianterritory is difficult to evaluatebasedon written accounts, as often depth of information and analysisto constitutea precise they are too brief or lack the necessary information be from However, the they two very different points of supply can approached account. view. Burebistaacquiredpower over a hugeterritory in the areato the north of the Balkan Mountains extendingfrom Slovakiato the Dnestr River, including the Greek towns on the westerncoastof the Black Seafrom Olbia to Apollonia. However, it would be wrong to assume that all this territory, or Ptolemy's accountof Dacia, would have containedexclusivelythe even the whole list of tribes Erom Daciansand the Getae.The ancientsources are quite specific aboutthe fact that Burebista,after ensuringhis authority within the Getic territory, went on to defeatthe Celtic tribes living in the area to the west of the Carpathians and in the PannonianPlains.Archaeology has revealedthat the Celtic
61

tribes had originally spreadeastas far as Transylvaniabefore being assimilatedby the Dacians,and the list of tribes given by Ptolemymentionsalso Celtic tribes suchas the Teuriscii (Teuriskoi) or the Anarti (Anatoi). In the east,the Getic tribes were mixed mainly with the Bastarnae Sarmathians. Finally, the regionsbetweenDanubeandBalkan Mountains were inhabitedby the SouthernThracian tribes. Apart from the Romanswho established their boundaryon the Danube(endedby the conquest in AD 28), a later addition to this picture are the Iazigae of Dobrogeaby M Licinius Crassus Sarmatians who were grantedpermissionby Rome to settlethe Tisa plain, alsoduring the reign of Tiberius, aroundAD 20 with the role of a buffer betweenthe Daciansand the Pannonianpopulations (Tacitus,Hist. 3.46.3). A morerealistic estimationis that the Dacianssettledthe left bank of the Middle Danubevalley in the Tisa Plains(until the arrival of the lazyges) and Transylvania,while the Getaelived on both sidesof the Lower Danubeand the south and eastsidesof the Carpathians.

1.3. Rulers and the nature of their 'states': As shown above,from the very beginningmention of political leadersin classicaltexts appears in the immediatevicinity of the Greek towns on the Black seacoast to the areas southern restricted prior to the first century BC show that thesepower centresof the and the Danube.All the accounts nativeson the Danubewere mainly tribal centreson local scale.However, the rise of Burebista's into brought the conceptof power at a different scalein the region. First of all, consideration power in extendinghis authority over a huge territory (seeabove).But unlike his he succeeded by the sourcesas having a different statusthan the kings the Getic leaderis presented predecessors, previously mentioned,brought aboutby the more careful control over the territory and its subjects, but especiallyby religious recognitionensured by associationwith Dekaineos,the greatpriest, as the secondman in power (StraboVII, 3,5; VII, 3,11). Certain formulations in an epigraphicdecree (Syll.II 762 = IGB J213) datedto 48 BC in honour of Akornion of Dionysopolis, who was sentas of Burebistato Pompey,claim the title of 'king of kings' for Burebistaand the king's ambassador 'first and greatestfriend' for Akornion, both in usewithin the Hellenistic kingdomsof the Balkans in his andNear East.This led to attemptsto arguefor the appearance of institutional organisations time and an administrativeframework specific to the Hellenistic kingdoms (seediscussionin Lica 2000,82, footnote 96), when this shouldbe regardedonly as an interpretatio graeca by Akornion. Nevertheless, the political power of Burebistais undeniableand on a far greaterscalethan that of any other leaderbefore. It is apparentfrom the way he dealt with the Greek towns from the western Pontic areaand in his relationshipwith Romeduring the conflict betweenCaesarand Pompey,as a last-minuteally of the latter (Ruscu2002,295-307;Lica 2000,62-92). Ruscu(2002,295-307)denies Burebistaa clear political programin his actionsagainstthe Greek towns and statesthat the real political basiswas the military force underhis commandwhich madeany Greekresistance inadequate. This lendsweight to the interpretationof the political and territorial unit under his authority asno more than a very large tribal union, with a more advancedbasisof the leader's political power. The chronologyof his reign in relation to the dating of political eventsdescribed by Strabois considered by most historiansto be betweenthe early '80s and late '40s BC, thoughthis
62

It he had 2000,65-73). (see Lica debate is seems also a capital at subject currently under but its location is not preciselyconfirmed. It is thought to have beenin the Sirct valley (Z)argedava, ), though the beginningsof hillfort monumentalityin the OrastieMountains areaseems (Barbosi? to be datedat that time too. There is more certainty in locating the religious focus, the holy mountain Kogaionon, in the OrastieMountains. Long beforeBurebista,Herodotus (V, 3) points out the lack of unity amongstthe Thraciansandthe impossibility for them to cometogetherunder a unique ruler or confederation,though in his view, had they beenunited, this would makethem the most powerful nation in the known world. What Dacians Thracian it for Getae to the tribes the the unify and possible made mentality changeof social 11) VII 35 VII 3 (Geog. Strabo According the to huge ; territory this a single power? under over all high priest, Dekaineos,was also the main counsellorof the king. As a spiritual leader,he reformed Kogaionon, facade 'institutionalised' stresson around concentrated the religion through a more for (e. the eradicationof vine cultivation, in life, and austerity g. measures temperance obedience His by Zamolxis. immortality death in that main political after promised vegetarianism) pursuit of The to the the authority. however, to political obedient centralised people newly task, was make Greek barbarians colonists, or whetherneighbouring provision of conflicts againstany opponents, from benefit through regulated the or stipends resulting associated pillage, material along with leaders kept have keep did tribal the if Burebista to them, other not always would also treaties,even in failure idea However, implement the him. the to the political unity of their around armies and led death division the territory Burebista to the of the society of and multi-ethnic mentality of betweenhis heirs (StraboVH 3 11). Namesof suchminor kings (reguh) occur in the literary sourcesfrom the end of the I" centuryBC, Getae Flavian Dacians Julio-Claudian the the the were the and and periods when and through 31 44 (between dynasts The Dacian being and ancientsources mention several mentioned. constantly BC - seeLica 2000,100): Koson (?), Cotiso and Dicomes. The first nameis problematic,sincethe in large found been have is KOSON his that indication the coins mysterious gold existence of only issues to the in Transylvania to of monetary and attributed,according somenumismatists, quantities by informed Cotiso We king Cotiso. Brutus. Othersprefer to identify the character of are with Horace (Carm. 3.8.17-18), Florus (2.28.18-19) and Suetonius(Aug. 2 1.1 - for AD 12). However,it Koson had dynast date Koson. later he likely than that relationswith of a another was seemsmore Brutus, offering him troops who would havebeenpaid with the statersbearinghis name(KOZON) (Lica 2000 104-5).Also, accordingto Plutarch,(,4nt. 63.3-4), a Dicomes the king of the Getae force, large hisflor-uit his thus Antonius; to confirming to with a aid around31 BC. come promised As for Rholes,Dapyx and Zyraxes,thesedynastsare mentionedby CassiusDio and they all seemto fit into the period 31-27 B. C. (Lica 2000,93-120) The important fact, however,for the presentstudy, as well as for the generalhistorical development of the late iron age,was that the Dacianstateof Transylvaniacontinuedin existencewith its centrein the Orastiemountains. Dekaineos,the high priest and No.2 of Burebista's dominion, is the one who by his takesover power after the deathof the king, possiblyresulting from a political plot organised
63

opponents(Condurachiand Daicoviciu 1971,99). lordaneswrites, referring to Dio Chrysostomos, that Comosicuswas the first to perform the roles of high priest and king simultaneously,which meansthat Dekaineosprobably kept his title of high priest and did not adopt that of king despitethe later extensionof his authority into the political arena.Probablyhis authority extendedto only a small area,perhapsnot larger than the seatof governmentand the religious core in the mountainsof Orastie,and most likely the ore-miningareas.Later, and perhapsfollowing the kings Koson and Cotiso, Comosicusprobably beganhis reign during the campaignof M. Vinicius and ruled until 29 A. D. (Lica 2000,128). The ideaof the DacianKingdom preservedwithin the OrastieMountainsis implied by the survival of a dynasticlist, thoughpossibleincomplete:Koson(? ), Cotiso, Comosicus, Scorylo (or Coryllus, as Jordanes ), Duras and Diurpaneuscalls him in his Getica) (A. D 29-69? Decebalus (Lica 2000,188). The 4 or 5 political entities resulting from the dissolution of Burebista's 'empire' continuedto be separate entitiesof no more than local significanceprobably up to Scorylo's time. Unfortunately, the existentdatais insufficient to know whether or not the religious by the other kings in this list apartfrom connotationsof political power were maintainedpersonaBy Dekaineosand Comosicus.However,the pre-emptiveposition of the leadersof the Orastiekingdom that would havebeennourishedlargely by religion is confirmed by the fact that it is one of these leaderswho probably undertookthe re-unification of the territories still unoccupiedby the Romans or by the Iazyges. Diurpaneus-Decebalus as the king of the whole of Dacia. The information about his reign is appears largely focusedon the wars againstthe Romansand appears in Tacitus (who mentionsDiurpaneus), Martial, Dio, Crito, and othersoffer someinformation. The sources Cassius Jordanes though and are not explicit aboutthe territorial extentof his kingdom, but on the basis of archaeologicalevidence (hillfort distribution) it is currently assumed that the territory under his authority roughly with the areaof modemRomania,with the exceptionof Dobrogeawhich was alreadya corresponded part of Lower Moesia. The position of political no.2 in this regime was occupiedby Vezinas,a though in the caseof Vezinaswe do not know reminder of the political duo Burebista-Dekaineos, whether he was also the high priest (CassiusDio, LXVII 10 2). However, in comparisonto Burebista'sdominion, that of Decebalus to be better organised,centralisedand more appears A clear distinction was introducedbetweenthe warrior elite on the one ethnically homogeneous. hand and the administrationand the economicelite on the other (Crito, Get.S. (2) Suidas).The royal council includedpileati and comati altogether(asprobably that of Scorylo) (Frontinus Strat. 1,10 4). Also, the possiblebreak up of the traditional tribe as an administrativeunit, and promotion of the territorial units from Ptolemy's list (seeabove)could havehappened within the latestphaseof the Dacian kingdom, during the reign of Decebalus.

1.4. Relations with Rome: The natureof the relationshipof the Daco-Getae with Rome is anothertopic where the literary sourcespresentan incompleteimageof reality. Despitethe fact that the sourcesof information exclusively presentthe Romanpoint of view, Romaniantraditional historiographyhas tried to
64

analysethe relationship from a Dacian-focused perspective.The failure to considerthe Roman juridical framework with which theserelationshad to comply hasresultedin great distortion of their interpretations.This point hasbeenmadealsoby Lica (2000) who madethe most recentattemptto evaluatethe political and diplomatic aspects of the relationship from a Romanperspective. Both the Daciansand the Getaewere perceivedas a threat by the Empire largely after they reached the line of the Danubethrough conquest thougha threat of no more than a local significance. Because of their frequentraiding expeditionsinto Romanterritories, provincial or central leaders plannedand undertookreprisalsagainstthem. Caesaris reportedto have plannedexpeditionsagainst the Parthiansand the Daciansjust beforehis deathin 44BC, in the context of unification under Burebistaand the latter's tendencies to enlargehis politico-diplomatic involvement into the larger scene(diplomatic action towardsPompey,seebelow). The period betweenBurebista'sdeathand the by fighting between Romans. Dacians Roman Dccebalus marked was much and of accession along the Lower perceptionof the Daciansand the Getaeas a constantdangerto their possessions Danubecontinuedafter the deathof Burebistaandthe division of his arche betweenhis heirs, for Antonius receivedthe military commandthat he usedto start his civil war actionspleading in front of the Senatefor counter-actionagainsta 'Getic danger, though Us might havebeensignificantly (Lica 2000,97). for Octavian was alsoplanning on setting out against purposes political exaggerated the Daciansin 35-33 BC (Strabo,7.5.2, and Appian, Myr. 22.65; 23.67). A few yearslater, Licinius Crassus, the governorof MoesiadefeatedCotiso and in 27 BC he finalised the conquestof Dio, 51.23-27, Livy, Per. 134; Florus, 2.26.13-16). In 10 Dobrogea,adding it to Moesia (Cassius BC a new Dacian winter attackon Pannoniais mentionedby CassiusDio (54.3 6.2), followed by Danube in AD 6 (CassiusDio, 55.30.4), to which the Roman the of south somewhere anotherone Sex. Aelius by Catus followed (Strabo, 7.3.10). It the removal the of expedition was response was of 50,000Getaesouth of the Danube(Condurachiand Daicoviciu 1971,99). A third attack followed towardsthe end of Octavian's reign (Orosius,6.22, possibly in AD 12). During Tiberius' reign a new Getic attack (AD 15) is mentionedin Ovid (Ex ponto 4 9.76-80 under L. PomponiusFlaccus) followed by a Dacian attack during his last years(Suetonius771b. 4 1.1).As a result, Tiberius Plautius SilvanusAelianus, governorof MoesiabetweenA. D. 57-67, removedmore than 100,000 in kings Transdanubians together their the with wives, children and across river order to pay the tribute (CIL XIV 3608 = ILS 986). In the winter of the year A. D. 70, Tacitus (Hist. 4.54.1) notes troubles from the Barbarians,including Getaeand Dacians.Finally, the last attackson the lower Danubeboundarytook place during Domitian's reign and startedwith yet anotherwinter attackin AD 86 involving a barbariancoalition, including Daciansalong with Bastarnae,Roxolani and Iazyges.The governorC. Oppius Sabinuswas killed and the forts along the Danubesuffered his significant damage,obliging Rome to organisea quick and powerful reply. Domitian established headquarters at Naissusin Mocsia and sentthepraefectuspraetorio Cornelius Fuscuson an expeditionnorth of Danubeagainstthe Daciansunder their new king, Decebalus.The action endedin disaster,as the Romanslost the battle and a whole legion (the VAlaudae) with all its equipment and Fuscushimself died in the battle. The Dacianswere eventuallydefeatedin AD 88 by Tettius Iulianus (CassiusDio LXVH 6.1-6; 7,1-4; 10,1-3).
65

Often the Daciansand the Getaewere diplomatic partnersand played active parts in the political gamesof Rome,often as amicil et socii, possibly of Rome herself but usually of individual Roman leaders.For example,shortly before the battle of Pharsalus when Burebistaprobably becamean by Senate (Lica Pompey's 2000,98). Romani, At Actium, confirmed amicuset sociuspopuli accordingto CassiusDio (50.6), Antonius had the Getaeon his side under the authority of King Dikornes(Plutarch, Ant. 63.34) while Octavianhad the armiesof Cotiso and his Dacians amongst his own supporters. Furthermore,Octavianplannedthe marriageof his daughter,Julia, to king Cotiso Aug. LXHL 4. VL andAnt. 7), and most probably Cotiso to strengthen their alliance (Suetonius Octavian Roman (Lica have held the the or of of people personally of amicus et socius status would 2000,117). The statusof Koson, Dicomes,Cotiso and maybeRholesremainsuncertain.It is not clear whetherthey were amici et socii populi Romani,or only enjoyedpersonalrelations with Brutus, Antonius and Octavian respectively."As for the legal basisof theserelations, it is well known that Rome,at that time, usedto imposethe deditio on her partnersin internationalrelations, evenif there had beenno military conflicts. This is why, in her relations with the Getorumet Dacorum gentes, Rome actedsimilarly- they were unableto invoke the treatmentdue to an equalpartner" (Lica 2000, by Domitian's generalsagainstDecebalus(86 118).The peacethat concludedthe wars conducted brother, later by his Dacian king 88) the AD through and ambassador a year only was signed and Dio LXVH 7.14). Domitian's treaty with Dacia Diegis (Martial EpigrammataV. 3 1-6; Cassius financial and technicalassistance. provided significant by Tacitus (Hist. 3.46.3): Dacorum gens How significant thesetreatieswere, however,is expressed Getae indicates by Dacians they that the the were asmore never and perceived numquamfida which A particular and than momentarysolutions and could be broken soonafter circumstances changed. deditio handing (usually hostages Romans involving the the to the membersof was of of aspect more kings families -women and children). This practicemight have startedas early as 71 BC with M. TerentiusVarro,Lucullus and continuedlater underOctavianusAugustusand throughout the V from in have A AD. to this the agreement exception practice peace may possible occurred century (CassiusDio 67.7.4), but soon after in 102 AD 89 when Domitian may havehad to pay for hostages Younger, Panegyr. hostages (Pliny 12.2; Dacian Rome in 106 indeed AD the to were sent again and also, seediscussionin Lica 2000,253-6). in Dacia of individuals from the RomanEmpire as merchants,craftsmenand In turn, the presence andmentionedby literary sources.Significant amountsof runaways(slavesor not) hasbeenaccepted Romandenarii, including locally minted copies,havebeenfound on Dacian sites.The economic relationsinducedmultiple influencesthrough active exchangeof goodsand technologies,especially in the areaof OrastieMountains (Florea 1998,31). The imagecreatedby historical accounts prior to the Romanconquestis, despite on the Dacians; certain stereotypes, of their civilisation. From the beginning they madea very clear in severalaspects throughtheir warlike ways and their uncommonreligion very individual note among the barbarians and religiosity. But if internal disputeswere a normal occurrence, as in the caseof other tribes and ethnic groupsbeyond the Europeanboundaries of Greeceand Rome, it was their two above66

(e. Burebista Decebalus) features that g. under on occasions or could makethem mentionedparticular like incipient Concepts disputes god-supported royalty and stateadministration and unite. overcome madetheir way into the late Dacian society.But, incapablelike many othersof respectingtreaties from Greek Rome the Black Sea,for some in their the cities neighbouring with or, earlier on, with dangerous life. This was a mixture evenwhen they were a way of was society,war and religion divided, but co-ordinatedunder a unique commandcould havebecomethe power foreseenby Herodotuslong before Rome decidedto interveneand defeatthem.

2. The Roman conquest under Traj an: My intention here is not to provide lengthy descriptionsof the wars concludingwith the conquestof Dacia and organisationof the Romanprovince, asthe subjecthasbeenintensively and extensively by Ti. Statilius Crito descriptions direct literary The Romanian by other and scholars. approached Dio himself lost leave Cassius Trajan the that by most substantial as the now of emperor and first What from Rome. illustrative Trajan's Column the seems sight at record of account,along with but biased, information is in fact incomplete, highly be still and corrupted of to a significant amount This Dacia. Roman information important the the sectionwill of about context of conquest gives later influenced in identify the that the the the conquest only order ones approach eventsof Roman framework development Dacia rule. and under of colonisationand administrative As shownabovein the caseof the Dacians; and the Getae,the frequentbarbarianattackson the bordersof the Empire were usually dealt with successfullybecause the greatmajority of them were become local But Barbaricum the could significance. unification of singular eventswith only less 200 000 The by Burebista had Romans. for than the unity acquired no gathered catastrophic formidable that the constituted command a same power alreadyperceivedas under warriors Fortunately for Rome, it lastedonly until his deathand it seems that the threateningby Caesar. Getae Scorylo's later. At Actium 100 division the and the until years continued reign subsequent Dacianswere divided in their diplomatic action in supportingdifferent Romanparties(seeabove). in his pursuit of power againsthis political Rome's assistance Rholeshad in fact requested if formerly Other barbarian his the tribes under authority origin. of own ethnic even opponents, Burebista,suchas the Bastarnae, are not mentionedas being allied to the Getae(Lica 2000,126) and the conflict betweenthe Daciansand the Pannonians noted by Tacitus (Gerinania 1,1) is resolvedby ('20s AD). Romeby grantingpermissionto settlethe plain of Tisa river to the IazygesSarmatians However, Scorylo's unifying actionsmight alreadyhavebeenperceivedas dangerous and underthe last king, Decebalus, despitethe fact that now the Dacian army could gatheronly 40 000 soldiers,it had developedinto a far better organised be Furthermore, by the to so. administration proved now and centralisedkingdom than it had beenunderBurebista,and his diplomatic contactsin Barbaticum were, if fluctuating in nature,nevertheless active andreachedevenremoteregions suchas Parthia (Pliny the Younger 74.1). Domitian tried to keepthem under control at all coststhrough diplomacy, but the new emperor, Trajan, was of a different natureand optedfor a different approach.The first of his wars againstthe
67

Daciansin AD 101-2 was a punitive action directedtowards getting a better diplomatic deal for Rome (Bennett 1997,87), though other recentopinions have arguedthat a major factor in persuading Trajan to go to war againstDacia in 101 "lay in his own weaknesses rather than in Decebalus's (Lepper Frere, 1988,3 8-9). However, his and and arrogance" popularity second strength, growing in its despite is AD 105-6, the fact that the that conquest, aim of expansion and specific of campaign, Trajan rejectedall the blameDecebalusfor failure to respectthe peaceagreement. literary sources Roman Dacian The the the the army crushed opposition. strength of peaceoffers and,predictably, intended by Dacians defend desperate to mirror the describe to themselves the struggle sources The Roman their their the subject of real glorification. and of emperor, army strengthand courageof in illustrated Dacian the siegeand conquestof desperation resistance, of and stubbornness is usedby Regia (GradisteaMuncelului) and the final suicide of the king Decebalus, Sarmizegetusa the to the the treatment to after conquest natives applied unbelievable explain modem commentators in 000 including (500 depopulation literary by described prisoners mentioned a the sources severe as few fragmentsof Crito's Getica) and deliberateethnic cleansing(Bennett 1997,101; seediscussion in Ruscu2004).

3. The framework of colonisation and administration 3.1 Territory: The territory of the Daciankingdom was not occupiedin its entirety by the Romans.Nor did its boundaries remain constantover the 2 centuriesof Romanoccupation.Immediatelyafter the wars of between Transylvanian the Trajan territory the the plateau along of with most occupied conquest different for However, forms Danube. different the took Carpathians parts of the the occupation and Dacian territory. Someareas,suchas EasternOltenia, Muntenia and SouthMoldavia were addedto the territory of Lower Moesia (i. e. the territories on the oppositebank of the Danube).The new from Upper bank Moesia, was confined only to the Dacia, the the of river on opposite province of from i. its Transylvania, kingdom, the north of Dacian access the routes of e. along with main core of DanubethroughBanat and WesternOltenia. After Trajan's deathHadrian had to facea significant threat from the tribes outsideDacia and to make substantialtransformationsinvolving some territorial lossbeing forced upon him (SouthMoldavia and the plain of Muntenia). However,the damageherewas lessthan in the East,whereall Trajan's newly conqueredterritories had to be limits Transylvania, Banat and but Roman the territory of modem within remained abandoned, Oltenia. The reorganisationaffectedLower Moesia too, which returnedto its original boundaries from beforethe conquestof the Dacianterritories. Dacia itself (now namedUpper Dacia or Dacia Superior)remainedwithin the limits of Trajan's vision of administration,its defencenow re-enforced by the creationof two small provinceswith a purely military purpose:Lower Dacia (Dacia Inferior) (easternOltenia, the retainedterritory formerly within the boundariesof Lower Moesia) and Dacia Porolissensis (North-westemTransylvania).This territory remainedunder Romanoccupationuntil rd 3 half in 2"d the abandonment the the the century AD (Piso 1993;aboutthe dateof of of province the abandonment, seeRuscu2003,221-231).
68

3.2. Nfilitary occupation: In 102Trajan lcft one legion in Dacia.After the wars endedthere were 2 legions in the area,theMII Geminabasedat Apulum and the IVF(avia Felix at Bcrzobis. A third possiblelegion was the I Adiulrix but so far neither its preciselocation nor chronology of occupationin Dacia have been in it full indeed, orjust through vcxillations (Piso 1993,7-8). was present whether confirmed,nor, The IVRaWa Felix was moved at a later dateby Hadrian to Singidunurnin Upper Moesia on the Danube,so the presence to have looked sufficient for the rest of the first of only one legion seems half of the secondcenturyAD. This proved to be wrong during the eventsof the MarcomanicWars, from in had be Troesmis Moesia Infcrior legion VMacedonica to transferred the permanently when in Dacia. to Potaissa A lot of auxiliary units are attestedin the Dacianprovincesduring the period of Romanoccupation, less 58 Military diplomas than through of them covering a evidence. mention no epigraphic mainly completerangeof troops:alae and cohortesmilliariae and quingenarideaswell asnumeri, along does in However, (Russu 1). 1975,142-15 this their not mean ethnic origin variation with significant that all thesetroops were stationedin Dacia at the sametime and throughoutthe entire period of Romanoccupation.Only limited estimationsof their number within shorterchronologicalperiods by Unfortunately, be the most recentcomprehensive as revealed study of more than a can made. forts in has Dacia Roman hundredsites(Gudea1997),the chronologicalaspects the of of occupation basis the been on of trial or more extensiveexcavationand the main sources clarified completely not for the estimationremainthe military diplomas.During the reign of Trajan the Daciangarrisonis 54 28 (Bennett been 1997,166), have troops total to of units within auxiliary number a and estimated the first 50 yearsof the 2nd century AD (Russu 1975,142-151). Basedon archaeological evidence, have been in forts 34 to estimated useuntil the middle of the 2nd centuryAD with certainty. are some to have Within the 2"dhalf of the 2d century AD only some30 sites seemat this stageof the research beenpresentin Dacia (Gudea 1997).That this is a realistic estimationseemsto be supportedby the issued diplomas by century AD. Out of within the secondhalf of the 2nd evidenceprovided military the total of 58, only some21 (possibly 3 1) auxiliary units are attestedin this period in Dacia. It is worth noting though at this point that both types of evidenceseemto reveal a reductionin the in first located Dacia from half to the secondhalf of the 2nd the troops the auxiliary numberof centuryAD. Unfortunatelythe dataallow us to appreciate more than anything how inconclusivethe situation is so far. The categoryof forts possibly occupiedincludesmainly those where a precisechronologyof Very often this is where the chronology is basedon occupationhasnot beenestablished. morphologicalinterpretationof the site as fitting sometimein the secondand third centuriesAD. Someof them havehad their occupationproved for the earlier or the later period and there was no basisto totally excludethe possibility of their usein the period under consideration. This explains in uncertaintyis visible towardsthe 3rdcentury AD. Also, it supportsthe earlier why an increase that the analysisattemptedhere is likely to seechangesin the future when more study has statement
69

in Romanforts in Dacia. At this moment,however, the reliable evidenceis still beenundertaken ratherthan increasein the number of military units presentin Dacia sufficient to observea decrease, over time. The distribution map of thesesites(seelater, chapter6 and map) showsthat they tend to be locatedalong the frontiers and, where their chronology is clear, some20-30 kilometres apart even which allows eachto cover an areaof the limes some along the limites Alutanus and Transalulanus, 10-15 kilometresin radius.By contrast,the densityof forts on Hadrian's wall for instanceis greater, kilometres. 810 Within distances located the mid-Mures valley one they some of only at as were legion was locatedat Apulum and threeauxiliary troops at Razboieni,Cigmau and Micia. The is these clear enoughto revealcontinuousoccupationthroughoutthe whole sites chronology of is Micia boundary fort, from 3d AD. Trajan Roman the to only century mid-late occupation period of 45 kilometres from limes line 25,35 distanced the the and respectively and at some other are while but primarily to from eachother.This indicatesthat their function was not to defendthe boundaries, in (terrestrial inner the territory, the and riverine) of and particular routes of communication control the province.

3.3. Capitals and command: Becauseof its strategic,economic,and alsopolitical importance(in relation to the cursushonorum imperial Dacia from beginning the was as an power) very organised military of and as a source Roman Dacia Trajan's During the throughout was under so occupation. reign province andremained the commandof a governorwith the rank of former consul backedup by two legati legionis, while financial (taxation handled by finances to the payments military) procurator. the and were a all Under the administrativeschemeintroducedby Hadrian, the Dacian territories were under the (fortnerpraetor) for Upper Dacia the senatorial rank was also of who governor one of command 2 legion left Apulum, financial for Dacia Upper the one and at only procurator of commander in During ducenary Lower Dacia Dacia Porolissensis. one of rank, each and procuratores praesidial (or soonafter) the Marcomannicwars Us scheme was modified again.Military andjudicial administrationwas unified under the commandof one governor (former consul)having 2 other legati legionis) his (the as subordinates and the province was called simply Dacia or tres senators Daciae. The previousboundariesremainedonly as the domainsof the 3 financialprocuratores, now Dacia Aplulensis and Dacia Malvensis (the latter as the former Upper namedDacia Porolissensis, and Lower Dacia respectively)(Piso 1993,7-9,30-41 and 82-5). From the point of view of this study, the most important centreswere the placeswhere Romanstate issue its The through exercised of the provincial capital is one that has authority was representatives. benefitedfrom specialattention.In Piso's opinion (1993) the foci of commandwere variable, linked to the location of the functionariesthemselves, at least at the initial stageof organisationof the new province. From a military point of view, the most important centreswould havebeenthe legionary basesat Apulum, Bersobisand Potaissa. Only Apulum was in that position for the whole of the Romanoccupation, as Bersobiswas a legionarybaseonly until the deathof Trajan and the legion V Macedonicawasbrought to Potaissaonly during the MarcomannicWars. Given the circumstances,
70

Apulum would havebecomethe military andjudicial centreof the province with certainty from the time of Hadrian (possiblyevenearlier). The fmancial centreat Wpia Traidna Sarmizegetusa as the seatof the financial procuratoris assumed, probablycorrectly, to have functionedin the same location sincethe very beginning.The locationsof commandof Dacia Porolissensis and of Lower Dacia are probablyat Napoca(Cluj) and Buridava (Stolniceni) respectively(seeargumentand discussionin Piso 1993,3940 and 90-1).

4. Conclusion: This chapterhasshownthe historical backgroundof RomanDacia in terms of both the development itselt inconsistency identifications Because by ancient the conquest and of of ethnic society of native literary historical the the to the and of sources was enlargedto include references authors, coverage Within that larger picture, the areaof the Getaealong with thoserelatedto the Daciansthemselves. is Valley the subjectof the presentstudy developsinto the core of leadershipand that mid-Mures late least) in ancient (at for both pre-Romanand the Romantimes. The scarcityof references power, texts in the period prior to Burebistaprovides little opportunity to follow the political and historical The the only mention of a Transylvaniandynast (Oroles)by TrogusPompeius area. of evolution (Phil. XXXII, 3,16) refersto EasternTransylvaniaand not to the study area,thougharchaeological sourceshaverevealedthe existenceof power centresthere before the I" centuryBC (seechapter4). During Burebista'sreign it is possible,accordingto literary sources,that his political capital was still locatedoutsideof this area,or evenTransylvania,but we can date the beginningof Dacian solely in the OrastieMountains at the sametime. Probably architecturalmonumentalityexpressed related to the location of the religious core there,the areacontinuesto maintain an important role within the whole Dacianworld after the deathof Burebista.When Dekaineostakesover power in his despite high the political fragmentation,religion gives a pre-emptiveposition and priest, of capacity to the political nucleusof Mures valley and OrastieMountains. It is also significant that only for the OrastieMountainspower centrehasa more completelist of rulers survived and that the reRegia unification from the I' centuryAD beginsin this area.That the areaaroundSarmizegetusa was the centreof Decebalus'kingdom at the time of the Romanconquestis madevery clear by all accounts.Nearby, in Tara Hategului, immediatelyfollowing conquest,the first colonia (the only deducla) of Dacia, Wpia Traidna Sarmizegetusa was founded,and it was the financial capital and centreof the Imperial cult of the province, possiblyon the location of an earlier legionary site. Apulurn was a legionarybaseduring the whole of the Romanperiod, seatof the governorand location of Romancivilian settlementof the highestrank. Thesesites are the most important sitesin Dacia asthey concentrate the whole administrative,financial, political and military commandof RomanDacia. Given all thesefacts, the areais ideal for studying the impact of the Romanconquest in Dacia, asrevealedby the settlementpatternand providing and occupationon the native landscape in Dacia. a better understanding of the natureof Romanisation

71

Chapter 4: Late pre-Roman Iron Age landscape; Iron Age rural settlement pattern and society

This chapterwill try to analysethe settlement patternof the late pre-RomanIron Age from a different the social, economic, perspectivefrom that previously applied.This study aims primarily to address function based layout their the and of sites, on and associated status religious and adn-dnistrative finds, but also on their settingboth within the natural landscape and in relation to other sites.From this point of view a crucial distinction needsto be madefrom the start basedon the size of the between have be by to type that of site, sitesthat needed accommodated each would community hosted severalfamilies of more or lessequalposition on a social macro-scale(nucleated)and family individuals by inhabited with or associated one or without secondary members settlements dependenton the leadingfamily.

1. Settlement hierarchy: Historical sources give hints of a significant demographicdevelopmentwithin the Daco-Geticarea, The but the patternof occupationand settlementof the territory is still unclear in many respects. The is Dacian the types accepted. within of generally variations settlement existenceof significant Gheorghiu (Glodariu 1983,46-8, followed latest by typology the such as studies current settlement 200 1), takesinto accountfactorssuchas economic,politico-strategicand administrativeimportance, local topography,size and the distribution of internal buildings, and identifies 5 types of settlement. involving groups by villages andharrilets.Theseunenclosedsettlements, The first type is represented late Iron Age be identified huts, dozens few to the the are recognised most numerous among a of for be in locations They to scattered along agricultureor the river valleys suitable seem settlements. but were still locatedon the upper terraces,and towardsthe source exploitation of natural resources, hills dominant bottom by the the the of protected steep slopes and at peaks.A secondtype valleys of by settlements includes promontorysettlements, while the third is represented on islands,though theseare of lessrelevancefor the presentstudysincenonehave been identified within the studyarea. from highland areas- whether of scattered (4) or compact Finally, types4 and 5 cover the settlements (5) structure.PreviouslyNandris (1976,732-3) had proposeda different typology which madea fundamentaldistinction betweenthe sitesfortified with murus dacicus placed in strategiclocations (type 1) and"Domestic settlements largely of woodenhouses,but not excluding stonebuilding well dispersedamonggardens and orchards,throughpartially cleared forest, along ridges or in valleys, or evenon small platforms dug on the slopes"(2). The so-calledmurus Dacicus is a special building techniqueconsistingmainly of two revetments of ashlarblocks tied by crossbeams, with the inner spaceinfilled with stonerubble and earth.Specialholeshave beendug transverselyinto the stoneswherethesewoodenbeamswere installed(seeGlodariu 1983,fig 12.2).The techniqueusedat 72

Costestiis derived from the Hellenistic wall usedat the Greek colony of Histria on the Black Sea into line (emplecton). from The the the transversely rubble core wall placed coast,with stones differencebetweenthe Costesti-Cetatuie wall and that of Histria.is that the former makesactive use beams in latter despite the the the provision the were absent wooden while cross-bcams, wooden of Murus Dacicus 2 inner for fixture the holes the the their at comers. stone revetments of side on of doesnot useat all the transverse stonesspecific to the Hellenistic walls, relying simply on the been have for A keep beams to the wall of technique together. to the used special seems wall wooden Craiva hillfort wherethe stonefacesof the wall not only rely on the horizontal enforcementof the foundations into (Gheorghiu fixed but beams, through stone vertical stones transverse alsovertically, 2001,132-141). The walls are usually about2-3m (up to 4m, e.g. Luncani-PiatraRosie).Within the Cugir, Craiva, Deva, dacicus has been Capalna, Banita, noted at study area,evidenceof murus PoianaPopii, PoianaPertii) GradisteaMuncelului Costesti(Cetatuie,Blidaru, Ciocuta,Faeragu, Regia, Varful lui Hulpe, Aninesului Hill, Lunca Nastii, FeteleAlbe) and Luncani(Sartnizegetusa in it it in hillfort the construction Although Rosie. used Piatra was often present enclosures, was also of terracewaUsandtower-houses. (3), herding dairying "upland identifies types the sites" and Lockyear also of settlement as separate (5). (4) industrial the activities pottery and sites or siteswith metalworking the sanctuaries and ritual of the Most recently, Lockyear (2004) hasproducedan analysisof the late pre-Romanarchaeology based Dacia in which he applied the distinction betweenvarious types of settlement intra-Carpathian (1), defensive covering undefended siteswith non-murus their enclosure, rural settlements on Orastie Mountains in (2) and fortresses, the Dacicus defences and, in a separate section,settlements (3). their sites associated and As observedby Lockyear (2004), the tYPologyproposedby Nandris (1976,732-3) doesnot fit the Dacian archaeologicalevidencein areasother than in the OrastieMountains. The type of landscape is had functioned is to to given the this mention specific and no pattern uplands settlement where Mountains lower Orastie Also, located the areaseems and middle range altitudes. at since settlements with types of sitesnot an exceptionwithin the Dacian landscape, to havebeenin many respects found in other areas,the extensionof its typology to the rest of the territory would give a seriously distortedview of the Dacian settlementpattern.Furthermore,later researchhas addednew typesof concerningthe settlement(e.g. tower structures)andre-interpretedsomeof the earlier considerations Dacian 'stAne' (animal husbandrysites-classified by Nandris as type 3 and largely accepted also by Lockyear). The study by Glodariu.was focusedprimarily on analysisof the architectureratherthan of the generalsettlementpattern,particularly of the higher statussettlementswhich in generalhave beenthe focus of most researchinterestand, as a result, arebest known. Lockyear's recentstudy fundamental distinction by balance betweenopenand the to the applying redresses someextent (and within the latter, betweenthosewith murusDacicus and with non-murus enclosedsettlements Dacicus enclosures), along with recognisingthe uniquecharacterof the Dacian ocupationof the OrastieMountains areawhich, as a result, is dealt with in a separate section.

73

However, previousstudieshave tried to address social hierarchy as reflected exclusively in of murusDacicus enclosures settlementpatternby identifying statusthroughthe presence and distinctive architecture. From the social point of view, however, it is important to deepenthe in direct by settlements relation to the occupantsand their way of life, and to considering analysis link the structureof the micro- (in-site) and macro-(landscape-scale) spaceto settlementfunction. The natureof Dacian settlementfrom an archaeological prospectiveis still opento debate. Traditionally, the most characteristicfeatureof the Iron Age settlementpatternin ContinentalEurope beginning La Tene be the the the to at of period and later site, open nucleated was considered Indeed, to are generally referred as evenrecentgeneralstudies of which oppida. enclosed,examples (e.g. Cunliffe 1994;Wells 2001) have beeninfluencedby this site-focusedattitudetowards the is Dacia to follow the samepatternof settlement, generally considered evidence. archaeological for long few large been it has time that there a observed aggregated settlements are very and although layout. Thus, noneof Dacian settlements that many of the unenclosed seemto have had a scattered This to individual settlements. the typologiesreferredto abovegive any consideration provides a stark contrastto the British late Iron Age, for example,where aggregated characterisation England,and the (nucleated)settlements seemto be commononly in the areaof south-eastern dominanttype of settlementseemsto be the smaller-scale enclosedfarmstead(Haselgrove1999; Haselgrove2001). in field surveyingtechniques, However, advances especiallyaerial photography,along with the have in of analysis methods perceptionsof Iron computer produced changes of significant application Age settlementon the Continent.Already by the 1980s,Wightman (1985,15-17) sawbeyondthe in identified Gallia Belgica, wheresmall settlements nuanced settlement a more pattern and oppida (for hillforts families Horath few the Wederath), norm example constitute small some with and of a The Gaulish farmstead, belonging to the social elite (e.g. Hoppstadten-Weiersbach). usually forming ditch system a doubleenclosure,with a ditch-lined entranceand a containedwithin has becomefamiliar in the regional archaeological landscape fields trackways and since sometimes the introduction of aerial survey,as for exampleat Conchil-le-Temple,wherethe presence of two houses farmstead a variety of other post-holes and and pits suggest an unpretentious rectangular housing one or two families (Wightman 1985,15-17).In the samevein, recentlandscape-focused 'rural'-agricultural form have the that predominant of settlementstill seemsto be the showed studies farmstead,with or without an enclosure,as for examplein the I'Oise areain France(Gaudefroyel aL 2001). Aerial photographs show a widespreaddistribution in continentalEuropeof enclosures of all dates,including the Iron Age, with morphologicalcharacteristics similar to thosein Britain, as demonstrated by recentcollaborativepan-European aerial archaeologicalprojects(see,for example, the exhibition catalogueeditedby Oexle (1997)), althoughthe presentbiasesin British air surveyhas still, perhaps,to producemore morphologicalsimilarities betweenBritain and the continent in terms Closer to the presentstudyareaon the middle Danube,the settlementpattern of opensettlements. Pest)defined as also usedto be represented primarily by oppida (e.g. Velemszentvid,Szalacska, 66rural locatedon mountainsor hills, surrounded by earthenenclosures settlements and servingalso as shelterduring wartime" (Trogmayer 1980).Othertypesof settlementhave beenlargely supposed on 74

discovered,ratherthan precisely located.More recently, in the the basisof the numerouscemeteries Upper Tisa valley data4/UpperTiszaba 2003/htmi/home. htm a modem (http://rninerva. york.ac.uk/catalog-ue/Xrol field-surveying programmehas identified "thin sherdscatters"as small opensettlements, normally In this context,the apparentlack of suchindividual siteswithin interpretedashamletsor farmsteads. the Dacian settlement patternmay be relatedto the traditional archaeologicalmethodsbeing applied. Even for known sites,traditional non-systematic to field walking andthe excavationof approaches limited areasstandlittle chanceof indicating preciselythe areaoccupiedby a site, the presence or lack of an enclosureof somekind, the numberof housesand ancillary structures,or their layout failed be have individual Potential to therefore, the recognised and someof sites could, site. within the sporadicscatters as indicatorsof villages or hamletsmay well of artefactscurrently assessed homesteads/farms. individual represent A quick generaloverview of the evidencefor Daciandomesticbuildings indicatesthe presence of a large variety of housetypes,whether sunken(with all or most of the wall height below ground level, height built half-sunken (with 0.80-1 half, the depths above of wall metre), most or even exceeding at 0.20-0.50 Both being deep) floor level, the oval/circular only structures. metres or surface ground forms structuresof of constructionswere used.The pentagonalplan semi-sunken and rectangular 3.65 by 3.24 metresfound for exampleat CateluNou outsidethe study area(Glodariu 1983,11) or, indeed,larger polygonal examplesfrom OrastieMountains,may representa transitionaltype from circular to rectangulararchitecture,or perhapsare only dictatedby the use of poststo sustainthe from Gradistea Muncelului be to the example a circular structure, seemsmeant octagonal walls its by by determined the useof the eight posts central post and a polygonal supported plan with a roof in the structureof the wall (figure 4.1). According to Glodariu (1983,10-11), sunkenhousesare built in in lower they circular are rectangular shape. and with or areas rounded comers, polygonal mainly The dimensionsof the latter are also variable, althoughrather small, they average3.50 by 3 metresin housesare by far the most common,largely diameter,occasionally4.50 by 3.50. The semi-sunken hills landscapes. 3,50 Circular (with diameters to the and of plains characteristic -4 metres),roughly trapezoidalwith roundedcomers (approximately4 by 3 metres)or rectangularexamplesare all houses The are usually single-roomedand rectangular,with the walls surface-built recorded. in by often stone-packed posts post-holes,especiallyin the supported ground-fastwooden had (2 3) (e. Gradistea, Muncelului, though examples rooms or g. several multiple areas, mountainous Luncani-PiatraRosie).Somehouseshad one room with an apse(Luncani-PiatraRosie),sometimes by other (one or two) concentricrooms (e.g. locatedwithin a circular/polygonalbuilding surrounded in the GradisteaMuncelului area- figure 4.1). Although most of the examplesof houses outlined the sametypes were used in the few sites abovecome from larger, aggregated settlements, discoveredoutsideof an aggregated context.The chronologicalevolution of Dacianhousetypes as indicatesa steadyevolution towardsraising the housesabovethe ground level currently understood from 'bordei' (sunken)to 'semibordei' (semi-sunken) and then surface,post-holestructures (Glodariu 1983,9-25).

75

Most commonly, pits servedfor grain storage,clay extractionand, indeed,the dumpingof rubbish. The most widespread pits with diametersrangingfrom 0.80-1.25 are bucket-, fannel- or pear-shaped metresat the surfaceand 1.30-2.50metresat the bottom, and their depthranging from I to 3 metres. The pits were the most commonmethodof storagein the Dacian settlements, asthey had beensince bodies,which were also fixed early prehistory. Large storagepots ('chiupl-uri') with conical-shaped into the ground,were alsousedto storegrain and,especiallyin areaswith hardergeology(for Muncelului area),timber and wattle structuresinterpretedas granaries have examplein the Gradistea beendiscovered.Other structuresinclude kilns/ovens,althoughthey seemto be relatedmore to hearth feature for heating but The houses. the than and cooking open was main purposes, workshops have been Dacian domestic buildings to the of seem provided with examples excavated not all hearths.This seems odd, especiallygiven that examplesare known even in locationswherethe local climatic conditionswould havemadeheating installationsabsolutelyvital (suchasMeleia or Rudele have the remainsof daub fact that only in somecases For below). the this along with reason, -see Glodariu advanced beensufficiently preserved, temporary the possibility that suchcases represented in the settlement However,'portable' heating installationsof the type documented houses. (seasonal) (although hearths, date) have Sebes-Lancrarn the of a slightly earlier missing or the could replaced at buildings may simply havebeenusedfor storage,and alternativemeansof insulation for timber have blankets) been (e. could also skins, used. g. walls The location of the The villages are madeup of houses,ancillary buildings, and additional structures. doesnot appearto demonstrate houseswithin the settlement to any systematicrules, adherence (1983,44-5) least intruders have Glodariu for that argues at would concern against safety although beena factor. This is basedon the tendencyof earlier featuresto be locatedtowardsthe more secure in in hill-slope in the the the as vicinity such of settlement, opensettlements the narrow parts of in The defended the tip the towards of promontory oposite settlements. or promontory-type valleys, de Arpasu Sus is at outsidethe study area,where housesseemto cluster only noted phenomenon towardsthe edgesof the settlementGlodariu (1983,45). Numerouspits are locatedwithin the in between the the houses. area settlements aggregated Some 146siteswithin the study areahave beenconsidered to have sufficient supportingevidenceto indicate the location of a settlementof somekind in pre-Romantimes (figure 4.17). Artefacts have beendiscoveredin 72 other locations without immediateindicationsthat they relateto settlement (mostly coins and hoards).The way the identified siteshavebeenreportedvaries a greatdeal, from thosewhere extensiveexcavationprojects havebeenin placeor are ongoing, throughthosewhere excavationreports(interim or as monographs)havebeenproduced,to thosewherevaguereportsof the accidentaldiscoveryof artefactsare the only indication of any archaeologicalsignificance. The chronologyof the reportedsitesis a problem, however,that hasbeennoted similarly by other by more recentstudies(seediscussionin chapter4) and as a result, not all the sitesto be considered this study were necessarily contemporarywith eachother. A broad date of 'Classic Dacian' is given to most sites,which is "partly due to the unique problemsfacing Romaniancoin data(seebelow), but is also due to a lack of quantified pottery studiesand an insistenceon dating archaeological to phases
76

historical or pseudo-historical eventssuchas the Dacian wars or the 'creation of Burebista'sstate'." (Lockyear 2004). The 'Classic Dacian' period normally refers to the last two centuriesBC and the first centuryAD, but in numerouscases to be a simply 'Dacian' or even 'La Tene' are considered based sufficient indication of the chronology.Also, the tendencyof establishingsite chronologies identifications solely on artefactualevidencewithout referenceto stratigraphyleavesthe subsequent opento question.For this reason,severaldiscoveriesattributedby somescholarsto the Celtic La Tene period havebeenincludedby othersin the Dacianperiod (suchas the inhurnationat Blandiana).Therefore,it is extremelydifficult to decidewhich sites should,indeed,be includedin the presentanalysisand which left aside.Eventually it was decidedto take into consideration most of the sitesreportedas La Tene, including thosewhere contrary opinions havebeenexpressed, so asto be as inclusive aspossible. The typesof Dacian settlementidentified so far have all beenconsideredas populatedby from discoveries hamlets largest The to of reportedso size villages. number communitiesof variable basedon artefactualevidence,hasbeeninterpretedas indicative of villages and far, in most cases hasmore extensiveevidenceof severalhouses hamlets,althoughin only a few cases within the Within 76 been has the the settlements are of area about of present study produced. settlement has 32 indication (even for them their of type any generalcomments only of extent and unknown been be Nevertheless, 'small') 10-12 'large' these provided. sites could some of or suchas isolated have farm, deemed larger 19 than to total an giving settlements a of of a size considered hostedlarger communities,probably villages. Some44-46 settlements could go into eithercategory. However,on analogieswith other areasin Iron Age Europe,such as Britain (seeabove),they are homesteads individual basis, likely On than that would give no more to this represent villages. more in the areain later prehistory.In and some80 individual settlements than 20 aggregated settlements in fact homesteads larger individual in the are settlements more scattered with cases, nature, many it is in territory, their and only a significant a particular areathat concentration spreadingover in interpretation found Such the vicinity of the their as a single settlement. examples were supports Costesti Deva later in this chapter. and and are discussed at modem settlements

1.1. Wages This categoryis generallyconsidered as the most commontype within Dacian settlement pattern. Nucleatedsettlements primarily accordingto the within the study areahave beencategorised into fortified Casezarifortificate) and open fortifications, settlements of or absence presence Casezarideschise')(figure 4.17). Most of them were unenclosed (open)and their layout settlements is considered to rangefrom a nucleated(compact)to a scatteredstructure(Gheorghiu2001,91-3). The enclosedsitesat Ardeu, BreteaMuresana(figure 4.1O)and at Cucuis (Golu hill), are considered to be 'fortified villages' basedon internal characteristics and the lack of murus Dacicus enclosures (althoughin this respectthe hillfort at Cugir could alsobelong to this category).Unfortunately,the little research has which hasbeenundertaken within the occupiedareaof the enclosedsettlements producedno convincing evidenceto differentiatethe hillforts from theseso-calledfortified villages,
77

in this chapterwithin the sectiondedicatedto fortified sites and thereforethey are discussed (hillforts).

1.1.1 Open compact-layout villages of lower altitude regions: (site 341) (Popaand Totoianu 2000; Ferenczand Ferencz The Dacian settlementat Sebes-Lancrarn 2001) is locatedimmediatelyon the left side of river Sebesand has recentlybeenpartially investigatedin a rescueexcavationwhich revealeda seriesof features(sunkenhousesandpits) from the early and late Iron Age, but no enclosurehasyet beendetected.The late Iron Age (1' century by one house(house3) locatedon the limit of the terrace(which has BQ occupationis represented is feature) (pits 3-7). house house 0.8The damaged typical the and several pits a sunken of partially 1m in depthfrom the ancientground level with probably a rectangularplan and large dimensions (some6 metresin length).Woodenpostsare recordedwith a clay layer (floor?) inside and tracesof burnt wood. The finds of Iron Age date from the house,mainly from pits, is generallypoor, largely hand-made including pottery, coarse a large storage'chiup'and two big jars, along with consistingof (Popa Totoianu belongingto two ("ceas&') 2000,55-6 and 78-82). Fragments 'Dacian and mug' a black-polished (fructiere'), kantharos-type handle 2 pedestalled plates vessels and a wheel-thrown fragmentof a red semi-fineimitation krater are amongthe exceptions. Basedon artefactualevidence,a similar village of pits and sunkenhousesis supposed to haveexisted just (328), 3 kilometres left bank Pripocului Sebes-Podul the to the of the away on south-east at The is Secas in depth) (with deposits 1.80 tell-type the site river. a of metres multiof nearbyvalley between Included Roman (Neolithic, Age) Bronze early prehistoric and of phases settlement. period indeed, U Tene by is and, a late Dacian occupation.The latter is attested a middle occupation discoveriesof wheel-throwngrey pottery and a fragmentof Sarmatianmirror (Moga and Ciugudean 1995,167). Another settlement was locatedat Cicau-Saliste(35), which also continuedinto the Romanperiod. Within the areapartially investigatedbetween1969and 1973the village evolved from in its first houses phaseto surfacetimber housesin its latest.A pit containingashand semi-sunken PV is indication dated the the centuries, only within of Dacianpre-Romanoccupationon pottery, the site. However, in many of theseexamples,only a few late Dacian featureshavebeenrevealed in identification the context of the earlier (Sebes-Lancram) the site comes as a nucleated and or later (Cicau-Saliste)occupationand is basedon analogywith better-knownsites suchas Slimnic (preRomanand Daco-Roman)or Obreja (Daco-Roman). in has been force at Vintu de Jos (409) (figures 4.3 and 4.4). There,the A different research approach archaeological gazetteer of multiple-period (Bronze Age, Dacian and Roman) reportsthe presence scattered ceramicfinds, althoughspreadover a considerable area(Moga and Ciugudean1995,207), and basedon this dataGheorghiu(2002) interpretedthe settlementas a late Iron Age village. Recent aerial photographs of 2000 and 2003 revealedthe plan of a settlementwith sunkenhousesand storagepits, immediatelyadjacentto a Romanvilla, aspositive cropmarksin a field under wheat cultivation at the time of discovery.The settlementwas locatedonly 50 metresaway from the river Mures, 4 kilometreswest of its confluencewith the Sebes river, on a naturally raisededgeof the first
78

terrace.A well-drainedsubsoil hasfacilitated the creationof crop marks and hencethe recognitionof The interpretationof the photographsand site transcription the site during aerial reconnaissance. revealedsome 143positive cropmarks(pits) (figure 4.4). A further linear feature(ditch) 124metres long on a WNW-ESE alignmentrunning through the middle of the site doesnot seemto havehad belong function defensive/enclosing to any of the chronological phases and could of the any complex, prehistoric,Romanor indeedlater. Without excavationit is difficult to make estimations function features. However,previous these to the context and of each of chronological related by hand data (aerial the sets provided prospection on one methods on comparativestudies field survey, systematic walking) and excavationon the other (e.g. at photography,geophysical interpretative Zwingendorf, Austria - seeDoneuset aL 2002) have revealedthat reasonable estimationscan be madebasedon the analysisof size and shapeof the features.In the caseof the features Jos, 130 4 de Vintu the of with an area squaremetreswere circular of of under settlementat have been interpreted diameter in 2 and as possiblepostholesand/or small storagepits. metres under A ftirther group of 43 featuresarc bigger, but still with areasunder 10 squaremctres(diameters of indicate 3-3.5 could and storagepits or, in few cases,possiblesmall sunkenhouses.A metres) under further group of 21 featuresof circular/oval plan had larger dimensions,with diametersof 3-3.5 by between9 and 17.50squaremetres. 15 featureshad areasabove17.50,up to 4.5-5 metresand areas 35 squaremetres,their lengthsreaching6 metres.Their shapeseemsto evolve from oval/circular towardsrectangularandtrapezoidalwith roundedcomersand was oriented(with a few variations)on features described The last NW-SE the two categoriescan, therefore,reasonably within alignment. a The grouping of housesaccordingto their morphologyindicates be interpretedas prehistorichouses. the probability of at least2 or possibly 3 independent phases of occupationon the site, with sunken An and surfacepost-construction. earlier occupationof the site is indicatedby Bronze Age Wietenbergculture materialsnoted amongthe Dacian and Roman artefacts(Moga and Ciugudean 1995,207). Indeed,the earliestphaseof occupationat Vintu de Jos included also an inhurnation further 400 (of located to the the metres some south-east, group of pits along with another cemetery first and the secondcategoryof 1-5 sqm and between6-8 sqrn describedabove) similarly locatedon the edgeof the terraceabovethe river some250 metresupstream.Becauseof variation in crop it is unclearat this date whether the early pattern during the yearsof aerial reconnaissance, had between the thesetwo agglomerations occupied whole also area settlement of features prehistoric along the edgeof the terrace(and thereforeoccupyingan areaof some32,200 sq.m.). However,the later settlementseems to havebeenrestrictedonly to the small areaalreadydetectedof 14,800sq. rrL, and both groupsof larger housescould be datedwithin the late Dacian, or indeed,continuing into the Romanperiod.

1.1.2. Open compact-layout settlementsin the mountains: Upland settlementis very well documented within Daciantimes. The settlementon the Gradistehill later with referenceto the hilifort) is the Regia -discussed at GradisteaMuncelului (Sannizegetusa largestsettlementin the OrastieMountains.It is considered to be of compactlayout, despitethe fact
79

that the inhabitedareasconsistof a seriesof over 100man-madeterraceseachof them normally housing one homestead comprisingthe houseand an ancillary building with a combinedfunction of Six kilometresaway to the north-west,the Dacian settlementat Fata Cetei on the storage/deposit. southernslopeof Ceatahill (altitude 1237m)consistsof about40-50 artificial terraces,someof them An as long as 100-150m, but no other detailsare known from lack of more detailedresearch. by in fortified the although vicinity, mentioned early sources,hasnot yet beenlocated. site associated in The presence to haveboostedthe emergence nearbyis supposed of the settlement of iron sources this remotearea(Gheorghiu2001,85). The third-largestsettlementin the areais the one from Fetele Albe north-westof GradisteHill, on an extensionof Muncelul Hill, spreadover 30 terraces. Excavationsin the settlement(at Sesulcu Branza)discoveredseveralbuildings constructedon 5 by (murus Only Dacicus). terraces stone one or perhapstwo of the supported walls variable-sized (figure 4.1), locatedon terracesno I and 5. Although the buildings had a domesticcharacter different buildings function two through the the was not changed. phases, of went occupation hasbeendetermined,which seemto display the same Unfortunately only the plansof the later houses circular/polygonal shapewith multiple concentriccells. The sametype is illustrated in the settlement in the OrastieMountains. The houseshad two or three on terraces10 and 12 and alsoelsewhere (most is interpreted The the third, the often outer as a rarely second)cell normally concentriccells. stoneandtimber partially openspace(porch or outer porticus) and is indicatedby the less-continuous inner from base for to the the the the timber solid continuous as opposed room(s) wall, of walls posts (Gheorghiu2001,71-2). The hearthis locatedwithin the centralroom, which is rectangularwith an be found in (middle) to Most the the are artefacts second of room and consistof variouspots apse. (many with ceramic lids - for cooking or for storage),along with tools, utensils,evenimportedgoods (a bronzehandleof a paterawith the makersmark of ANSIVS DIODORVS ). The houses were (as dwellings for by exampleon terraceno.5), mostly 'granaries' ancillary accompanied raisedon stoneslabswith gapsto provide air circulation underneath. rectangulartimber structures Terraces2 and 3 from Sesulcu Branzahostedsanctuaries, while terraceno. 4 probably servedasan in in The from the two with a water a was provided vicinity supply area streams network open space. in the main settlementon the Gradistehill, and evidenceof pottery the to present one similar manner by discovery is the of a pottery kiln with a holed grate.A depositof tools on site provided production has also beenfound on one of the excavated terraces.The presence of murus Dacicus-supported terraces,sanctuaries, water supply,pottery production, imports and paintedpottery add to the Regia - and importanceof the settlement complex character-of the type illustratedby Sarinizegetusa at Fetelc Albe. A small agglomerationof houses was locatedat Cozia (Piatra Coziei hill, altitude 686 m) west of Deva, in betweenthe modemvillages of Cozia and Herepeia.Tracesof surfacebuildings by hearthswere found on 5 man-madeterracesfacing south-east, but no other detailsof accompanied thesestructuresare provided.Although no mention is madeof any provision of enclosure/defences, the site is interpretedas a fortified site because of its topographicallyremote and lessaccessible location, and interpretedaccordinglyby Glodariu (1983,95) as exclusively strategic.But the lack of an enclosure,along with the fact that the settlementat Cozia seemsto be facing the oppositeside (Le.
80

south-east, rather than north in order to overlook the corridor createdby the Mures river) do not V finds (dated interpretation. The this usual century BC-1" century AD) of hand-made support and by fine ceramics(including painted pottery), iron wheel-thrownDacian pottery are accompanied tools (hooks) and weapons,fragmentsof millstone and parts from a bronzeweighing scale,seemto of site occupation.This is reinforced by the few supporta more permanentand civilian character detailsprovided on internal featuresand structure.The presence at Piatra Coziei of finds indicating of paintedpottery and other than a small, rural lower-classcommunity is obvious from the presence especiallythat of the weaponry,but the lack of stonearchitecture(murusDacicus enclosureor towardsan exclusive interpretationof the site as a warrior tower-houses) preventsftuther advance The size of the settlementas indicatedby the total of only five terracesidentified so elite residence. far it makesthis settlementsomewhatcloser to someof the small clustersof occupationsuchas (seebelow). Similar typesof luxury goodsare presentalso in the settlement Rudele-Brandusita at Cetea(144), including paintedpottery and imported goods(even amphorae, which are very rare in Transylvania),weaponsand tools (including an anvil), which probably indicate a settlementof equal Coziei, lacking Piatra though to the sametopographicsetting. significance The site at Piatra Coziei could havebeenrelatedto the andesitestonequarriesnearby(betweenCozia identified Deva) as sourceof material for the grandiosereligious architectureat were which and GradisteaMuncelului -Gradiste hill. Indeed,aerial reconnaissance hasidentified at Cozia the extant date located just foot the yet unknown of the a settlement outsidethe of at of andcsitequarry remains Several the (one of them better defined on the lower to east. small enclosures village, modem in dimensions (figure5.27 )but 5.40 by 4.20 the with shape rectangular of are visible plateau, metres) information is insufficient to supporta late prehistoric/Dacianorigin. A larger, circular feature however,of some20 metresin diameteris howevermore reminiscentof Dacian structuresdescribed in this chapter.It occupiesthe upperpart of a small mound,which is borderedby apparentstone interior least In blocks. the at one (possibly two) rectangularsmaller platform(s), levelled slabsor Based to visible. are on this interpretation,the site would probably fit better in a construction prior but if the settlementincluded at this time someof the different categoryas an individual homestead, it features could represent as well, an aggregated settlementin the mountains. surrounding

1.1.3. Open scattered-layout settlementsin the mountains: Many of the settlements within the study areashowedless concernfor agglomeration.Scattered-type settlements are presentin both upland and lowland areas,and their frequent occurrencecould makea strongcasefor consideringthem as the predominantpatternin late pre-Romantimes. According to from the upland areaswithout a compact the typology proposedby Gheorghiu(2001) the settlements (farms) (examplesin the large areabetween isolatedhomesteads structureconsistedof scattered Costestiand GradisteaMuncelului, Luncani, Gura Cutului, Cucuis) or severalnuclei of small clusters (such as the sitesMeleia, Pustiosuand Rudele).She,however, considersthe character of homesteads of the settlements without a compactstructurefrom upland borders(such as the denselypopulated areasoutsidethe hillforts at Deva or Costesti)asdifferent, and describesit as 'semi-compact' in
81

individual homesteads, is nature.The first type, consistingof very large areasoccupiedby scattered The location of the examplesin the uplandscould difficult to define other than as a mini-landscape. be the reasonfor the better survival of the sites(as, indeed,in the caseof the secondtype). The limits in defined the these are, at moment, relation to the location of sites within the of geographicalareas boundariesof one modem settlement or another,which did not apply during the late Iron Age. The betweenvarious points of discoverywithin theseareasare variable, sometimesa few distances into a community are kilometres,and any ties binding the multiple individual entities (homesteads) impossibleto define. It is safer,therefore,to considerthesesitesas individual farms, and the identified areasas surviving examplesof land useand settlementwithin the late Iron Age. in the sectionon individual homesteads in this chapter.The Accordingly, they have beenconsidered (Gheorghiutype 1) and the semi-compactexamples differencebetweenthe dispersed settlements (type 3), is the greaterdensityof occupationof the latter andpossiblerelation to hillforts nearby. from Deva and Costestiwill be Because of their associationwith hillforts, the opensettlements later in follows be focus in The this the will section chapter. on the of what relevant analysed homesteads. type which of settlement, groups clusters open several small of remaining homesteads havebeen In the following cases,a certainnucleationis already existent several and located Such together. were clusters quite close togetheron the samemountain,which clustered for likely have had to their considering a greater argument occupants as more a reasonable provides level) had 7-8 small Meleia (located belonging 1419m to the community. same sea above at of sense terraceswith apparentmounds,usually grouping 8-12 in eachgroup, and a small plateauwith 17.It had individual buildings, 37 the that settlement whole as many although excavation as estimated was has indicatedthat not all of them functionedat the sametime. The terraces,with tracesof early in later the to havemoved onto the phaseand the settlementseems abandoned were occupation, larger plateau;also, two investigatedhousesfrom the plateauwere demolishedand replacedby three others.Eight moundshave beencompletelyexcavated(seedetails on historic of researchin Lockyear 2004). Many buildings had severalrooms on a circular-concentriclayout, (Figure 4.1) (althoughat leastone rectangularexample-9 by 8 metres-on terraceVIII had only one room divided into 3 The housescould reachup to 13-15metresin diameter,the secondroom (outerroom compartments). in the double-roomedand centralroom for the triple-roomedexamples)occupying most of the inner is in fewer interpreted based A third cases and normally appears as a partially open space room area. have in beenplacedwith gapsin between,unlike the fact foundations the that their the stones on basesof the inner walls. (Glodariu et aL 1996,214-216). One constructionon the plateauat Meleia by woodenposts(figure 4.1). The floor was usually made had the walls of its central room supported had the flooring of the central cell in timber. Sinceno tiles of clay, but at Meleia one of the houses havebeenfound, the roof is supposed to havebeenmadeof wooden shingles,althoughthe iron nails are a rare occurrence(only two of the structuresat Meleia show clear evidenceof iron building materialssuchas nails and hinges-Lockyear 2004).7his building techniqueis similar to examples from other settlements from the mountainsin GradisteaMuncelului area(Gradiste,Rudele,Fetele Albe, etc).

82

havebeendiscoveredon top of Rudelehill, south of GradisteaMuncelului, at Similar structures 1366m abovesealevel. The Dacian settlementfrom 'Brandusita' (629) is known in more detail after (10-26m.in diameterand 0.5-1.2m high) havebeenexcavated. four of the five terraces/mounds The Dacianoccupationon that hill, however,seems to havebeenextendedin three other small clusters (in 'Rachiteaua',Toiana Mare' and 'In Saruini'). The four excavatedterracesat 'Brandusita' were occupiedby four houses,three of them with apparentdomesticusewhile the fourth was interpreted as a workshop.Two springsensuredwater supply.The houses(figure 4.1) were largely similar to thosefrom the settlementat Meleia, circular concentricplan, two with two and one with three rooms/cells;the latter had an apsedcentralroom of 4.60 by 3.60-3.80mand the other rooms of 10.70 by 9.30m and 15xl3m (Glodariu et aL 1996,213-4). A site that so far hasbenefitedfrom considerablyless attention is the one from Tampu hill (1495 m) Regia (Glodariu et (627), also in the GradisteaMuncelului area,to the south-east of Sarmizegetusa The 200-250m 150-200m 1996,155-6). two to the consists of nuclei site of east settlement at and aL to the south-east of the lower of the two peaksof the hill. The first areaof settlementis indicated black by traces, consisting of coarseceramicsand charcoal.The secondareais more only sporadic (15-20m in diameter 3-4 platforms/mounds and Im in height), and trial excavationin one visible as from first to that the them of similar nature material area. produced of The possiblefunction of the settlements and of their buildings hasraisedmany questions.The known data from Tampu hill is insufficient to provide basisfor a detailed interpretationof the site, but its layout seems to indicate that it was of a similar natureto that of Meleia and Rudele.Meleia was by far the richest site in finds, althoughthe concentrationwas higher in the areaof late occupation (anotherpossibleargumentfor the voluntary abandonment of the terraces).In the plateausettlement the pottery evidenceincluded severaltypes of vessels, most of them for storage(of several Ougs, ('chiup', jars, liquids krater-type, bowls) dimensions)of solids/cereals wheat and millet and is being by a wide Special madeof a type of vesselwithout a bottom and surrounded mention mugs). $collar'-ring at a third of its height. Meleia also had evidenceof paintedpottery coming from 3 houseson the plateau.Ceramictools usedin pottery production for polishing ('calapoade') and ('rasnite') are and quernstones spindlesindicate somedomesticcraft production,while whetstones; inhabitants. by But the presence the the tools used of iron slag in three of the excavated among buildings, and of sledgehammersand tongs in onebuilding, suggests metallurgical activity perhaps just Interestingly, 'domestic'. larger than scale a few weaponswere alsonoted amongthe on a discoveries. At Rudelethe large quantitiesof pottery did not include paintedpottery, but the presence of severalpolishing tools ('calapoade') is perhapsan indicator of on-sitepottery production, andthe presence of iron slagmight indicate alsometallurgicalactivity. Other finds included iron tools (sickle, file, tongs,hammerchisel) (Glodariu.et aL 1996,214-16).The chronology of these indicatesa late pre-Romanoccupation(1' century BC few in AD), settlements century ending -lt in abandonment (as on the terraces cases of Meleia). More often they were burnt down, somestill inside perhapsindicative of a violent end (Gheorghiu2001,119). with quite a rich finds assemblage Traditionally in Romanianarchaeology for any exampleof a fired this interpretationis supposed building of this period and relatedto the Romanconquest. But eventhough repeatedfire episodes are
83

it is in unlikely that they were all related solely to thesemilitary events,and the cases, some attested buildings between AD 102 105 has the the of and which reconstruction short-lived of possibility beenadvanced needsto be re-addressed. on the basisof sucharguments The finds evidence,especiallyfor Meleia, is puzzling and doesnot fit with any of the interpretations offered so far. Becauseof their location, at an altitude wheremodem settlementconsistsonly of hay fields, for flocks (summer) their the shepherds, or and accommodation occasionalseasonal have had beginning from that the the a similar character settlement would was prehistoric expectation 2004). The interpretation 'stane' Lockyear Daicoviciu's (hence seasonal character as and pattern -see hearths few for, basis lack (in is the of a cases) their argued on of a of evidence occupation still of for both insulation daub the walls, considered continuousoccupationall year of a necessity and of But finds 1983,234). the (Glodariu a more permanent quantity of suggests and variety round by insulation daub buildings the the that other means. replaced of was perhaps occupation,so Pastoralfanning being rejectedon the basisof the finds evidence,especiallyof large quantitiesof (Gheorghiu fine 2001,107-9), including the economywas reeven painted and ware pottery iron production (Glodariu and Iaroslavschi 1979) interpretedas largely focusedon a workshop-based in found Strambu Tampu, hill Rudele), Petrosu iron (in the on at the ores vicinity of natural using hill bold Sanie's Mlacilor Negru This Batrana, a contrast with and provides peak. river valley, or at interpretation(1995,27) of someof the buildings (that from terraceH at Meleia and building 3 from basedon the similarity of plan with early sanctuaries from Dacian sites. The Rudele)as sanctuaries house is between buildings this type of purpose not and early a religious with generalresemblance have former (Lockyear latter from the the type probably would evolved as a special as surprising 2004). A commonplace a of thesetheoriesis that they all supportthe view that they represent indeed, iron husbandry, to sort, or, some whether of related production animal settlement specialised being (monastic ). far them A communities? against so unexploredargument with a religious purpose has is houses that to the yet no evidence settlements of animal related shepherd enclosures seasonal beenfound. Similarly, as Lockyear hasalreadynoted, their interpretationas iron working centresstill leavesopenquestionsas to "why they were not situatedactually at thosedeposits,and why no trace fit Therefore, been found". has to furnaces with the seems since alternative no single-function of function for likely, them and quite possibly none of the seems multiple more a whole evidence, functions supposed so far is yet to be excluded. Possiblesmall cluster settlements were identified in other locations in the samearea.The remainsof three Dacianhomesteads with large quantitiesof pottery, a fragmentof a volcanic stone(tufa) block limestone have been found fragment betweenthe ('rasnita') ashlar a of a and quernstone 2001,206). (Gheorghiu Also, on the slopeof Pustiosu Vartoapelor Rea the streams and sourcesof hill (site 616) facing Gradisteastreamseveral(?) terraceswere located.On one of them a small-scale Dacian (polygonal) house with three concentricrooms circular excavationrevealeda surface-built (figure 4.1). Finds were quite rich and consisted of various ceramic fragmentsand iron tools and hill, fittings (e. Nearby, the top the on of a plateau on were discovered construction g. nails). fragmentsof red storagepots (chiupuri). On anotherhill, Gerosu(site 618), only 4 similar terraces with tracesof occupation(pottery, burnt dauband floor clay) have beenfound, indicating a small
84

while Muncelului and Popii hills are coveredat various points with the cluster of similar homesteads, Dacian settlement(Gheorghiu2001,69-70). remainsof scattered That this type of habitat had a wider distribution than the upland areasis provedby at leastone exampleat Orastioarade Jos - La Feregari(592), where trial excavationof 3 circular platformswith diametersrangingbetween 15.70-26m by 15.10-20m producedDacian pottery, burnt daubandiron homesteads Dacian from with a rangeof economicactivities that includedalso of a small group slag iron productionof uncertainscale.

1.2. Individual homesteads(farms) There are only 6 settlements to be, individual which have beenrecognisedas, or assumed To this numberwe could add with reasonable homesteads. certainty somefurther 13-15 settlements where,althougha specific type of settlementhasnot beenidentified, a small areaof occupationwas would noted.We do not know much about such examples,given the fact that their characteristics difficult detect in by to the area,and that they are the type them extremely applied of survey make destruction by later human be identified Therefore, to tend to examples exposed activity. extremely locatedat higher altitudeswhere site survival is best. One exampleis at GradisteaMuncelului for building Valea Rea(site 611), wherea Dacian homestead used probably and one ancillary fire, by have been destroyed discovered The both terraces. two artefactual on artificial storage, late date, of pottery along with iron nails and fittings usedin construction, revealed evidence including parts of a door lock and its key. Another Dacian housewith evidenceof daub construction, further havebeenpartially excavated similar examplewithin a palisadedenclosure, at a along with Tarsa-Voineagul hill and Gerosulhill (633 and 634). The latter provided evidencefor other distances located belong to a the various therefore, at outside might enclosureand, constructions (Gheorghiu 2001,199). Another possiblesimilar structureis locatedat settlement small nucleated Tarsa-Varful Stain (635). In other cases at lower altitudes,only one househasbeennoted,which supportedinclusion within (324) a late (La At Saracsau this categoryof sites,without firm indication of a larger settlement. Dacianhouseof unknown shapeor size (at least2m by 0.40m) was probably built of wattle Tene 111) and daub.Surprisingly for a presumedlower-statusclassof settlement,it had hidden under its floor brooch 4 four braceletsand six finger (4 large brooches one small), pin, threenecklaces, and eight rings of silver in a ceramicpot (Moga and Ciugudean1995,164). A Dacian sunkenhousewith an inventory of Dacianand Celtic(? ) ceramics,one glassbeadand an iron arrowheadhasbeennoted At also at Vintu de Jos(407) as a chancediscoverywithout other indications of a fiirther settlement. in similar conditions due to modem road works. It Ardeu, one housewas discoveredand excavated Hill, at a lower altitude, andthe enclosedon the Cetateaua was locatedoutsidethe areasupposedly dwelling compriseda surfacehouseprovided with a hearthand two storagepits. At Orastioarade Sus-Carpinis (595), in the vicinity of the Romanfort, a raisedterracelplatformof 60 by 78 m, where small trial excavationrevealedburnt materialsand Dacian pottery fragments,could
85

have hostedsuchan individual farmstead, perhapsextendingin the areaof a neighbouringplateau (Gheorghiu2001,177). In the GradisteaMuncelului areaat ComarnicelulCetei-Curmatura Comarnicelului(530), 2 terracesare locatednearthe top of the hill, coveredin densevegetation,with tracesof settlement(towers or houses)and tracesof burning (Gheorghiu2001,208). Other tracesof one building were noted nearby,at SubCununi (538). At Valea lui Brad (620) the remainsof a timber constructionwith stonefoundationswere discovered,with two rooms wherea large quantity of fragmentarypottery, especiallylarge storagevessels,seemto indicate a possibleancillary storage (Gheorghiu2001,19 1). At Aninesului hill (site 640) two building of an individual homestead terraceswith tracesof Dacian occupationcould testify to anothersettlementof this type (Gheorghiu 2001,207). Finally, at Cioacacu Frasini (628) remainsof Dacian pottery and burnt layers could indicate anothersmall domesticdwelling (Gheorghiu2001,206). Other possibleexamplescould be indicatedin severalother locations,with evidencefor possibleworkshops,but without any indicationsof a larger settlement,suchas at Balomir (417), Federi (435), OhabaPonor (460) Tampului (62 1). Finally, two Sinpetru(496), possibly Cetea(144) and GradisteaMuncelului - Gura. Dacian (Coasta Vacii Gura Federi inhabited discovered caves with and material at were of examples Cocosului),but the characterof occupationhasnot been established precisely.They are, however, inhabited by been have larger likely to than a smaller community,perhapsas a seasonal rather a more or temporaryshelters. the forms of settlement From all accounts alreadypresentedseemto haveconstitutedthe baseof the hierarchy.In what it follows, attention will be directedtowardsthosetypesof Dacian settlement higher social significanceand more complex fimctions. settlementwith

1.3. Tower-houses Towers are a very specialcategoryof site that have traditionally beentaken into considerationas few In hillforts, located defensive their they a cases, exclusively within systems. where were parts of for been (garrison has Dacian the elite members commanders) of society as accommodation potential (Costestiwith two different examples,Blidaru and Capalnaeachwith one example; fully recognised is documented Tilisca 2 there the structure such at where are exampleswithin one study area outside the enclosure, as at Costesti-Cetatuie). (figure 4.6) is so far the only examplewithin our study areawith two suchtowerCostesti-Cetatuie houses.Oneof them was 17.50by 13.20metres(12.50 by 8.20 internally) while the secondwas of 13.60by 13metres(8.60 by 8 internally). The tower-houses at Costesti-Blidaru(figure 4.7) and at Capalnawere square,with one sideof 7.60 and 9.50 metres(6.04 internally) respectively.The building techniqueof the known examplesis unitary with small variations.They were built in murus Dacicus techniqueup to a height of about2 metreswhere the wall was probably continuedin brick bondedwith clay to a possibleheight of 5-6 metres.Roofing was madeof tiles (e.g. CostestiCetatuie)or more often woodenshingles(e.g. Capalna).The access to the upper storey wasprovided
86

by either externalstonestairsor by inner woodenstairs.No structural featureshavebeendiscovered inside, whetherfrom stairsor posts,so it is thoughtthat the upper end of the stonewall would have supportedthe flooring of the upper storey(e.g. Capalna,where specialholes to supportthe timbers have beendug into the stonesof the upperrow). Excavation hasrevealedsignificant archaeological material in the lower room, which would havebeenprimarily usedfor storage(Glodariu 1983,27-9). The origin of thesebuildings is uncertain.So far they constitute the only type of buildings with an humble form, division in in a similar space was supposed a more of a single although, upper storey, from house Gradistea Muncelului-Dealul the timber civilian settlement at circular of a example Gradistii (figure 4.1). There the dimensionsof the collapsedwalls indicate the possibility of 2 indicated by lower function in the the discoveryof a the undivided area storage was storeys,while large storagevessel-'chiup' stampedaroundits rim with the words "DECEBALVS PER SCORILO" (Glodariu et al. 1996,98-9 and seebelow). Dacicus have beenlocatedaroundthe sites especiallyin But similar structures with stonewall1murus the OrastieMountains(primarily Costesti-Cetatuie and Costesti-Blidaru,at Luncani-PiatraRosieand in the wide areaaroundGradisteaMuncelului), but also at Craiva-PiatraCraivii. Someare locatedat hillforts, from locations, distance in found the although while remote others more were only a short This, be basis building in dominant to the the technique, along of positions. with seems special still to surfacesurvey their previousinterpretationas defensivestructures.They were largely subjected But the plan of the tower to therefore, not provide their could ultimate proof as character. and, only from PoianaPertii revealssufficient morphologicalresemblance to thosefrom hillforts to arguein favour of a similar function (Gheorghiu2001, figs. 59,2; 59,3 and 60). The placementof enclosedsettlements on dominantpositions within prehistorydoesnot necessarily indicate exploitation of the defensiveattributesof the topography.Simple display of social statusis be for to the reason and more suchlocations and for architecturalmonumentalityof more considered for example,in the the hillforts (seefor exampleHamilton and Manley 2001). The sameis accepted, duns (Parker Pearson brochs Scottish or el al. 2001,127); although geographicallyremote of case from the Daciancontext,their importancefor this study lays in their function as an architectural A by for Trump (199 1) the of elite. similar expression was argumented social attitudes of reflection the caseof the Sardiniannuraghi. From this perspective,the brochs/dunsor nuraghi provide a Dacian Further from fact in for tower-houses. the the that analogies come some analogy reasonable for duns form brochs a surroundingvillage settlement(ParkerPearson nuclei etal. 2001, cases or to indicate also at severalof the Dacian towers (seebelow). 133) as primary evidenceseems In the samevein, the useof the murusDacicus itself is believed to be an indicator of social status (seealso'Lockyear2004). In siteswhereexcavationhastaken place it was observed that the four-posted, hillforts in the were wooden, examplesof watchtowers roofed structures, very different Therefore, despitebeing describedas elements altogetherfrom the murusDacicus tower structures. four in towers the the vicinity (on the samehill) of the three of the defensive-surveillance of system, main settlementon Gradistehill identified by surfacesurvey are possibleexamplesof this category of sites.Thesethreetowers were locatedalong the access route towards the main settlement(oneat
87

800m from the bottom of the slope,a secondat further 1500m and the third within the civil itself, just from 'Tau' area).Only the fourth example,locatedin the valley at I 00m west settlement the beginningof the path towardsthe settlement, which was built in timber is in any way analogous with watchtowersfrom CapalnaandBanita (seebelow). Moreover, in a considerable numberof cases adjacentstructuresindicating more extensiveancillary settlementwere present.If the murus Dacicus towershad a military role, suchancillary buildings could perhapshavestood in the way had to be repulsedandwould haveproved to be an unnecessary burden for the when attackers if defensive, Also, have been by in towers tower. the the would serviced garrisonspresent warriors basis (for lengths temporary variable a of time) which would have beenlessconduciveto only on outside.Therefore,the characterof the towers is of somekind of civilian settlement emergence interpretedhereas more likely to be residentialthan defensive,and thereforeas elite houseswith a display. degree status of certain havebeendiscoveredin the immediatevicinity of the towers attestedin the No tracesof settlement Costestiarea-PoianaChisetoarci(604), Paraullui Todirici (606 -2 towers), SesulCiorii (602); at Regia (two out of the 3 stone-builttowers,locatedat 800m GradisteaMuricelului-Sannizegetusa from the beginningof the access route towardsthe main settlementand at a further 1500mfurther lui Mihu (637 -one, eastalong the sameroute) and FataPustaiosului(617); and at Tirsa -Terasa, La Vami (638). In one caseat Costesti 2 foot Chisetoarei, towers) the and at of possibly -Poiana Blidaru hill, a large water reservoirwas discoveredsome 100metresfrom the tower, and on Gradiste Muncelului a tower is locatedat a similar distancefrom water installationsand hill at Gradistea The list 'Tau' from the area. of exampleswhere tracesof occupationoutsidethe towers reservoir include in the Costestiarea:Ciocuta(599), CetatuiaInalta (600 -I or 2 towers), Platoul and CurmaturaFaeragului(601 -3 towers) and PoianaPopii (601 - one tower), PoianaPertii (603), MucheaChisetoarei(605 -4 towers),Muchea lui Todirici (607 -2 towers) andperhapsat Curmatura Muncelului, such sites were recordedat Gradistehill (the Tocaciului (608). In the areaof Gradistea tower nearTau which is effectively within the main settlement),MagureanuluiHill (622), AninesGarbovuconfluence(641), Aninesul Hill and Lunca Nastii (539) and CocosHill (537) and possibly In 2 (531lui Hulpe Varful towers). the existenceof an outer associated someof thesecases, at by further indicated is terracingworks as at Costesti-Muchea Chisetoareiand Muchealui settlement Todirici (5 terraces)(Gheorghiu2001,65). Artefactual evidence,mainly pottery can also be present ashor burnt layerswhich were indicated at Costesti-Poiana Pertii, along with daub/plaster, GradisteaMuncelului in the points MagureanuluiHill, Aninesu-Garbovuconfluenceand on the Inalta, tracesof iron slag have beenfound associated Aninesul Hill. At Costesti-Cetatuia with the remainsof at leastone tower, indicating the presence at the site of metallurgical activity, possibly in a workshopof the V centuryBC- I' centuryAD. The tracesof settlementaroundthe towers from Costesti-Faeragu indicate certainelaboration,with the provision of an aqueductthrough ceramic but thesecould be the result of its proximity to the Costestipipes and an ancientroad still preserved, Blidaru hillfort. Much like in the caseof thoselocatedwithin hillforts, the plan of theseconstructions is square/rcctangular, with sidesof some8-15 metres.The constructiontechniqueof thesetowersis locatedwithin hillforts, a combinationof a murusDacicus similar to that usedfor the tower-houses
88

baseand ground floor, and with elevation/upper or brick with storey of timber (Costesti-Faeragu) Costesti-Platoul Faeragului, but The tiles of at where was made roof someevidenceof plaster/daub. have been (such for to is lacking, used as are supposed exampleat shingles wooden such evidence CurmaturaFaeragului).

1.4. Fortified sites: hillforts and "fortified settlements" by define defend the the to settlement was Within prehistorythe most commonway areaof and digging a ditch and using the excavated materialto build a bank or rampartwhich may or may not by a timber palisade.The evidencefor defensiveditchesshowsthat they had have beensurmounted Subcetate), but (e. in 9m Hallstatt In they dimensions. the most often g. width period reach variable In La Tene 1995). depth 4m (Vasiliev 6.5 3 the to between period the m, with a of up and they were Stone Zanoci 1998). 1983; (Glodariu in depths 7m 2-30m to increases to up width, with generalsize before Roman kingdom Dacian Iron in last the Late Age, in the the the phaseof walls appearonly Bretea Surduc-Cetateaua, fortified (Cucuis, Campuri the possibly sites conquest,though at someof by destroyed modem the Muresana-where eventualexistenceof an enclosurewas supposedly intervention,seefigure 4.10) they were still absent.In somecasesit hasbeenarguedthat ditch has been been has because used the and only partial, rampart surviving enclosure/fortification has This fortifications). (promontory the system type most accessible slope only on to restrict access hillfort with the beenobservedin the first phaseat Costesti-Cetatuie, promontory-type original where Dacicus into hillfort, was one side on evolved and murus system a contour rampart-ditch earth from following inner later the introduced the enclosure part of southernand south-eastem partially Capalna the be A rampart where evolution could at chronological also proposed the second phase. (promontory but the type), the site again ditch around all ran walled partial enclosure only was and following the contourline. Therefore,it is possiblethat siteslike Cucuis, Campuri Surduc-Cetateaua been this had Coziei though and Cozia-Piatra palisades, enclosed, wooden also with perhaps or leavesthe discussionconcerningpartial or total enclosureof the Dacian fortified sites still to be further by research. clarified The fortified sitesof late Iron Age date-hillforts and fortified villages- have traditionally benefited from most attention,sincethey are the most striking featurewithin the Dacian archaeology, asthey been Unfortunately, have they the settlement pattern. usually pre-Roman probably were within detriment from to the perspective of analysisof their politico-strategic an exclusively approached 1983, functions (Glodariu. as parts of a general settlement pattern or economic politico-administrative Gheorghiu2001). Sinceboth the hillforts and the fortified villages have similar sizesand locations, the boundarybetweenthe two categories, admittedto be very faint, haspreviously beenestablished in terms of their internal structure.Glodariu (1983,50) definesthe 'fortified settlement'as a type of fortification which permanentlyhoststhe populationof a village, while the 'hillfort'/citadel is the fortification locatedin the vicinity of one or severalvillages, destinedexclusively to the permanent identifies He (political/military) leader a third type of fortified site, alsoof useof a and of a garrison. exclusively military-stratcgic purpose,wherethe occupationwas only temporaryand which, if real,
89

would not relateto the subjectof the presentstudy.A significant density of hillforts hasbeen identified within the study area,especiallyin the Orastie, Mountains (Sarmizegelusa Regia; Varful lui Rosie; Banita) and elsewhere(Deva Hulpe; Costesti-Cetatuie and Blidaru; Luncani-Piatra. -figure 4.14, Cugir -figure 4.9; Capalna;Craiva. and accordingto Gheorghiu2001, other possibleexamples (Cucuis,BreteaMuresana,Ardeu), and along with fortified settlements at Govajdia and Remetea), fortifications those temporary of exclusively strategicpurpose(Campuri Surduc-La even someof Manastire;Cozia-PiatraCoziei) (figure 4.17). Unfortunately, the identification of siteswithin one categoryor anotheraccordingto the relevant definitions is not always convincing, as either not enoughresearchhasbeencarried out, or the site survival (as result of medieval/modemoccupationof the site or modem/ongoingdamagethrough and BreteaMuresana)is not sufficient to supportsucha conclusion. quarrying -seeArdeu-Cetateaua The natureof internal featuresis also not alwaysrelevant For example,at Cugir (figure 4.9) have been expressed over the natureof the site, as military (Glodariu 1983, contradictoryopinions 96) or as a fortified settlement(dava) (Ciugudeanand Moga 1995,87-8). The natureof the houses, lends type, the or surface supportto the latter opinion and, without the presence of sunken usual of of the elite, probablythis somestoneenclosureand evidenceof rich burials to indicate the presence fortified been have differences Therefore, classified as a settlement architectural would although site definitive differentiation in their functions would be excessive. such are undeniable, To the known exampleswe can add a new site possibly belonging to this category.This is locatedat in the summerof 1999at the Cigmau (Figure 4.5) and was discoveredthrough aerial reconnaissance (Cetate) Turiac the plateau.Later in the Romantime the site was overlain by the easternend of fort the and a set of relatedbuildings (probably the thennae).The site auxiliary of construction consistsof an oval-circular enclosedareaof 0.53 hectares(some 105by 65 metresin diameter) delimited by a multiple rampartand ditch systemsome26 metreswide. The ditchesand rampartsare still surviving well on the easternsidealong a segmentof some40 metres,where a set of 3 ramparts identified. been Another its has ditches sector on westernside was visible as parchmarkson and aerial photographsfrom the summer2000 and subsequently recognisedon an earlier geophysical and resistivity survey (datamadeavailable through the Deva survey combining magnetometry Museum), which could be mappedthereforefor some65 metres.However, on this side the visible enclosurehad only 2 setsof ditches.Although it is possiblethat the third rampart and ditch hadnot have been located finther it towards the centreof the plateau,sincethe the site, may all-around run westernside the site would not havebenefitedfrom the topographicadvantageof the slight slope available on all the other sides.The builderswere clearly awareof this fact, sinceon westernside both visible ditcheswere considerablylarger than on the easternside.This identification is finther supportedby the discoveryof someDacianceramicfragmentsunderneaththe remainsof the (information A. and E. Pescaru). Although both the northern principia of the fort during excavations and the southernsectorof the rampartsare not clearly visible because of the densebush vegetation to assume their presence cover, it is reasonable accordingto the layout of the features.About twohasbeenseverelyaffectedby the constructionof the thirds of the westernareaof the enclosure Romanfort. The easternditch and rampartof the Romanfort had cut straight through the earlier 90

levelled ditches fort had inside the the the western and rampartsof the Dacian complex and area enclosurealong with its entrance,of a type similar to the earliest entranceof Costesti-Cetatuie hillfort (au chicanne).None of the internal featuresof the site were visible from the air because of the bushes dense (small the and tall grasses) which could only reveal the much vegetation of nature buildings located immediately Roman fort. buried the the stone outside of signal stronger The chronologicalinterpretationof the site as Dacian is further supportedby other previously Gheorghiu's (2001,28 37, Cigmau from discoveries the and under area. gazetteer and reported Geoagiu)mentionsin this location "bronzehouseholdobjecte' and "iron agecoins", including both bronzeand some70-80 silver without providing other details, although shedoesnot excludethe is Celtic (Biatec There type). the that coins are also mentionsof an antiquarian of one possibility is DacianTuriac It the to earthwork enclosure plateau. unlikely, on undated an reference -potentially though,that this accountrefers to the circular enclosedsite describedaboveand very probably is a fort, far better date. Roman that the to auxiliary whose remains were preserved at probably reference Further excavationand survey should be ableto provide a closer dating of the site, along with further insight into the internal organisationof the settlementand the characterof the occupation.Also, there is a needto clarify the real extent of the site, sincethere are clear indicationsof finds outsidethe itself fort's Turiac (the fragments the the plateau principia) and ceramic on under enclosedarea (the Until bronze in disparate then, we can the the area coins). objects neighbouring and perhaps hillfort Dacicus Dacian interpret the time, as a small site a of murus without probably reasonably enclosure. hill (figure 4.14) or at The shapeand size of hillforts are not alwayseasyto define. At Deva-Cetate the site Craiva -Piatra Craivii, later useduring the Middle Ages and early modem times hasdamaged layout However, the is impossible Dacian it to the reconstruct and extent occupation. of and by dimensions determined They the the and plan were variable. generally visible, are whenever huge hilltops. improve despite it flattening to terracing the through topography, efforts and available Most of the time curvilinear arcsof walls just follow the line of the terrace(contour enclosures), Regia). Capalna, Sarmizegetusa (Costesti-Cetatuie 4.6, delimiting more or lessorganic shapes -figure however,(Costesti-Blidaru-figure 4.7- and Luncani-PiatraRosie) the line of the walls In few cases, is highly rectilinear in betweensquare-rectangular towers, and perhapsa similar tendencyis revealed 3 S by towers the towers the on side of the Costesti- Cetatuiehillfort (figure connecting walls also 4.6). In most cases the stonewalls usedas hillfort enclosures were madeusing murusDacicus (seeabove). Somehillforts usethis techniqueexclusively(Costesti-Blidaru),but in most casesa combinationof in is (Costesti-Cetatuie, (with Dacicus CapaIna, set clay) present stones and murus stonewall Luncani-PiatraRosie).Campuri Surduc- La Manastireand probably Ardeu are the only hillforts within the study areato have usedexclusivelyenclosurewalls madeof stoneset clay. Unfortunately, at Deva the only hint of the presence of murusDacicus are someindividual blocks of stonereusedin later constructions.

91

Accessto the inner areaof the hillforts is through gatesor towers. Gatesthough the enclosurewall havebeenfound at Banita, in the late phase(secondenclosure)of Costesti-Blidaru,and possibly at At Costesti-Cetatuie Campuri-Surduc. therewas a gatethrough the rampartand palisadeenclosure from the early phase.Another gateprovided access through the later wall connectingtowers I, II and III, immediatelyoutsidetower H to the E, which hasnot replaced,but merely reinforced the security the secondaryentranceon the NW side has of the earlier gate(Gheorgbiu2001,57-9). At CapaIna, beenmadeas a narrow corridor throughtwo parallel walls, which was later blocked and usedas dumping ground.Entrancethrough towershasbeenusedat Capalna,Luncani-PiatraRosie and Costesti-Blidaru(in the first phase).In general,wheredetails are specified,the openingfor the gates is approximately2,50 rn and, at leastin the caseof CostestiBlidaru (the later phase),is big enoughto (Gheorghiu it 2001,145). Probably Costesti or wagons was possible also chariots at of access allow for the gatethroughthe rampart/palisade and perhapsfor the larger enclosurefrom Luncani-Piatra is unlikely through the first entrancefrom Costesti-Blidaru,however,where Rosie. Suchaccess inner been have 90-degree to to the turn obliged make spaceof the a right andthe vehicleswould It was similarly difficult in the caseof the entranceto the tower would not allow suchmanoeuvres. Luncani-Piatra Rosie, had the towers through at and stone which one of was enclosure made smaller Banita, in latter like the the although at gate casewas not madethrough a tower. steps, The enclosed spaceis also variable, though considerablysmaller than that of the early Iron Age hillforts. The hillfort at CostestiCetatuieis the largest,with changesin the enclosedareaover time but GradisteaMuncelului coveredonly some 1.2 hectares from some 15ha to 4.9 and 4.02 hectares, (subsequently enlargedby the Romanfort to 2.7 hectares-figure1.10)and both Costesti-Blidaruand The inner spacewas used for a few amenitiessuchas stoneand Capalnacoveredonly 0.5 hectares. (Capalna 1; Costesti-Cetatuie 2; Costesti-Blidaru 1; -seeabove)and somesurface brick tower-houses hearths.In most of the casesthe occupationlayer.hasbeen or associated timber constructions by later occupationor natural erosion.The greatmajority of the timber structuresis damaged houses/barracks. At Banita by surface and Costesti-Cetatuie, postholesfrom four-posted represented have been found interpreted highest The the towards the as watchtowers of sites. point structures have it been is assumed discovered Capalna, that structure also similar a at and remainsof probably the hillfort from GradisteaMuncelului might havehad one as well. Stonestairs within the enclosed (2 Costesti immediately adjacentto the two tower-houses), discovered have been staircases at space Rosie Luncani-Piatra Banita the stonestairsare associated At Gradistea and with entrances. at while Muncelului no suchstructureshavebeendiscoveredin the areaenclosedby walls, though they might havebeendismantledand the stonereusedduring the Roman occupationof the site, but they were area.Stonetowers havebeenconstructedon the presentoutsidein the surroundingsettlement/sacred line of the walls (at the comers at thosehillforts with a geometricplan), while other towers or towerhouseshavebeenlocatedoutside,in the immediatevicinity or at a greaterdistance away (seeabove). Provision of storageareaswith the remainsof severallarge storagepots (chiupuri') hasbeen identified in the north-westemtower of the secondenclosureat Costesti-Blidaru(figure 4.7). Several granarieshavebeendiscoveredat GradisteaMuncelului, but all of them were locatedoutsidethe enclosure(Glodariu et aL 1996,100-101). Inside the fortified areaat Cugir were discoveredsurface
92

P V BC-l" AD BC houses centuries along with numerousstoragepits with and and sunken of _2nd (Moga tools andjewellery and Ciugudean1995,87-8). Several pottery, evidence of rich artefactual surfacehouses were locatedat Ardeu and a bronzeanvil indicatesthe presence of ajewellery limited workshopwithin the settlement.At the fortification from Cucuis (some 1.8hectares) V barrack (timber faint has Dacian traces of one construction)with excavation revealed pottery of V BCcenturyAD, iron nails and two iron ploughshares. century Although the association of the fortified siteswith variable tracesof opensettlementis frequent,and determinedtheir classificationas a particular type of settlementin this study (seebelow), someof (la Manastire)is a them haveno known associated open settlementin the vicinity. Campuri-Surduc: have beendestroyedin the mid I` centuryBC after the deathof fort thought to originally promontory Burebista,but reinterpretedas destroyedin Trajan! s wars. It doesnot seemto have any settlementin Hill of unsurenature. the vicinity other than anothersmaller enclosureon the neighbouringCetateaua Basedon their known enclosuredimensions(37 by 22 m for La Manastireand 25 m diameterfor (homesteads). At Cetateaua) they are likely to representindividual enclosed/fortifiedsettlements BreteaMuresana(figure 4.10) there are no indicationsof settlementnearby,althoughthe site itself is be 'fortified to a village' which could perhapsexplain settlementnucleation normally considered However, but its least be Ardeu, the thought there to the same was enclosure. at one case at outside housewas locatedoutsidethe enclosure(seeabove).Similarly, Cucuis, Ardeu or, indeed,Cozia by Piatra Coziei, normally interpretedas of similar natureto Bretea Muresana,are all surrounded other foci of Dacian occupationsometimesspreadover a considerableareain the valley or on the Cugir Cucuis). (figure (e. 4.9) is anotherexampleof a fortified site without hills g. surrounding in the immediatevicinity, but someDacian traceshavebeenlocatedon the top of a known settlement hill at somedistanceaway to the South-east, perhapsindicating a solitary homestead. It is more difficult to decideon the characterof settlementaroundthe fortified sitesat Craiva, Costesti-Blidaru,probably GradisteaMuncelului-Varful lui Hulpc, and perhapsPiatraRosie, where in the immediatevicinity. At Craiva the settlementextended the remainsindicate only tower-houses enclosedareaof the site on II man-madeterracessupportingseveraltoweroutsidethe supposed The terracesand tower-houses housesand sanctuaries. madeuse of murusdacicusin a local variety (seeabove),but no mention is madeof humbler,timber-built domesticstructures(Moga and Ciugudean1995,83-4 with bibliography). The finds consistedof pottery, including painted fragments,iron tools,jewellery, imported goods.Coins discoveredthroughoutthe settlement included 6 Republicandenarii (88-70 BQ, althoughearlier examplesconsistedof two Dacian coins, a silver examplefrom the end of the secondcentury BC and anothersilver imitation of a Phillip H tetradrachmfound in the sameareawherea depositof three swords,three spearheadsand a buckle was discoveredat an earlier date.They all supportthe interpretationof the site as a late-Dacianelite Apoulon. The analogywith Costesti-Blidarucomesto mind, althoughat community, supposedly Craiva the towers seemto cluster more tightly aroundthe fortification and beyondthe cluster of towers in the valley at Blidaru was the widespread settlementfrom Costesti. Finally, at Piatra Rosie no tracesof settlement potentially associated with the citadel are known other than a few towers incorporatedwithin the larger enclosure.
93

1.5. Fortified siteswith additional settlement locatedmore or lesswithin the immediate Most of the fortified sitesin the areahad settlements Costesti, Capalna, Cucuis, Deva, Sarmizegetusa Regia-figure 1.10, Banita, (at Ardeu, vicinity Varful lui Hulpe) (seefigure 4.17). According to the reports thesesettlements vary a greatdeal.At Ardeu - Cetateaua the only tracesof occupationon the slope of the hill below the supposed areaof the enclosureareprovided by the discoveryin a rescueexcavationof a Dacian surfacehouse indications fewer hearth. (Gheorghiu 2001,17). Even two pits and a are storage provided with hillforts bottom hills Banita literature in the the the the the settlements where on at of at and recorded finds Two located. Banita, Capatna terraces artificial are mentioned with archaeological at were at that the settlementwas largely destroyedby the modem railway (Glodariu though it is estimated 1983,82) while at Capalnasettlementtracesof supposedlyisolated constructions were also identified in the valley along the Sebesriver (Gheorghiu2001,25). Outside the fortification at Gradistea Muncelului - Varful lui Hulpe extensiveancientterracing with tracesof occupationhasbeen but the lack of systematic identified, two of which seemto havebeenoccupiedby tower-houses, impedes the other estimations. site on research By contrast,evidenceof extensivesettlementin the vicinity at Deva, Costesti,Cucuis,and Regiawas recovered.They were spreadover a larger area(Deva, Costesti,Cucuis)or Sarmizegetusa (Sartnizegetusa Regia). in Costesti Also, Regia Sannizegetusa they seem nature and at compact more to be quite extensiveand elaboratein terms of existing amenities.At Costesti(Gheorghiu2001,65) a large numberof significant discoverieshasbeenrecordedin multiple locationsalong and on both (although foot from Gradistea/Orastie its They the the river of mainly on right side). extend sidesof towards both the hills bearingthe ruins of the two hillforts (Cetatuieand Blidaru) and downstream Ludestii de Sus,in the village- under the modembuildings and their gardens,or in arablefields. The Dacian from hearths layers, burnt mainly of or consists material ceramics whether and archaeological burnt timber buildings, but other materialsincludedbricks, roof tiles of Hellenistic type, ceramic burnt large in location fragments daub, Interestingly, and cereals. pots, a one of storage water pipes, discovered (Gheorghiu been discoveries 2001,189). Most have floor the tessera came of ceramic from surfacesurveyingand chancediscoveriesof different date over the past centuries,and the Hunedoara Greek drachms (2 type, coins of one scyphate of Dyrrachiurnand severalcoins reported contexts.However, in a few placessmallone imitation) were not relatedto specific archaeological houses timber surface of rectangularshape.One suchhousehas of remains scaleexcavationrevealed beenunearthed river, on a raisedplatform 16min at Laz, some300m away from the Gradiste/Orastie diameter,datedto the late I st century AD, with fine pottery (including one imitating a bronze model), iron artefactsand carbonised wheat andmillet. Similar remainsare presumedon a second nearbyplatform 24-26m in diameter.Another Dacianhousewas discoveredcloseto Valea Stanisoareiin an areawith extensiveDacianoccupationtraces,and other discoverieswere madein the village, nearthe train station,under the schoolor under severalprivate houses,and at 'Gruiul Negru' some200-250meastof the church,consistingof groupsof timber houses. The remainsof a
94

Dacianpottery kiln were discoverednearValea Stanisoarei, and closer to the sourceof that stream the presence with the usual Dacian pottery and remainsof burnt wood and of 7 iron ingots associated iron indicated the of an workshop (Gheorghiu 2001,188). To these presence clay probable discoverieswe could also add the remainsof the largestcluster of tower houseslocatedin the immediatevicinity of the two hillforts (seeabove).In a simplified interpretationit looks like the hillforts were the centresof the Costestilandscape, surroundedin the immediatevicinity by several tower-houses, someof them with their own tracesof ancillary structures,and at greaterdistance away (mainly lower downstreamandon the oppositeside of the river) by a wide zoneof scattered occupation. In many respects to have a similar inhabitedlandscape revealedby a 'cluster' of discoveriesseems Little beenlocatedat and aroundthe modemtown of Deva (without tracesof tower-houses). hillfort Dacian from the on the Cetatii hill (figure 4.10), but more substantialarchaeological survived tracescomefrom the occupationoutsidein the vicinity. Tracesof settlementhavebeendiscovered hill its fbot including a pottery kiln datedin the 2nd_ lower the I, CenturyBC terraces and of at on (Marghitan 1970(b)in Lockyear, 2004). Tracesof settlementconsistingof ceramicfragmentswere in Horgos the town, to the south-westof Cetatii Hill, and most extensivelynear the and noted also at Ceangaicemeteryand on the easternlower terracesof the Bejan Hill. Higher on that hill the andesite has large 4.15) (figure provided quantitiesof stoneused,as recentpetrologic analysishad quarry in Sarmizegetusa in Lockyear 2004). 1997 Regia (Marza the constructions monumental at proven, The remainsof the settlementitself included Dacian pottery and animal bones,one millstone and Dyrrachium. One pottery kiln was also found, preserved Greek 2 to a height of of coins silver even 0.8m, with Dacianmaterial datedto the V century BC. The importanceof the areawithin late preRomantimes is ftirther confirmed by the discovery in the vicinity of severalcoin hoards(figure 4.19). One from Bejan forest, found in 1913,had 'several thousands'of Greekdrachmsof Dyrrachium andApollonia and RomanRepublicandenarii. The hoard from Colt hill had a similar hoard discovered between third the hills of Pai and Sargheicontainedexclusively a composition; Republicandenarii; anotherhoard,discovered*between the hills of Mal and Colt in 1848had also denarii, Republican along with somelocal imitations. A hoardaccumulatingGreekand accumulated RomanRepublicansilver (including 2 dated85-75 BQ, one of Illyrican coins and a third (of 400500 piecesbut largely lost) of coins of Dyrrachium, and a number of Romandenarii (118-82 BQ are also mentionedamongdiscoveriesfrom this area,but without further details (Gheorghiu2001,35-6). Discoveriesof Daciannaturehavebeenmadein multiple locations aroundthe fortified site at Cucuis-Goluhill, onceagain over a large area.They consistof severalartificial terraceswith Dacian ceramicfragments(at 'Bocsitura') or tracesof timber structuresin associationwith pottery (at 'Gruiet' and 'Poiana Stanii') or only scattersof pottery fragments(Berianul hill, Dealul Suciului, PietreleCaprei).Sometimes by iron tools (large tongs at Muchea the remainsare accompanied Cetatii, an iron hatchetat 'Padesulde Sus', and an iron axe at 'Glajerie', both with longitudinal sockets)(Gheorghiu2001,33). The most important settlementof all associated with a hillfort has beenlocatedoutsidethe hillfort at SarnzLzegetusa Regia (figure 1.10).The 'civilian' occupationcoveredover 100 artificial terracesof
95

into dug the southernslope of the hill (only a few terraceshavebeen mostly variable size and shape discoveredon the northernside, towardsits upperpart and near the enclosurewall of the hillfort). Very few havebeenthe subjectof more detailedresearch.The terracesoften appearin clusters scatteredthroughthe woodsrather than a continuousspread(Lockyear 2004). This gives the site the characteristic of other sites,such as Deva or Costesti,previously appearance samescattered-layout Regia. The settlement interpretedas semi-compact rather than compactsettlementlike SartnLzegetusa in into (according location hillfort), divided the to their to the eastern and areas relation western was and related amenities.Most of the althoughmuch of the easternareawas occupiedby sanctuaries buildings of domesticcharacter,often one houseand one ancillary terracesseemto accommodate building usednormally for storage(granaries) per terrace(Gheorghiu 2001,75). The houses (which is the norm in the mountains)and varied in themselves were also built as surfacestructures buildings from Fetele Most Albe, Meleia the the of resemble circular structures or size. and plan Rudele(seeaboveand figure 4.1). An exampleof a one-roomedhouse(4.30 by 2.75 metres)of V Mica had Terasa dimensions AD the on and a style very similar to the sunken-floored century houses,and wasprovided with a hearthand 3 grain storagepits, one of which was locatedunderthe floor inside the houseand the other two outsidea short distanceaway. There were also examplesof in built houses (2-3) houses, technique to the a similar or one multiple with circular rectangular food items (tools, by 'granaries'. Two of The largely and of other storage etc) provided was rooms. them (one in the 'westernquarter' and the other on the IX-th terracein the area sacra) contained indicate big to their use of wheat, millet and pulses, quantities and were perhaps enough significant by a larger community(Gheorghiu2001,170-1). It is unclear whether they suppliedthe personnel (larger) found Two or another the centre community. were religious granaries smaller other within just abovethe area sacra (on terracesVH A and VH 13).This massiveconcentration of storedgrain in the areacould perhapsindicate someinstitutional control/administrationof the food supply, even though individual granarieswere also available. Finds are in generalrich, particularly in thosebuildings which have endedby fire, and includediron tools and fittings, a large variety of pottery, including Dacian painted ware decorated with geometric, floral and animal representations, coins and other various artcfacts.Inside onebuilding was found a bronzetweezers,an iron knife and a plaqueof 'medical kit' consistingof five small vessels,
'volcanic ash' in a wooden box with an iron handle and bronze straps. In a different building was found a large conical storage vessel (1.25m diameter and 0.7m in height). Its lip was stamped four PERSCORILO',providing a strong link between Gradistea times with the words 'DECEBALVS Muncelului and the last Dacian Ung (Uckyear 2004). Several of these houses proved to have hosted workshops (several metallurgical workshops, including one for minting imitations of Republican denarii). Other workshops for pottery and glass production or carpentry are supposed to have existed on the basis of the presence of tools and end products. In the eastern settlement several terraces in the immediate vicinity of the hillfort hosted a large area sacra with several sanctuaries. Nearby an open paved area is supposed to have served for public meetings (agora? - Gheorghiu, 200176-79). One stone paved road (possibly roofed/portico? ) leading from sanctuaries to the hillfort was partially extant and stone stairs have been found (Glodariu et aL 1996,86). Evidence for water management 96

(supply and drainage)consisted of installationsfor catchingseveralnatural springslocatedlower on that hill and distributing the water through ceramicpipes laid on clay or even andesiteslabs.At Tau two springs,directedthroughpipes to a woodendecanter/purifierwith a capacityof at least3,000 litres and provided with a lead filtering pipe, seemto have supplied water for various constructions Another spring within the religious area,with its installation severely within the settlemenL A big reservoir (cistern) of a date closeto the Dacian damaged,suppliedsomeof the sanctuaries. fortification. Bordering has been discovered the the roads,especiallywithin the to the south of wars limestone drains have been leading towards the various amenities within area, and area sacra discovered. Thesevariousindicationsof large-scale water managementgive someindication of the development level technological of which had been attained. sophisticated

2. Location of settlements In the light of previousanalyses, a striking featureof the settlementpattern in terms of settlement location is that very few of them are to be found at lower altitudes (figure 4.18). Gheorghiu(2001, 88-9) notes: "Among the topographiclocations of the middle Mures valley, the floodplains by found Dacians the to avoided a when choosinga place were systematically is The therewas the maximum dangerof situation normal because settlement. flooding. Therewere cases, a few of them it is true, when the boundaryzone betweenthe floodplains and lower terracesof the valley was preferred,probably be Mures, to to fields the the to the close rich necessity agricultural river of out and important this an artery of transportfor goods. Suchare the represented since Vintu de from Turdas, Jos, Vurpar, " (author's Blandiana Saracsau. settlements and translation) This view is reminiscentof an early theory on the settlementpattern of the British Iron Age, dating from a period prior to the introduction of systematicmodem surveying, especiallyaerial (1933,82) lower Fox hopelessly Iron Age Britain According the to the were zones of photography. damp "where estuaryor harbourwas fringed with forest, the mudflats and beaches and were deserted lands "bad inland" led these that trackways were crossedonly when unavoidable,andby the and no havebeenrevealedin narrowestgaps". SinceFox's time, however,a seriesof new sitestenclosures theselowlands, including somewith a morphologyclosely related to the probableuseof areasmore breeding (e. for flooding to animal g. fimnel-entranceenclosures). and aspastures exposed identified so far with modem land usein the midWhen comparingthe location of the settlements Mures valley (figure 4.18), only some28-45 of the 146possibleDacian settlements could havebeen located in areascurrently affectedby ploughing (17 of them were located in uncertainlocations It is, therefore,likely that the stateof preservation and/or within the areaof modem settlements). of the siteswould have stronglybiasedtheir identification. Indeed,if Dacian siteswere not overlain by a fairly thick later deposit(whetherhumanor natural) it is likely that the archaeologicalcontexts
97

destroyed by the modemactivity (see damaged have been even completely and would severely discussionin chapter1). Preservation and surveymethodologycan be held responsiblefor the bias differencesin the Iron Age settlementpatternbetweenlowlandsand affecting traditionally accepted upland areasin Transylvania,as in the Upper Tisa valley data4/lJpr)erTisza ba 2003/htmi/home. htm; 1,1.2.5.2) (http://minerva.york.ac.uk/catalop-ue/Xroi least discovered (see At in Europe Continental the through aerial one above). of sites elsewhere and Cigmau (figure 4.5), hillfort the at challengesmany of the traditional opinions photography, in for instance location hillforts location, the uplandsor the lack of the as of concerningsettlement settlementon the right bank of the Mures in that particular sector(Gheorghiu, 2001). the problemby consideringevery artefactdiscoverythat The presentstudy hastried to address included ceramicsas a potential settlementand, therefore,including them in the list of settlements. However, this operationhasstill left at leasttwo lowland areaswith ideal climatic and topographic (see figure 4.18). first for The and agriculture without settlement settlement any apparent conditions Strei its lower left largely the the section of middle side towardsDeva where valley and all covers is in Calan attested settlement area. The secondcovers the southernside of Mures only one possible betweenthe OrastieandPianu rivers, where no settlementtraceshave beenrecordedother than Orastie-PemilorHill (576) hill and Vintu de Jos (407), although somesettlementcould be relatedto Pianu de Sus (seebelow) at the edgeof the lowland. In both these at of gold the possibleextraction jewellery and coin discoverieshave beenrecorded,scattered latter) in (especially the or in regions hoards,which indicateat leastsomeelite control over the area,although only 12hoardswere found Idlometres 2 (figure 4.19) buffer around any of settlement zone a outside The analysisof the distancebetweenthe settlements revealsa further discrepancyof settlement density betweenthe OrastieMountains and the rest of the territory (figure 4.17). In the Orastie Mountains numeroussettlements cluster at distances of lessthan I kilometre from eachother, while are scattered normally at 3-5 and sometimesevenmore kilometres outside this areathe settlements increasingly distances in distances Of the are misleading map representing relative on course, away. the ground in areasof very fragmentedrelief as in the mountains,but even bearingthis in mind, one density habitat in Dacian the of unusual without precedent any other areas stop noticing cannot If the situation is real and not artificially createdby the bias the study area. or outside whether within of the current methodsof survey,a possibleexplanationcould be offered by the very late chronology Regia, and would hint at political and religious factors for their of the sites,including Sarmizegefusa emergence. The spatial distribution of settlement,asmuch as it is currently known is, therefore,hardly normal. Moreover, despitethe importanceof the Mures as a communicationand trade highway with the plains from the west at all times during history, only 32 of the settlementsare locatedwithin a buffer zone of 5 kilometres from the Mures. Indeedvery few fortified sites are locatedso closeto the Mures (Campuri-SurducLa Manastireand perhapsCetateaua, BreteaMuresana,Cozia-PiatraCoziei, Deva and Cigmau), and with one exception(Cigmau)they are all located in the Mures Corridor area.Deva was perhapsthe single most important site (hillfort/citadel with extensivesurroundingopen
98

settlement)in the immediatevicinity of the main river. Otherwise,water (natural springs,streams and minor rivers) was availableeverywherewithin a fair distanceand it did not act as a stressfactor in relation to the distribution of settlementinto the wider landscape. The preferredlocation for fortified siteswithin prehistorywas normally on hills or high promontories in building defences.This trend is not particularly topography minimum effort allows where natural but late to was manifestthroughoutprehistoric time (Hansonand Oltean,2000). prehistory, related The preferencefor lower or higher altitudesvariesfrom one period to another,but all periodsseemto show a specialcarefor the maximum use of the strategicand defensivepotential offered by the terrain. While late Neolithic settlements generallyprefer the lower river terraces,the later Bronze Age or iron Age defendedsettlements manifestan increased preferencefor higher and, therefore, Tribes inaccessible positions. of the Wietenbergculture in the Bronze ageusedhills with steep more high terracesor plateauxmargins which were naturally defendedon all sides, or on slopes,preferably 1993,36). (Rotea Early Iron Age hillforts/fortified settlementsare also placedin least one side at dominantpositions (at about300-500mabovesealevel, at some 100-150mhigher than the largeflat fields below), but the size and complexity of enclosures to protect large areashad already (Teleac, Subcetate effort significant and Dej - Vasiliev et aL 1991,19). necessitated hills deepin the Dacian hillforts developthis concepteven fixther, with their location on inaccessible bordering hillforts the edgeof the lowlands are locatedat altitudesof under 500m, The mountains. (Deva 371in, Cucuis44 1in, Cugir 480m). Another group of sites are locateddeeperinto the 800m (Costesti-Cetatuie but 540m; Capalna 61Om;Cozia 686m; Costestiat under still mountains, Blidaru 705m; Ardeu 711in), but there are sitesgoing abovethis altitude (Luncani-PiatraRosie 823m, Banita 904m) reaching 1000m(GradisteaMuncelului-Dealul Gradistii 1000mand Craiva) Location sometimestook precedence Piatra Craivii 1083m. over the availability of water supply in immediate in the and a numberof caseswater cistems/reservoirs vicinity, were constructed within the vicinity. At both GradisteaMuncelului-Dealul Gradistii and Costesti-Blidaruthe cisternswere in the latter caseat somedistanceto the east,nearthe towers built locatedoutsidethe enclosures, (site 604) (Gheorghiu Stream Chisetoarei 2001,185).The well within the inner enclosureat the along Luncani-PiatraRosie is thought to be of medievaldate,althoughjust outside it near the gate,and still is larger thought to have existed in the Dacian period (Strobel the a sacred pond enclosure, within 1998),which could perhapshaveservedas water supply. The builders went as far as flattening the top of the hill if this was not naturally suitablefor settlement(Glodariu 1983,59-60;Zanoci 1998,15- 26), by cutting topsoil and evensolid rock from the hill tops and enlarginglevelled areasthroughterracingworks. Terracing is a frequentoccurrence (figure 4.2), especiallyin the Orastiemountains(FataCetei, within the upland Dacian landscape FeteleAlbe si Sannizegetusa Regiabeing the most obvious examples)but also in other locations Craiva-PiatraCraivii and Coziawithin the study area,somebeing indicatedat Ardeu-Cetateaua, Piatra Coziei. Wherevernaturally flat terrain is rare they are a necessity,and in most cases constitute the main indicator of the settlement(along with scarcepresence of Dacian pottery and charcoal)and, indeed,of its extent.Unfortunately the heavily forestedareais one of the reasonswhy no systematic
99

work hasbeendone so far to ensuretheir properlocation, recording and mapping.Future GPSsurvey projects(at least)could provide extremelyvaluableinformation for better evaluationof the density and characterof settlementin the area. On the Gradistehill at GradisteaMuncelului the murusDacicus enclosurewalls of the hillfort were built following the 1000mcontour line, on a 3m wide levelled terracecut into the bedrock. Inside the terrain was flattenedover a small areaonly at its highestpoint, in order perhapsto accommodate a woodenwatchtowerin a similar fashion to that at Capalna,and on a further 3 terracestracesof timber constructionshavebeenfound. Outside,the entire civilian settlementwas built on over 100 in the sacredareabeing supportedby murus Dacicus walls of up to 12-14 those terraces, man-made (houseand ancillary building), but someof m in height. Most of the terraceshostedone homestead them, especiallythosesupportingsanctuaries, were much larger, with widths of 20-30m, even 50m Other by identified Dacicus in 200m. terraces lengths to cases were of supported murus a up of and in from Fetele Albe-Sesul Branza, the open settlement cu sites, outsidethe possible numberof other Craivii hillfort from Gradistea, Craiva-Piatra Munceluluithe and perhaps outside of at enclosure Capalna,Banita). At Capalna Varful lui Hulpe, but mostly inside the fortifications (Costesti-Cetatuie, At Craiva-PiatraCraivii most of theII supportedthe upperterraces. the enclosurewalls themselves by not murusDacicus, but by similar-scaledwalls madeof large quarry terraceswere supported Fetele Albe, the With the of to useof stonewalls supporting the terracesseems exception stones. had heavier to (stone terraces support these tower-houses, structures sanctuaries, etc occur when however,someof the buildings constructedon the murus Dacicus terracesat FeteleAlbe were identified as sanctuaries). The largestmajority of terraceswere, however,lesselaboratein terms of dimensionsand building been have is far from being building therefore, Few them excavated the technique and, of effort. have far been to they by digging into the slopeand tipping seem so constructed although clarified, the resultantearthdown-slope(Lockyear 2004).All of the known examplesare proved (or assumed) to have servedfor constructionsof various scalesand functions.None seemsto havebeenusedfor bring further light to this aspect.For the commonterraces, studies may more although cultivation, further the to their alternative wall, ways stone used prevent erosionand the supporting a without disposalof the excavatedstones- consideredby Foxhall (1996) as pragmatic aims for agricultural terracebuilding - is unclear.Their rudimentarytechniquemeantperhapsthat it would have takenless time and effort for their construction,but it is likely that the work was still doneby male labour of by Foxhall, someof the to be constructedon them.Also, as suggested the individual households may have beenproducedby burning treesand charcoaldiscoveredalmost invariably on the terraces busheswhich had beenremovedand using the charcoalfor sale.However, the terraceswhere murus Dacicus was usedsuppose a much larger effort and availablelabour force, along with trained specialistsin constructionwork. Perhaps is the reasonbehindthe the concernfor finding the best possiblelocationsfor the settlements high occurrenceof siteswith tracesof habitationof other dates(multi-period, tell sites).29 of the in this chapterhavetracesof previousand/orlater occupationwithin earlier prehistorY sitesdiscussed
100

and medieval or modemtimes, 14 in the uplandsand 15 in the lowlands. One exampleof a multiperiod site discoveredthrough aerial photographyis locatedto the west of the modem town at Simeria (Figure 4.11). 2-3 pits indicate sunkenhousesand 4-6 othersof smaller dimensionsprobably represented storagepits. However,the most striking feature-the partial curvilinear enclosure following the natural edgeof the river terracewith one entrance-and its relationshipwith the other featuresis more difficult to interpret. It consistsof ditchessome3 metresin width (doubledto the wherethe natural slopeof the terraceis less steep).In the interior the narrower south of the entrance ditchesprobably of a pallisadedenclosureare still visible which turns outwardsat the entranceto connectwith the ditch in front of it. The finds discoveredduring a ground visit in 2002 included Dacian date,along with someRoman and later sherds,but the site plan of also prehistoric pottery doesnot facilitate the identification of different phases of occupation.A changein photographic conditions (vegetation,climate) and the application of other methodsof survey geophysicaland further fieldwalking) could provide clarification of its characterand chronological systematic occursespeciallyin the caseof the hillforts in the mountains,wheresite evolution. The phenomenon location was severelyrestrictedby topography.At Craiva the occupationon the hilltop is attestedfor late Neolithic-early Bronze age (Cotofeni), late Bronze Age (Wietenberg)and Middle Age, at Cugir for Bronze Age and early Iron Age (Hallstatt), at Deva for late Neolithic-early Bronze Age (most during medievaland early modem times), at Cucuis for early Bronze Age (Cotofeni), extensively Hallstatt and Middle Ages, while at Ardeu-Cetateaua all the prehistoric main periodsare illustrated by finds and occupationcontinuesin post-Romanand medieval times. The trend is considered by Trohani (1994) as generalfor the Dacian areaand hasa much larger geographicalspread.

3. ECONOMY: 3.1. Agriculture investigation is at a very early stage.As Animal husbandryis anotherdomain where archaeological detailed in Chapter2, domesticated animals(cattle, horses,mules, sheep,pigs, goats)are presentin attestthat oxen and horseswere usedfor traction (Macrea and severalscenes artistic representations 1969,297; Lepperand Frere, 1988;MacKendrick 1975,99 and plate 4.26). Linguistic evidencealso bone The dairy study of remainsfrom outsidethe study areaindicatesa large production. attests investigated the of most sites(10), followed closely by pig (at 4 sites)and of cattle at predominance (at I site) (Gudeaand Gudea1999). Bone evidencefrom sites within the study area sheep/goat (Ardeu-Cetatuieand Hunedoaracemetery-figure 4.13) is mentioned,but the resultsof their detailed study have not yet beenpublished.The study of the settlementpatternhas not provided until now much convincing datarelatedto the way animal fanning was undertaken.The buildings of the highaltitude settlementfrom Meleia have first beeninterpretedas equivalentto the modem "stane'seasonal animal farms, consistingof an animal enclosure and a small building providing for the shepherds accommodation and a storefor produce.The interpretationat the time was based solely on modem analogyand hasbeenchallengedlater (Glodariu et aL 1996,161) basedon the study of the relatedfinds coming from the site, which attesta far more sophisticatedeconomyand
101

The authorsmaintain,however, the seasonal possibly social statusof the occupants. character of thosebuildings without evidencefor daub wall insulation from this or other sitesin the Orastie Mountains or elsewhere(but seebelow). Unfortunately, featureswhich would provide the most convincing argumentto plea for animal fanning, suchasthe animal enclosures, are consistently lacking from all the sites,althoughsometools like scissorsfor trimming wool, or scythes('coasa') and rakes(grebla') (e.g. Capalna) for hay making were possibly usedin the farming process. Agriculture is recognisedto make the highest contribution to the economyof Dacian settlements, in the upper segmentof the settlementhierarchy(e.g. the enclosedsettlement even for settlements from Arpasu de Susoutsidethe study area).However,as observedin previous chaptersof this study, information on the territory outsidethe settlements and on the way cultivation fields were distributed is largely absent.As shown in Chapter2, there is evidencefor the presence in the landscape of a late in Iron Age for Within food the the study areawheat, used plants or other purpose. number of garlic, spinachand comcocklehave rye, millet, barley, lentil, pea,mustard,poppy and rape seeds, beenidentified, along with other plants used for feedinghumansand animals (seeabovechapter2). Cabbage might also havebeenpresent,basedon linguistic evidence.Presence of fruits is alsoproved V (apple by literary least (vine the seeds), or until early sources cultivation at archaeologically banned it by Burebista 3 BC VII 11; Geog. V113 5 was when also elderberry, ; century -Strabo, Dioskorides for curative propertiesalong with camomile,valerianand blackberry, listed by Pedanios thyme - seeVekony 2000,80-3; Nandris 1981,234-5). Camelinasativa (gold-of-pleasure) seeds for lighting (Nandris burnt 1981,234-5). is The that the cereals apparently assumption were normal (pulses The assumptionin the caseof cerealsis and cabbage) were cultivated species. and vegetables nd fields harvested by the army during the 2 Dacianwar on the of supportedby the representations Trajan's Column (seeabovechapter2). It is unclearwhetherthe herbsand spicesfor human (apple, fruits from the elderberryand blackberry) were cultivated or just harvested or consumption their natural habitat. If vine was (still) present,it was probably cultivated. is The presence cultivation evident from somelimited archaeologicalevidence.Finds of cereal of indication tools of the practiceof agriculture.At Capalnain "Obreje", in the some give agricultural hillfort (132) from deposit distance the a short of 2 ploughshares and 7 sicklesmadeof iron valley a hasbeendiscovered(Moga and Ciugudean1995,67) and other sickleswere found inside the hillfort. Another depositof tools was discoveredat GradisteaMuncelului-Valea Larga, including 6 hoes,an be but this relatedalso with other activities, such as stone/woodworking can one or adze,a chisel, terracing.Another depositwas found on Strambuhill, southof Meleia (I sledgehammer,one pick, 2 boring I hoes, 2 2 tool, I chisel, I saw and a fork). The function and a scythe, sickles ploughshares, is of thesedepositsis unclear.The normal interpretationof thosediscoveredaway from settlements intentional depositiondue to threat during the Dacianwars (as in the latter example),although anotherpossibility might be ritual deposition.Furtherploughshares were found, one at Alba Iulia (as a randomdiscovery),one in the enclosedsettlementat Cucuis (Gheorghiu 2001,166) and another (possibly 2) at Piatra Craivii (Lockyear 2004), and in generalthe noted examplescome from upland settlementcontexts,whosesurroundingswere unsuitablefor arablecultivation.
102

Grain storagepits were notedat Ardeu (102- outsidethe fortification), Cugir (218), Sebes-Lancram (34 1) and Sebes-Podul Pripocului (328), Seusa(13), Orastie-DealulPcmilor (576) and Vintu de Jos (409 - 65 featuresindicatepossiblestoragepits, althougha number of them were probably used from Bronze Age). The pits are of bucket or fininel shape the occupation earlier phases of within with variable widths and depths.Other meansof grain storagewere presentin form of granaries Regia and in the vicinity) with pots of big dimensions('chiup') with (largely at Sannizegetusa conical bodies and narrow rims. This type of vesselis to be found on any Dacian site and they were perhapsburied into the groundup to the level of the rim, as they were found in one of the towers hillfort. The ground level of the tower-houses Costesti-Blidaru and bastionswas usedas within storagespacewithin hillforts, while in the ordinary circular timber housesthe storageareaswere Most identified in have a rectangularplan the timber granaries/deposits the rooms. of outer mostly Regia, Meleia, FeteleAlbe). A few circular single-roomedbuildings (examplesat Sartnizegetusa inside hearths of were also interpretedasprimarily usedfor storage(e.g. Meleia). without evidence Regia, on terraceIX just abovethe sacredarea(figure 4.8) Outsidethe hillfort from Sarmizegetusa (terraces VII immediate A B), in timber granariesof large dimensionshavebeen the vicinity and and identified which were extremelyrich in burnt provisions (wheat, millet and peas)depositedin large 2001,17 1). (Gheorghiu storagevessels The distribution of evidencefor storagefacilities showsthat in the lowlands only 4 siteswere (pits Sebes-Lancram for Podul Pripocului, also Seusa present a purpose at such and and equipped Vintu de Jos,the latter with quite extensivestoragepotential). Far greaterstoragecapacityis hillforts in in the and though, upland the form of granaries,pits and also storage settlement, available, detection through the Also, the presentstudy of the two large lowland areaswith good vessels. for climatic conditions settlementand cultivation without any apparentsettlementon the middle Strei Valley and, most significantly, in the Mures valley (seeabove) is unexpected.Lack of settlement far does supporttheir alternativeuse for winter grazing, which would havebeen so not evidence during if the pastures were used upland summer.If, however, further discoveriesvalidate necessary the existing gap, this could indicate a significant environmentalchangeat a local scalebetween Until half of the study areaseemsfar more then, the northeastern era. modem antiquity and half intensively usedfor agriculturalpurposethan the southwestern Many discoveriesof millstones(a 2-piecetype, fairly similar to the Romanmeta-catillus) at Cetea, LopadeaVeche Radulesti,Deva (one from an unclearcomplex and one within the settlementfrom Bejan hill) and Meleia, or millstone fragments(Ursici, Cozia-PiatraCoziei, and Gradistea Muncelului betweenValea Reaand Valea Vartoapelor) are indicative of the extensiveuseof cereals in diet. This lends finther supportto similar conclusionby Nandris (1981) basedon the study of flotation samplesfrom varioushillfort sites,which indicate a significant preferencefor wheat varieties.Literary sources as one of the reforms introducedinto the Dacian mention vegetarianism life-style by the religious reform of Dekaineos(StraboV 16; VH 3 11-13 3) and above chapter -see supportNandris' conclusions.But sincehis study is relatedexclusively to hillfort contexts,it is not clear whetherthis is a generalcharacteristicof the diet of Dacian society,or that it characterises only the uppersocial segment.In somehillforts sites,there is evidenceto indicate the presence of animals 103

see usedfor meatconsumption(e.g Ardeu-Cetateaua http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/rh/cronica/detaliu. k=l 871; also, outsidethe study area,seeGudea asp? and Gudea1999),which could indicatethat the OrastieMountains areawas possibly the most affectedby the religious reform (althoughsomeanimal boneswere discoveredat Costestiin funerary k=925 visited 11.05.2004). ro/scripts/rh/cronica/detaliu. ritual context- h!ip: //www. cimec. asI2? The well-establishedinterpretationof the agricultural processwas that the population of the upland (or thoseat the edgeof the upland) cultivated the main river valleys (Gheorghiu2001). settlements But thesesettlements were locatedat significant distancesfrom the areasthey were supposedly Ian (see 10 least to the fields away above).The physical distancemakesdaily access at cultivating, ) and it would pre-suppose difficult (impossible? in the the existenceof seasonal accommodation lowlands for the spring-summer, which hasnot beenidentified so far. But the useof, arguably, (see buildings have beenproposedso far only in above)and the principle of seasonality seasonal husbandry. The idea both that to animal animal husbandryand cerealcultivation was relation basis have for the way we interpretthe would a seasonal on significant repercussions undertaken Dacian societyas a whole. It would meanthat a large massof the population and pattem settlement spentat least4 monthseachyear on the move, one part into the lowlands to cultivate the fields and the other high into the mountainswith the animals for summergrazing, while for the remaining8 located the they settlements populated somewhere at a high-mid altitude andkept themselves months busy with other activities. Although probably true in relation to transhumantanimal fanning practice, impractical represent an could managerialapproachtowards the economyin its sucha scenario by entirety, unlesssupported peacefultimes and a very elaborateroad and communicationnetwork, large for in the upper-mid-altitudebelt. But noneof these very settlements evidence with along factors seempresentand, therefore,the seasonal characterof settlementat least for the lowland areas involved in cerealcultivation, if not impossible,seemsunlikely. Further aspects relatedto cerealcultivation which still await an answerare the location of the One threshingfacilities and the methodof transportationof the produceinto the upland settlements. harvested the that cerealswere transportedusing 4-wheeledwagons(literary and was possibility far indication but documented), no so of threshingactivities (e.g. tools) havebeenfound artistically This suggests in the upland settlements. that threshingmight have happenedin the lowlands,near(er) to the cultivated fields. In this casethe storagepottery, which hasa wide distribution in both lowland and upland contexts,or other alternativepackagingwhich hasnot survived, might have servedas appropriatecontainersfor transportation.

3.2. Resource exploitation: extraction and the location of settlements in relation to ores (figure 4.20)

Within pre-RomanDacia, aswell as in earlier and later periods,there is extensiveevidenceof human exploitation of the rich naturalresources, primarily metal and stone,available in the study area.The identification of the sourcesis more difficult, sinceany later activity has tendedto destroythe traces of earlier quarrying or mining (Glodariu.and Iaroslavschi1979,111) and only the periodsof the
104

largestextentof activity (as for instancethe ancientRomanor modem Austrian periods)tend to be identifiable. The identification of suchsitesfor pre-Romantimes is, therefore,largely basedon processing/refuse or artefactualevidence(tools) from the sites themselvesor from associated data (Lockyear 2004). Future chemicalor limited thin-section stone analysis settlements, along with areas geologicalanalysiswould shedmore light on the identification of sourcesand the geographical suppliedby them. for the stonearchitectureof the OrastieMountainswere As far as it is currently known, the sources locatedsomedistanceaway from the sitesin the hills aroundDeva -figure 4.15 (andesite)and at de Piatra in the Magura (Calanului)hill -figure 4.16 (limestone)which involved Santarnaria for limestone distance The Calan Capalna, long transport. used was even at near where surprisingly to transport difficulty (Gheorghiu2001,124). the ashlarblocks were smaller,perhapsas a response Another limestonequarry was locatedat Craiva (25) in the vicinity of the hillfort at Piatra Craivii Other in Uroi time this source. closer period of quarries used are at possibly much a providing -figure de Piatraand Craiva 5.30 (andesite)and TeIna (limestone).The limestonecoming from Santamaria Iaroslavschi (Glodariu 1979,144). then the transported site and and quarry away at was worked Large salt depositswere also availablein the area(OcnaMures), but tracesof its exploitation might have disappeared. in scenes The use of treesand wood is frequentlyrepresented on the Trajan's Column (seeabove Chapter2). Wood was usedextensivelyin constructionsof four-postedstructures(interpretedas houses buildings, tower-houses, of storeys upper and ancillary sanctuaries or watchtowers), in deposits inThe Preserved of wood remains waterlogged are extremely rare. preserved palisades. from flooring barrel the the the water cistem of along with and wooden pipe-supports situ wooden "Tau" from Sarmizegetusa installation local indicate Regia decanter timbers the at of of use water fir) (Gheorghiu ('zada'and 2001,155-6). According to recent environmental species coniferous //www. (http: k=l from "Tau" 962 visited cimec. ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu. asp? analysis 11.05.2004), a different ancientconiferoustree ('larita') populatedthe hill sometimeimmediately is in likely local have to the the the site, and of populated environment also abandonment after Dacian times, but the sourcefor 'zada' was probably not far away. The cistem excavated at CostestiMuchea Chisetoareimadeextensiveuseof oak timbers, like one of the 2 water-collectionbasins (Glodariu 1983,37). The useof coniferous speciesat Sarmizegetusa Regiaas from Costesti-Cetatuie levels Costesti in location the the to at mirrors of natural species vegetation opposed non-coniferous belt is in (Sarmizegetusa the these coniferous and Costestiin the oak belt) and, sites of eachof therefore,probably reflectsthe exploitation of locally available species. A wide variety of tools relatedto woodworkinghavebeenfound within the study areain deposits, been found in have large finds Axes types numbersat Sannizegelusa stray or excavations. of several Campuri-Surduc,Craiva and Capalna.2 typesof Regia, Luncani, FeteleAlbe, Costesti-Cetatuie, hatchets-double axes('barde') are represented in discoveriesfrom Capalna,Costesti-Cetatuie, Craiva, Cucuis,Luncani and Luncani-PiatraRosie,Sarmizegetusa Regia and Fctele Albe. Other discoveriesinclude: 2 types of adzes('tesle' Costesti-Cetatuie, Luncani-Piatra Rosie, -Capalna,
105

Sarmizegetusa Regia, Craiva), 3 typesof saws('fierastraie'-Sarmizegetusa Regia, Costesti-Cetatuie, Luncani-PiatraRosie), iron compasses (Sannizegetusa and Cetea),34 types of woodworking chisels ('dalte' - Sarmizegetusa, Craiva, Cucuis,Costesti-Cetatuie, CapaIna, Luncani-PiatraRosie,Pustiosu hill, Strambuhill, Sarinizegetusa Regia,Valea Larga, and possibly at Costesti-Blidaru,Rudele (uncertainpurpose). Two or possibly threeimported spokeshaves which came from Herenniusof Aquileia were found, along with local produced,smallerexamples,at Sarmizegetusa Regia. The list Craiva, Luncani-PiatraRosie, of tools finally includesdrills (at Costesti-Blidaru,Costesti-Cetatuie, Strarnbu),planes('rindele') from Luncani-PiatraRosie and Sarmizegetusa), Sarmizegetusa, one file from Sarmizegetusa with bigger teeththan thoseusedin iron working and scrapersfrom CostestiCetatuieand Sarmizegetusa. The exploitation and especiallythe productionof iron havebenefitedfrom more attention(Glodariu The 1979). Iaroslavschi from the surviving evidenceindicatessignificant use of the resources and OrastieMountainsaroundGradisteand beyond,but later (Romanor modem) exploitation of the (Ghelari-Teliuc the ores of region main rich areain the PoianaRuscaMountains) may extremely have wiped out any traceof previoususe.In the OrastieMountains, BatranaHill was indicatedas the discovered iron in in the easternsettlement, the 19'h the ores century at Sarmizegetusa sourceof four iron-smelting large kilns (reducere). The refuse from ore reduction with workshop a within found at Dosul Vartoapelor-SubCununi was supposedlyconnectedto the exploitation of the local At Tampu, by large whereavailableresources were also present,slag was accompanied resources. iron ingots (aprox. 40 kg in weight; 0.35-0.4min diameter-indicating circular kilns with this inner diameter)andtracesof firing, lending more weight to local exploitation and primary processing of iron. Other iron sourcesavailablein the areaand possibly exploited were at StrambuHill near Rudele, on Pietrosuvalley, Mlacilor Hill andNegru Hill and, further away, at Drumul Dreptului near the Cioclovina fortification (Gheorghiu2001,183-5). Iron ore reduction activity was intensively in large the civilian settlementat Sannizegetusa Regia with 4 out of a workshop within out carried the 8 kilns of circular (built in clay) and rectangular(stonebuilt) shapefrom the site usedfor this kind of activity. The circular kilns were probably the onesusedfor iron ore reduction,while the for bronze metallurgy (Gheorghiu2001,195). The other kilns were used used rectangularoneswere for bronzeprocessingand production(Gheorghiu2001,184-5). Other tracesof ore reductionwere identified at Federi (435) as a reductionkiln nearhills Dealul Fetei and Dealul Robului (Popa1987, 34) and at Balomiru, on the Cocozanilorstream(417), with remainsof a furnacefor iron smelting with Dacianpottery (Popa 1987,33). On Blidaru Hill at OhabaPonor (460) and slag associated heapsof iron slag were identified, probably associated with the activity of local kilns. The iron slag discoveredwithin the settlementat Orastioarade Jos-LaFeregari(592) (Gheorghiu2001,56), without being associated with any other tracesof ore/reduction,is perhapsreminiscentof the secondary working of ingots. Similar situationscould be presentat Sanpetru(496) (Popa 1987,36) and within the open settlementat Costesti(Gheorghiu2001,67; 184). The exploitation within the study areaof preciousmetals,gold and silver, and also of copperandtin or lead for producing bronzeremainsstrildngly ill-attested.It certainly took place, given the amount of artefactualevidenceand the considerable availability in the landscapeof thesenatural resources
106

describedby literary sources,but later activity (seechapter2), not to mention the fabuloustreasures earlier traces.Becauseit represents at the relevant sites hasprobably damaged a specialtopic in its own right, the presentstudy has deliberatelyexcludedthe Apuseni Mountains, where it is probable that such activity was carried out in pre-Romantimes. Given the speedof organisationof the extractionprocessby the Romansimmediatelyafter the conquest,they would have taken under control primarily existing exploitationsratherthan identifying sourcesfor themselves(Glodariu and Iaroslavschi 1979,110-11).Within the study areasurfaceexploitation of gold-bearingsandwas in operationat Pianu de Susin the Romanperiod (Moga and Ciugudean1995,145-6) and may have beenexploited also in the pre-conquest period. There is evidenceof human activity in the areasince the Neolithic and Bronze ages(including a gold spiral pendantdatedto the latter), along with reports broadly datedto the 'Iron Age' locatedin a of a tumulus grave with pottery and a stonesharpener vineyard in the vicinity. The most convincing argumentfor late pre-Romanextensiveactivity in the is discovery the the exploitation of a hoard containing 26 Apollonia, drachms,23 of gold areaof during gold mining works in 1852.Another rich Dacian hoard(323) Dyrrachiurn and one of Thassos, Museum in Vienna, was discoveredin 1821 datedto the I" century BC, now at Kunsthistorisches betweenthe villages of Salistea-Cioara and Pianu de Susand contained64 silver objects.It included bracelets, karnax, 4 5 disc- and tube-shaped fragment simple a appliqu6s,a 0.43m chain with of a 6 broochesdatedto La Tene 111,3spirals,2 a metal ring, simple shield-shaped pendants, nail-shaped torques,and a button. A fragmentaryplaquewas "primitively" decorated'au repouss6'representing 2 humancharacterswith warrior attributes.The archaeologicalgazetteeralso containsother Dacian both in Salistea-Cioara indicating discoveries de Jos, the Pianu togethernot vicinity, under and stray just occupationbut also the accumulationof significant wealth in the region, probably relatedto the Another gold resources. more uncertainsite for gold-bearingsandextractioncould of exploitation have existedat Costesti(Glodariu andIaroslavschi 1979,143).

3.3. Manufacture (especiallymetalworking and pottery production) (figure 4.20) is far better documented within the study area,basedon archaeological evidence.Becauseof poor survival of from leather has survived and textile production. Also, glassproduction hasso far artefacts,nothing beendocumentedby discoveriesof an iron blow tube and solidified glasspasteballs at Regia (Glodariu et aL 1997,193).Woodworking is occasionallydocumented Sannizegetusa through like Sannizegetusa Regia Costesti in (seeabove). Several and contexts, waterlogged artefacts insulation barrel, laths for water pipes (curvedto found, as a wooden such surviving pieceswere contain ceramicpipes and similar onesusedaspipe covers)along with other laths lining the inner Regia was sidesof water cisterns.A 'medical kit' discoveredin the settlementat Sannizegetusa probably stored in a small woodenbox (Glodariu et aL 1996,98) and a large variety of artefacts, including tools, would havebeenmadeof wood (Gheorghiu2001,193-4). Also, the amountto which the wood was presentin architecture(asposts,beams,laths, shingles)and the quantity and variety of tools (locally producedand imported),nails and fittings would indicate with certain probability the social needfor and presence of skilled craftsmen.No certainworkshop hasbeen identified have developedspecific building plans archaeologically.Architecturally, they would not necessarily
107

and the only surviving artefactualevidencewould have come from specific tools, but suchtools more professionally could also have existed in a regularhouseholdinventory. Perhapssomeone involved in woodworking would havecaredto acquirethe tools of Aquileian make discoveredin an Regia. otherwisecommonbuilding at Sannizegetusa Studiesof Dacian ironworking (e.g. Glodariu and Iaroslavschi 1979)identified a whole rangeof (see from sites extraction primary ore reduction near points above)to workshops sites, production dealing with secondaryworking of the iron ingots and the production of artefacts.At least one workshophad a combined function, dealingwith the whole production processfrom ore reductionto This is large from for the the the easternsettlementat Sarmizegetusa workshop market. end products Regia, which had 4 reduction kilns, exploitatingores from BatranaHill, many ironworking tools, and Secondary iron ingots in products. working carried of was out other workshopsat unfinished various in the Godeanu Regia (on terraceVIII abovethe sanctuaries) Sarmizegetusa and at Caprareata, valley. Someof theseworkshopsand certainly othersacrossthe area(in placeswhere specific tools have found) also carried out repairs. would were Workshopsare regularly identified on the basisof finds (tools, refuse,unfinished products,kilns), different buildings houses themselves than were the otherwise no other within the settlements since (Glodariu 1983).At Banita and Craiva, for example,numerousdiscoveriesof specific tools indicate local of workshops.The tools were numerous,varied and adaptedto different existence the probable in 2 involved the types of anvils (Craiva, Sarmizegetusa Regia production process: operations house in Caprareata the opensettlement);sledgehammers(Caprareata, VHL Craiva); 5 a and terrace Regia, Meleia, Craiva, Capalna,Banita, Rudele,Piatra Rosie); 10 types of hammers(Sannizegetusa Regia -terraceVIII and CaprareataMeleia, CapaIna,Luncani, types of tongs (-Sarrnizegetusa Cucuis); files (Costesti-Cetatuie, terraceVHI, Caprareata); iron for Costesti-Cetatuie, the sockets bellows heat (Sarmizegetusa to Regia on terraceVIII and more were exposed which of end part Regia -terrace Caprareata) and iron sticks usedto cleanthe bellows pipe (Luncani and Sarmizegetusa Regia on terrace VIII, Caprareata); sawswith triangular section(Costesti-Cetatuie and Sannizegetusa 2 types of chisels(Cozia, Craiva, FeteleAlbe, Sarmizegetusa); 3 types of drifts VIII and Caprareata); Regia, Costesti-Cetatuie); (Meleia, Sarmizegelusa and 4 typesof piercers(Costesti-Cetatuie and (Gheorghiu2001,186-9). Sarmizegetusa) by metal analysison artefactsfrom the princely grave at Cugir (Glodariu and As documented Iaroslavschi 1979,113 n. 19) (figure 4.9) manybronze, silver or gold artefactswere also produced Regia mentionedabovewas not locally. The large metallurgical workshop from Sarmizegetusa involved only in ironworking, as 4 of its 8 kilns were usedfor bronze reduction and productionof artefacts.The discovery of crucibles(somewith tracesof melted metal), numerousspecific tools, moulds, unfinished or misshaped artefacts,or items to be usedfor repairs,also indicate bronze Craiva (including evidencefor silver working), production at Banita, Capalna,Costesti-Cetatuie, Luncani-PiatraRosie, and Ardeu (Popa 1987,34; Gheorghiu2001,17; 194-5). The production of coins in Dacia (initially imitations of Greekmodels,especiallyof tetradrachms, later of Romandenarii) was extremelyactive andwas stoppedonly by the Romanconquest,
108

providing a further indication of the politico-social sophisticationof Dacian society(figure 4.20). The only known exampleof a monetaryworkshopwas excavatedat Sarmizegetusa Regiajust Romanreduction outsidethe southernwall of the Dacianphase,overlappedby a subsequent workshopand by the wall of the enlargedenclosureof Romandate.According to the 4 coin dies found there,the Dacian workshopusedto mint imitations of RomanRepublican(C. Cassius,126BC and C. Hosidius Geta 68 BQ and early imperial (Tiberius) denarii. Another coin minting die was found at Ludestii de Jos imitating aV centuryBC denarius, with the legendC.MAKCF. (Gheorghiu 2001,23 1). Particular to Dacian coinageis the gold 'koson'coin, with an eagleon its obverseand the legendKOMN which, although still largely a mystery,is considered to be of local production.The quantitiesdiscovered,mainly as hoardsand a few singular piecesin the Strei valley and Regia indicate the possibility that they constituteda royal accumulationof metal Sarinizegetusa (Strei being interpretedas the ancientSargetiariver usedby Decebalusto hide his treasure).As the discoveriesindicate that silver was generallymore widespreador prefered,royal monopoly on gold is a possibleexplanationof the extremelyrare occurrence of gold in Dacianjewelry. in severalsitesaroundthe study areaby discoveriesof pottery Pottery productionis represented kilns. Two of them were discoveredat Deva, one within the areaof the modem town in the vicinity of the hillfort and the other within the settlementfrom Bejan hill. They are both clay-built structures, 1.10 in of and 0.80-1metresin diameter,and the first of the 2 exampleshad a fire shape circular-oval by The firing divided wall. a median chamberwasbuilt abovea clay gratewith holes of chamber in diameter 0.10 to allow air circulation within the kiln. Another suchkiln was metres approximately discoveredat FeteleAlbe-Sesulcu Branza,on a terracenearthe spring.The workshopwas supplied by the with water from the spring through clay pipes. Remainsof a pottery kiln badly damaged modem road were discoveredwithin the large opensettlementat Costesti.However, even though kilns are rare discoveriesso far (no doubt reflecting inadequate levels of research rather than the use firing, of methods given the quality of the pottery), pottery production was primitive of more presumablytaking place at severalother siteswheretools usedfor polishing vesselswere discovered in Capalna, Banita, Craiva, Sebes-Lancram, Luncani-PiatraRosie, Meleia or the as among artefacts, Moreover, at the latter site misshaped Sarmizegetusa. pottery fragments(wasters)have been discoveredwhich normally occur during firing and are not sold (Gheorghiu2001,67; 171-3;MeleiaGlodariu et aL 1996,89). In all a large variety of ceramicforms was evident,handmade and wheelthrown, coarseand fine pottery, usually black/grey in colour. The fine pottery included also painted ware as a very rare occurrence,especiallyat high-statussitesand largely associated with areasof specialspiritual significance(Florea 1998,250-1).The painting was madeon white slipwares,using most often red paint with high tracesof iron oxidesin its composition.The elaboratemotifs were first scratched on the surfaceof the pot prior to painting and a compasswas usedfor precision for circular motifs. Within our study area,paintedpottery was discoveredat Capalna,Cozia-Piatra Coziei (526), Craiva-PiatraCraivii (208), Sannizegefusa Regia (529) Meleia (536), FeteleAlbc (534), FataCetei (533), Ardeu (102) and probablyCetea(144). The painted pottery in the Orastie Mountainsregion developsas a particular style,both as ornamentationand as ceramictypes, by using figured decoration(plant and animal motifs) and by a preferencefor decoratinglarge vessels,
109

bowls, few kantharoi 'chiup-type, but and and virtually no high-footed plates mostly very ('fructiera') (Florea, 1998,176).

4. Networking and communications As notedabove,despitethe importanceof the river Mures as the main traderoute, only 32 of the kilometrcs from located buffer few fortified 5 it (figure sites are within a of zone and settlements 4.18). Deva was perhapsthe single most importantcombinedsite of hillfort/citadel with extensive in surroundingopensettlement the immediatevicinity of the main river. Other central placesmay be Regia, Costesti,FeteleAlbe and possibly Craiva which identified at sitessuchas Sarmizegetusa large with complex settlements centres and a large rangeof activities, including combineelite distributed They and religious ccntres. within the territory are not evenly production manufacture, located distance from the main river, which contradictsthe view some considerable certainly and are were locatedon the main trade routes(e.g. Glodariu 1983).Accessin and that important settlements by following but Mures Iron the through the possible not only the was area valley, also study out Gatesof Transylvaniaand Au valley into Tara Hategului, through the Secas-Sebes valleys along the Olt river corridor, or through the Aries valley towardsthe north and north-west,but only Capalnaand land routes. Banita were locatedon thesesecondary (agriculture, exploitation and processingof The apparent patternof the economicprocesses involved have deal between to transport a the production sitesand great seems of also resources) (see This increased for above). the situation places certainly need a good transport processing/storage for both (for iron longer distances (for shorter network ores and and wood) communication and However, building The proper roadsare absentfrom the pre-Romanlandscape. stone). cerealsand date Dacian investigated the Regia and within sites of possible are at Sarmizegetusa roads only Luncani-PiatraRosie.The roadsdescribedbyApolzan (1987,52-55) and Glodariu (GlodariuetaL 1997 12-15)within the OrastieMountains are no more than access routesrather than proper roads, traditional The based the the the with analogy modem on economic-social system of area. are and in the uplands,however,is likely to have different basis, and network pattern modem settlement historic (e. largely to conditions g. avoidanceof the demographic,administrativeand specific relating on forestsand upland pastures,etc) ethnic stresspresentin the lowlands; economicdependence back in be late Iron Age. transposed time to the automatically cannot which Within the study areacoin discoverieswithout explicit context have beenreportedin 34 locations. It is difficult to makea preciseanalysisof monetarycirculation in the region, sinceall the pre-conquest original Romandenarii are normally given a Daciancontext without considerationof the possible colonisedsocial groups.However, coin survival of older Romancoinagewithin the post-conquest distribution seems to indicate two distinct areasof use,one in the OrastieMountains and the other to found in Other the north in the Craiva-Capalna the Deva-Coziaregion, a groups are smaller region. couple of locationsin the Hateg area,and the Cigmau-Geoagiu region (althoughthe discoveriesfrom Geoagiuare very likely ritual depositions).The presence in the areaaroundAlba-Iuliacoinage of Craiva-Sebes is perhapsa reflection of extensiveagricultural producefrom the area,while in the 110

OrastieMountains economicwealth was determinedby industrial activity, along with politicoThe distribution of hoardsis more evenly distributed over the administrativeand spiritual leadership. territory, although32 are locatedwithin the easternhalf of the study areaalong the Mures, in Tara in this list of the Orastie Hategului,PoianaRuscaand the OrastieMountains. If the presence Mountainsis unsurprising,the hugequantitiesof coins hoardedin and aroundDeva,totalling several thousands as a pieces,constitutesan important argumentin supportof its importancein the landscape centralplace. The presence of imported goodsand technologiesis particularly relatedto elite sites(although the in bias focus this respect)and consistsof elite on settlements certainly creates a on research current bronze,glassand evenceramicvessels,also silver and iron objects.In the period prior to the wars of Roman the their was world, which had replacedthe previous Hellenistic sourceof origin conquest luxury goods.Despiteclear literary indication of wine consumptionin ritual/elite context (seeabove (for 3) the of amphorae wine or perhapsoil) within the study areais extremely occurrence chapter Costesti being certainty only at with and Cetea(Glodariu 1976,11), in strong contrastto noted rare, the large quantitiesof suchdiscoveriesin the Geto-Dacianterritories to the eastand south of the Mountains.The distribution of other imported pottery showsa somewhatsimilar paucity Carpathian (presentat Costesti,GradisteaMuncelului, Craiva and Cetea)and this would seemto confirm the fragile far from line Danube transportation of such the materials so away of over the problems (1976,12) intermediary Glodariu the Poiana suggests use of stations, such as and mountains. Cetateni,wherethe wine/oil was transferredfrom amphoraeinto casksof wood or leather.But the imported Pecica lower Mures (Glodariu 1976,19) the pottery of at on quantities confirms of presence the useof this river for transportation,and probably this was the route of accessfor the few such imports within the study area.Even more striking is the fact that imported glassobjects,just as,or fragile, in the 92 within well-attested this areaalone out of a are study area, with more pieces even total of 192for the whole Dacia: GradisteaMuncelului - 43; Costesti- 24, Luncani-PiatraRosie 14; 1976,39-40). (Glodariu I These. Capalna pieces examplestend to reduce,althoughnot and -I difficulty into for factor transport different the the of of uplands, and perhaps explanations eliminate, be the absence should sought.Finally, the discoveriesof parts of double-platedbalances of amphorae Craiva bronze) (in Coziei Craivii in (one iron and one in bronze) or of Cozia-Piatra and at -Piatra is probably indicative of the lead and stoneweights from single-platedbalancesat Sarmizegetusa by the weights trade functionsof thesesites.The measurement units for weight (as demonstrated discovered)and probably also for length were adoptedfrom the Romans(Gheorghiu2001,243-5). In items luxury be foreign largely the can of explainedby trade, althoughfuture presence general studiesshouldtake into accountthe possibility of prestigegoodscircuits to have included Dacian elite.

5. Spirituality /Religion (figure 4.21) Literary sourcesnoted significant particularitiesin Dacian religion and attitude towardslife and death,(facing birth eventswith sadness and deathwith greatjoy -see abovechapter3), indicating a
III

greatemphasis as the immortal condition promisedto the on the after-life. This was accepted initiated by their greatest deified prophet,Zamolxis (or Zalmoxis) (HerodotusIV, 95-96; Strabo,VII, 3,5) and was believedto have largely nourishedtheir high motivation in battle. Dacianreligion and havebeenthe focus of extensiveresearch(Crisan 1983;Eliade 1991; Glodariu sacredarchitecture 1983;and the latestoverview in English by Lockyear 2004). The presentstudy will not, therefore, of study here,but focus on issuesrelating to the settlementpattern and reproducethoseaspects hierarchy,on identification of other centralplaceswith religious significance,and on discussing fanerary data to manifestations. newer related

5.1. Funerary practices (figure 4.21) There is not much known about late Iron Age fimerary practices,especiallyfor the period prior to the Romanconquest totally absentand it is believedthat the religious when funerary evidenceseems reforms may havechangedthe methodof disposalof the deadand the rituals involved in the process (one extensivestudy on generalDacian funerarypracticesmadeby Sarbu, 1993).Cemeteries seemto Roman immediately (e. Obreja). the The only examplesof grave after only conquest g. reappear discoveriesuntil recentlywere the 4 tumulus gravesdatedto the l' centuryBC discoveredoutside the fortification at Cugir (figure 4.9). The one excavatedexample(Tumulus no. 2) proved to be an deceased, the grave where warrior elite rich wearing his full iron armour (helmet; chain extremely Dacian long type; and spear)and silver and gold jewelry, was burnt sword of and short sword mail; in situ in his 3-horsedchariot. Other piecesincluded many iron and bronze fittings from the chariot,a bronze situla and a ceramic'fructiera'- (tall-basedDacian plate) (Moga and Ciugudean1995,88). Similar funeraryhabits are presentalso at Costesti-Cetatuie where, in addition, recentreportsnote immediately located discovery to the south of the tumulus. The inventory of finds, pit the of a ritual V half the datedto the second centuryAD, consistedof pottery fragments(2 jars, 2 'fructiere' and of another"mid-sized" vessel)along with animal bones(including a dog jaw bone), an iron nail ('tinta'), a bronzeappliqu6and a rectangularsmall silver plaque k=925 visited 11.05.2004). //www. cimec. (httr): ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu. asp? discoverycomesfrom Hunedoarawhere at 'Gradina Castelului', The most recentand spectacular //www. (httl2: 4.13 Hill Sampetru k=l 972 cimee. ro/scripts/rh/cronica/detaliu. near asp? visited -figure 11.05.2004) whereoccasionaldiscoveriesindicateda possible Dacian settlement,16 inhurnation have (0-7 babies years old) children and recently beendiscovered. The deceased gravesof were apparentlydisposedin natural holes in the rock surfaceof the hill coveredby shallow topsoil without orientation.No surviving remainsindicate any particular any particular care for certain geographical care for surfacesignposting,but this was probable(by meansof stonecollections or small mounds) sincethe inhumationsdo not overlap (althoughin 2-3 casesthe grave pits containedmore than one body). The deceased were disposedon their backsor on either their left or right side. Someof the skeletonshad missing parts (skull, limbs) althoughthe excavatorssuppose that this might have occurredmuch later through animal infestationon the site, which is blamed also for the misplacements of other finds. The graveinventory varies a greatdeal, both in type and quantity.
112

Finds include beads,pendants,an earring,rings, a necklace,a bracelet,one iron needleand a possible iron object preservedtracesof the cloth which probably engravingbronzetool. A small barrel-shaped wrappedthe body. The ceramic finds were very scarcewhich, consideringthe wealth in personal The first cluster of graves ornaments, might indicate cult or religious ratherthan economic reasons. (the 6 southernmost) was poorer in content The middle cluster of 3 graves(especiallyM7 and M 15) (20 pieces).A third cluster of another 6 graveswas also fairly rich in was the richest in artefacts, included brooches. interesting in The deposition, their case also most complex is grave which artefact it was the richest (12 artefacts),but also because M7, not only because of the natureof the fmds. The baby, buried head deceased, together was a with a spear and an arrowhead,a curved-bladed probably boneartefacts,2 broken 'fructiere' and, evenmore knife, 2 rings ('verigi'), a bead,2 decorated in by Trajan denarius; AD 98-99! The the grave could minted of weapons of presence a surprisingly, to the warrior elite, althoughthe other children do not seemto be related indicate social connections to an elite context The whole cemeteryoffers surprising(for instanceweapondepositionin the grave insights into detailed Dacian baby) the a previously civilisation at a very unknown aspect of and of a late momentprior to the Roman conquest(the excavationteam supposes the secondhalf of the I" 106, indicates dating into to ftirther AD, the although artefactual extending evidence possible century first half of the 2nd centuryAD). A similar caseof child inhurnation of potentially similar datewas M. Ciuta 1. (information Haynes), Roman Seusa the and under remains a of villa. at noted

5.2. Religious places(figure 4.21) Templesof circular or rectangularplan are always found in the vicinity of high-statusplaces,all of is them hiliforts/citadelswith one exception(FeteleAlbe). The largestknown complex of sanctuaries 4.8). The (figure Regia X XI Sarmizegetusa terraces sacred to the eastof the area consists of and at hillfort, supportingthe remainsof ten or eleven'sanctuaries'(someof them earlier and replacedby leading to the hillfort, the solar disc or altar and staircases, with a paved along road other sanctuaries) Unfortunately the constructionof the terracesthemselves channels. supply/drainage water stone-built is a late architecturaladdition, so that the templesand other dwellings and the assiociated topographicchangecould have affectedany earlier structureswhich so far have not beeninvestigated (Lockyear 2004).The preferencetowardsa rectangularor circular plan doesnot alwaysseemto be tend to be erectedin limestone,while relatedto chronologicalevolution, but the earlier sanctuaries for the late onesthe preferenceshifts towardsandesite.Other hillforts associated are with sanctuaries Costesti-Cetatuie and Blidaru, Luncani-PiatraRosie (in the OrastieMountains) but also Craiva and with a probably Capalna.FeteleAlbe-Sesulcu Branzais so far the only settlementnot associated known hillfort which had 2 sanctuaries, one circular built on a limestonebaseearly in phase2 of terraceII and the other on terraceIII (circular, with limestonecolumns). Also, basedon discoveries of andesitearchitecturalfragmentssucha sanctuary/-ies probably existed in the vicinity (Gheorghiu 2001,71-2). Elsewherein the study area,Craiva with 3 sanctuaries an would have also represented important religious centre,and at leastone sanctuary would have functioned at Capalna.

113

The norm would seemto be that the presence of elite would have determinedthe location of sanctuaries nearby.This is very probably true in the caseof Costesti,Craiva, Luncani-PiatraRosieor Regia seemsa later Capalna.However,on the basisof archaeological evidence,Sarmizegetusa for example.Another particularity of the site is the developmentthan Costesti-Cetatuie, in intense the areaof the settlementto the eastof activity, particularly metallurgical concentrationof the hillfort, with one big workshop on the terraceVIH in the immediatevicinity of the temples. Within the sameareahugeaccumulationsof food supplieswere discoveredin burnt granaries indeed,the biggestgranariesfound on the site were locatedthere. Theseassociations could indicate the involvement and possibly control of metallurgy and taxation/administrationby religious leaders, in both (although uncommon not early statesocietiesof the Mediterranean- for examplesee which Knapp 1990for Bronze ageCyprus) haveremainedso far unexplored.The religious involvementin be indicatedalsoby the prevalenceof large storagevessels(rather than food storagecould perhaps kantaroi, for example)within the paintedpottery specific to the OrastieMountains (seeabove),of from just below large Regia. terrace the religious precinct of Sarmizegetusa comes a quantity a which Regia was a religious core (perhaps Kogaionon, the Therefore,it is possiblethat Sarmizegetusa have known but located to before existed, not precisely) reachingpolitical mountain sacred importance,an eventpossiblyrelated to Dekaineos'ascension to power after the assassination of Burebistas. However, Dacian spirituality would havehad a much larger variety of expressionthan that of One in temples. such alternativecentralplace was probably at the natural hot springsof adoration Geoagiu-Bai(Gennisara).Tracesof the useof site in the pre-Romantime are almost non-existent, 14 in discovery However, from the it the of gold coins area. was presumablyusedbefore the apart it is Romans the the only suchsite with a Dacian nameand sincethe local deities (the since of arrival Nymphes)probably indicate an earlier feminine supernatural presence.Furthermore,its location in betweenthe hillforts at Ardeu and Cigmau would make its identification by the Dacianshighly (1998,207-16), Strobel based According to on numerousdepositsfound there,a sacred probable. just (see hillfort, Luncani-Piatra Rosie located the the small enclosure outside above) of pond was bronze famous 'shield'-clippeus (Florea building the ornamented where with religious motifs a near hanging Ritual in found. 1995) Suciu trophies the treesmight also indicate the probable of was and forests, deposits jewelry, the tools some of many while of coinage, sacred or so of existence have had different hiding deliberate the than could originally area, a study reason within widespread for protection during violent episodes(normally taken as the conquestwars) which is their general interpretation.One examplecould be the depositfound at the foot of the hill of Piatra Craivii, containing 3 fragmentedswords,3 spearheadsand an iron fitting previously interpretedas a belt buckle. A silver local imitation of Philip II tetradrachmfound in the sameplace at a later datecould have also belongedto the samecontext.Within non-elite contexts,the inventory of one pit (no. 4) within the settlementat Sebes-Lancram. revealedpotential ritual significance(Popaand Totoianu 2000,85-6). Finally, it was observedthat housesandtower-houses are orientedwith the door facing (Balos 2000), sometimes mainly south-east with deviationstowards south or east,which is a trend manifestedin wider areaswithin prehistory.
114

6. Social structure describea warrior patriarchalsocietyunder As shown in chapter3of this study, the written sources the authority of a military leader,and a generalassemblyof warriors and a defimedsocial hierarchy. (pileati?; tarabostes)seemto be differentiated within societyby externalrank The upper class(es) body for (pileus) both men and hat tattooing tall or painting and/or symbolic-ritual markerssuchas a 4th (see Pliny Elder, Nat. Hist. hereditary to the the transmitted generation symbols up women, with (comati -the long-haired? ) were free men, with only 12). The lower classes limited evidenceof slavery,though the region itself was one of the main sourcesfor slavesfor the Geogr. VII, 3,12). (Strabo, world classical VII 11 (10) 50, MI Social stratification is visible within the settlement of hillforts on the patternthrough the emergence one hand,and of stonearchitectureon the other, as comparedto the usual, timber-built, sunkenor interpretation The is local fortified traditional the the sites as of equivalentof the surfacestructures. Celtic from the world, the analogywith Gaul being mostly used (e.g. Glodariu 1983, tribal centres 72). Within the latestphaseof evolution of Dacian society,Ferenczi (1988) believesthat a union of tribes would havehad severalsuchfortified siteswhich would have still remainedstrategically into the Dacian state.The basisfor this important, and that this situation was perpetuated interpretationis literary. Ptolemy (Geogr. Iff, 8 1-4) gives a list of 43 namesof civitates in Dacia, out Dacian 33 A (Patridava, Carfidava, of these origin. were number of names arguably of which ), Sandava,Nidava, Marcodava, Zifidava, Singidava, Comidava,Rhamidava, Petrodasa(petrodava? Zusidava,Pajoda,Argidava, Netindava)seemto be of Dacian origin, with the addedsuffix of 'dava' (meaningsettlement, village). The use of the suffix 'dava' in this fashion is, therefore,seenas a fashion Celtic the of naming settlements with after regions or tribes. Others,like possibleanalogy Napuca,Zurobara, Dierna, Acinonia, Druphegis,Ardnna Docirana, Lizisis, Patruissa, zarmisegethusa regia (= Zermizirga), althoughalso of Dacian origin, lack the suffix. A flifther list of Rhucconiu(m) Parclissum, Triphullum, Apulum, Dacian Tiriscum, Tiassum, origin of names ) seemto havebeenLatinised, while a final group Upianum, Tibiscum,Amutrium, Sornunu(m? ), Pyrum, Aque,Pinum were probably Latin. Whether Saline, Pretoria Augusta,Augustia (Angustia? the reality before or immediately after the Romanconquestis the accountby Ptolemaiosrepresents Regia and possiblyApulum as the not entirely clear. However, with the exceptionof Sannizegetusa hillfort/citadels at GradisteaMuncelului-Dealul Gradistii and Craiva-PiatraCraivii respectively,none been has identified the convincingly related to the namesof Dacian civitates sites archaeologically of and the territories of the tribes namedby the samesourceare also unclear.Indeed,the general archaeological picture is somewhatdifferent (seeabove)than that for Celtic oppida. Hillforts are invariably relatedto the social elite, and this is largely supportedby the finds coming from such contexts,with luxury items including fine pottery (evenpaintedpottery), imported goodsand coinage.But their function hasbeenlessexplored.From an economicpoint of view, Glodariu (1983, 121-130)observes Regia doescraftsmanship that only at Sarmizegetusa the manageto surpass central role of agriculture. Invariably, their topographiclocation is interpretedas an indicaton of a
115

de just (for Arpasu Sus, function, doubling their e. g. one economic-agricultural outsidethe strategic in for in Britain Dacia, 1976), Glodariu, Macrea example,it is likely that as although study areaand their location had more to do with social psychologyand the pursuit of architecturalmonumentality than hasbeenrecognisedpreviously (seeHamilton and Manley 200 1). On this note, it has been that "given this seeminglack of amenityfor peopleon the hillfort, it may be that these suggested interior for display. The living but for the were symbolic nature of places were not places arrangementthe huge grain storagecapabilities,and the massiveenclosingearthworksall suggest display of day-to-dayactivities and the that the hillfort was designedto be a monumentalised 1). (Williams 2003,24 importance the of agricultural cycle" overriding from what hasbeenpresented here,a valid indicator The presence on site of murusDacicus seems, for social statusof a settlement(Lockyear 2004). It was usedat all the hillforts aroundthe capital and Cetatuie Gradiste (Costesti Blidaru; Gradistea Muncelului Hill itself and the and on capital at -at -on Varful lui Hulpe; and at Luncani-PiatraRosie),but also outsideat Banita, Craiva Piatra Craivii, Capalna,and probably Deva. The only other use(for tower-houses and supportingterraceswithin the is Albe) Fetele located Orastie Mountains. The the exclusively at within appearance settlement open indicates high late (state) Dacian the Dacicus therefore, the the status of very phase of of murus be to related a political architecturalprogram. can perhaps and society The size and shapeof the defendedsites is variable and reflects not only the size of the group tendedto be rather small, involved but also its social structure.Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements in Wietenberg for 2500-3500 (Rotea 1993,34). This sqm settlements example only covering in Early Iron Age the (Hallstatt), the is situation with which generallycharacterised sharply contrasts by extremelylarge sites.The examplesknown in Transylvaniawere someof the largest fortified (30 ha. in Europe time Ciceu-Combia for instance-seeVasiliev 1995, that at enclosed at settlements 149; Vasiliev et al. 1991,19) and could be relatedto an increasein population. The situation changed (La Tene), Dacian Age fortifications between Iron in the Late when are smaller, areas covering again I ha and 7 ha. (Glodariu 1983,67; Zanoci 1998,30-32).The fortified settlementfrom Arpasu de Sus, for example,coversonly c. 0.37 hectares,and within the study areathe hillforts, from CostestiRather Blidaru, Capalna(both covering 0.5 hectares than above) are of comparable size. -see in population,this could relateto a changein the social structureand the indicating a decrease developmentof aristocratictroyalsites.Apparently this contrastswith the generaltendency in the centraland westernEuropeanBarbaricum (usedin the traditionally observedelsewhere ratherthan with cultural connotations)of the samedate presentstudy in its geographicalsense, (Wells 2001),where the emergence of oppida producedsignificant increasein the areasand, indeed, The beginnings,locatedin the Hallstatt period, the size of the community living within the enclosure. a were similar and, indeed,Transylvaniahad someof the largestexamplesof enclosedsettlements, For somereasonthe later evolution saw the return of smallclear indication of social aggregation. Therefore,the key to understanding the social complexity of the period might be to sized enclosures. answerwho inhabited the enclosures and why?

116

In the traditional systemof recording and publishing data,it is particularly difficult to find the right answer.Associatedfinds and amenities(workshops,sanctuaries, public spaces, etc) indicate that had complex functions, althoughit is debatable someof the identified high statusDacian settlements whether or not this had gone as far as to reacha proto-urbanfunction (which is often supportedby the Romanianliterature).A primary argumentagainstthis idea is the ftmdamentallack of indicating a similar social trend. As shown above,most settlements aggregationof the settlements, seemto havehad a scatteredstructure,whetherin small groupsor in individual units. Even in (e. Sarmizegetusa Regia), layout the considered as compact g. of structure of settlements previously hints at social tendenciesto the residentialareas, consisting of terracesfor singlehouseholds, individualism. Although per se this could represent only a pragmatic architecturalsolution to its repetition within the generalsettlementpattern suggests that it was topographicawkwardness, more likely a reflection of social attitude. An important trend probably of late date within Dacian society is the emergence of towers. Without necessarilytotally excluding a strategicfunction for them, they are more likely to representan late Iron interpreted Age They be transformation trends and within society. social can of expression Dacian the of social emulation expression within elite, an extensionof the elite as an architectural If the tower-houses housesin the areasoutsideenclosures. within citadels are to be interpretedas the satellite tower-houses ). might be the housesof his courtiers(hetairoz? chieftain/king residences, (seeFigure 4.17) is also significant in The geographicdistribution of the tower-housephenomenon indicating centresof power. Tower-houseswere locatedwithin the hillforts at Costesti-Cetatuie and Blidaru Capalnaand possibly Luncani-PiatraRosieand Craiva-PiatraCraivii, but suchsatellite Costesti-Cetatuie at only andBlidaru (the most notableexampleswith 19 structureswere noted in total), Craiva-PiatraCraivii (11) and a few nearSarmizegetusa Regia (3) and Varful tower-houses Regia lui Hulpe (2), althoughseveralmore are distributedin 4 other locations aroundSarmizegetusa forming a far looser satellitebelt than thosefrom Costesti.More importantly, with Hulpe, lui -Varful the exceptiononly of Craiva, they are clusteredwithin the Sarmizegetusa-Costesti areaand do not show an evendistribution of power acrossthe territory. The distribution of paintedware (Florea, 1998)confirms the importanceof the sites from GradisteaMuncelului-Gradistehill, CostestiCetatuieCraiva-PiatraCraivii and Capalna.But its occurrencein other locations (mostly within GradisteaMuncelului area-Fetele Albe-Sesulcu Branza,Fata Cetei, Meleia but also elsewhere it as a better indicator of socio-economic, e.g. Piatra Coziei or Cetea)recommends possibly religiousrelated,but not of political status.Therefore,a similar interpretationwith the intra-tribal is highly Celtic areas of unlikely for the study areain the sameformat. centralisationcharacteristic The complexity and size of someopen settlements aroundhillforts have alreadybeeninterpretedas indicators of their importanceas central places,with economicif not always politico-administrative functions. It is likely that at least someof the identified possiblecentral placeswould have carried out certain administrativefunctions. After all, literary sourcesindicate that Decebalusinstituted a clear division betweenthe warrior elite and the econon-dc elite (seechapter3). This is, however, not Regia, Piatra Coziei The examplesof balancepartsfound at Sannizegetusa immediately apparent. and Craiva-PiatraCoziei (seeabove) do not seemto havebeenused for measurements of large 117

quantitiesand,therefore,even if a certain involvementin the taxation processis possible,it is more probablethat they were usedin trade activities (as was their previous interpretation).The social elite did not necessarily hold a monopoly on craftsmanship as a whole, although their residences seemto have actedin somecases as focal points for industries,especiallymetallurgy and pottery (Figure 4.20). At both Deva and Costesti,pottery kilns were locatedwithin the open settlementaroundthe hillforts, along with evidenceof metallurgy (iron, but also bronze,silver and gold). At Sannizegetusa Regia there is a possibly a link betweenreligion, industrial metallurgy and possiblyproduction of paintedpottery. However,tracesof metallurgy have beenidentified in other areasevenoutsidethe OrastieMountains(for exampleseveralpoints in Tara Hategului have provided evidenceof iron have no apparentrelationship with any elite or religious site. which working) The presence and wealth of the social elite within the study areais proved alsoby numerous discoveriesof coins andjewelry, many of them groupedin hoardsof various sizes(Figure 4.19). Somewere extremelyrich, grouping a few hundredsor, indeed,thousandsof pieces.As expected, they are located they tend to be locatedoutsidethe settlementareas,although,with a few exceptions, Their geographicaldistribution showsa higher numberof in the immediatevicinity of settlements. hoardsin the westernhalf of the study area,in the region OrastieMountains-Deva,and beyondthan in the eastern region (Cugir-Capalna-Craiva) where stray finds of coins or jewelry areprevalent. Also, within the former region, more hoardswere discoveredat distancessignificantly greaterthan 51anradius from the hillforts, while within the latter suchfinds are locatedmostlyjust outsidethis 5krn buffer zone. hierarchy lower the the of social Settlements end are far lesswell known because at of lack of individual in Their terms character prevalent of the size of the social group that inhabited research. hereon basisof the recentre-considerationof evidencefrom other them is largely assumed for but used comparison, normally areas until large-scaleprogramsof survey take geographical definitive be there answerto this problem. Furthermore,any assumptions no will place, aboutthe importanceof particular sitesneedto be flexible. For example,an open settlementlike that to the east indicators has de Jos Vintu the its size,but all of a purely agricultural village. Nevertheless, of bank Mures, its location the the of on makesit potentially interestingas a centralplace for especially Another possiblecentralplace is at Cetea,basedon the type of artefacts trade and communications. Finally, a site for all appearances discoveredat the site, including imported amphorae. simply an like Saracsau, individual farmstead, can hide under its floor 4 large and 4 small brooches,I fibula in 6 4 3 and rings all arm rings, silver, which gives some indication of its economic pin, necklaces, power. The study of social structureat an intra-settlementlevel is still at its very beginningsand, basedon little can be saidwith certainty.It appearsthat the individuality of the the current level of research, basic family (parentsand children) is expressed at this level too in both upland and lowland The housesseemunlikely to havehostedmuch larger groups (not more than 2-3 settlement. together),basedon the division of spaceand evidenceof hearthswithin the excavated generations examples(seeFigure 4.1). The architecturaldifferenceswithin upland and lowland housesare
118

into is buildings but small groups obvious both in upland and lowland areas. of clustering significant, Someprovision of public openareas,if existent,is clearly defiried in very few cases(Sarmizegetusa Regia,possibly FeteleAlbe and outsidethe study areaArpasu de Sus) and in two of these Regia and FetcleAlbe) they seemto be associated (Sarmizegetusa The duality of with sanctuaries. tower-housestructures presentin the hillfort at Costesti-Cetatuie should be further analysedby future researchinto their chronologicalrelationship.Their social significancediffers dependingon whether they were totally contemporary, or if one of them constituteda later addition. The chronological challengeof a possibleduality should then be extendedftirther, in analysingthe relationshipbetween the 2 citadels from Costesti(Cetatuieand Blidaru) which are locatedunusually (and perhaps duality of the elite group living there or even a duality close.Until then, a subsequent unnecessarily) be considered probable.Their surrounding'belt' of tower-houses should occupyingthe of power distance immediatevicinity of the citadelsand keeping the rest of the settlementat a reasonable indicator be as an of the social structurerather than a defencestrategy.In many should also seen Costestishowsa politico-administrative potential significantly higher than Sarmizegetusa respects, Regia wherereligious significanceseemsto haveprevailedL

119

a 30 Is

Mc"

I--

-4p

134

Fdck Albe Sesd co Br

Pultiolu ba

-I.
amit Nkmcd" - a"ge (Swnim4twaRcgie) im

Figure 4.1: Dacian houseplans in upland settlements

I
120

4p.

li";;

31
.

'4

""'c'

'

CAP

121

3..

122

Figure 4.4: Multi-period prehistoric village east of Vintu de Jos

385300 385400

503400

503400

Mures river

503300 t0 10a St 8.0, 00 oi 61

0Do 0 C") C) (D

op 010 00 00 00
0

0,

160
00 0

503300

00

P0000 000

C110

kb 0

503200

503200

Legend
archaeological features

sunlen houses2 sunken houses I storagepits? postholes?

50

50

100 Meters

1233

i *. "; 40'.

J:

t, ii
liii
00 CY)
Co

h 0H fl

co

124

125

126

127

Ay'k

41-

I
I-

IJ

Ak

0 0 0 0
4k "o Aibd ' if 4r, ,,

I-

"1-

1J

i2S

41

I1 -0
7: 3

cc
>

C)

1,

Ag, I

"=

7,

,pI

e,

E t

1
4

r_

f4t,
129

OL

qykx, 4p--br-

"

I", *. ty,

-I

%WL

E
a)

IiI-II,..

.. *v

N.,

71.

cz

4q

al

130

41

ca

'"

:'

"r
-

"1

*.; Iik-I el
IV .lllik- -- -1- 1

bb ; a) &m 0 "TI1 .. ) Q.

lI4

...

'4

At.

co
c-z .

14

co

-S-z ci

cz

dw

-C .0

.20.
do

cz

I _'

I ),i, aii ;i;! ',uit cc inetery excaNitioii it I i, Lire 4.13: Aerial photo ,! ',h, -, Hunedoara-nearby the medieval castle (10)

Figure 4.14: Aerial photo of the citadel hill at Deva (WSH)

132

Ir. I

Hgure 4.15. Qt.iarr oil BeJan Ili II nearb) DeNa (10)

IF

VM-

lo,

-.

Jw
" ."

V%6

Is'

Figure 4.16: Magura Calanulul quarr (10)

133

ZQ

4) in

iE

150

134

0c fs S

;,

c& ea

4,

.5W,

C9

Ink

135

.0T=

r4

Its
;z
wi

3-

_4

,=-l!

-ft

136

txo

tio

4)

b---

'Z

--

R o :2 ,.

137

ew
E
r4

a.
m

'e ,
i C>L)o 2 N4
2

,4E C 40 1. X
26

1.0

t , -9 t Im >
x
.9

m
u *9 r- 7D
20 *, =

138

Chapter 5: The Roman landscape

The Romanconquestsaw the appearance of Roman colonists (both military and civilian) and their landscape in to the changes substantial and settlementpatternin the apparatus, resulting associated study area.This chapterwill, therefore,analysethe characterof thosechanges,concentratingon the influence beyond landscape towns, the the major and of the newcomers pattern and settlement rural on social andeconomicactivity and communications.

1. The non-urban settlement pattern The settlement patternof RomanDacia outsidethe areasoccupiedby urban-statussettlements (colonla andmunicipia) hasbeentraditionally interpretedas consisting of villas and villages (or vici, dependingon the personalpreferencefor one term or anotherby individual authors).In generalthere is no written evidencefor the legal statusof non-municipal settlements(e.g. Tudor 1969;Protase 1968) and,therefore,no other status-related assumptions could be made.On the other hand,the is extremely scarceand the researchmethodology archaeological evidencein most of the cases traditionally employedis far from satisfactoryin defining the natureof the settlementin the large majority of the reportedsites.The size of known settlements,establishedon the basisof the surface from hectares by 10 to lessthan I hectare(Gudeaand Motu 1994,512) varies over artefacts, covered considerable variation of settlementtype. The study areaprovided and could, therefore,suggest evidenceof 402 sitesdatablewithin the Romanperiod. As many as 266-270of the archaeological in identification have but 213 represented, settlements, cases a clear sites were, or could reported of the natureof the settlementhasnot beenproduced. Previousinterpretations of the non-urbansettlementpatternof Roman Dacia fail to addressand resolve severalissuesin a satisfactorymanner.First of all, the Roman settlementpattern is incomplete.Generalstudies(e.g. Tudor 1969;Protase 1968,Popa2002) refer only to villas and mostly from an architecturalrather than functional point of view. villages, which were approached Categoriesof settlements, especiallythoseacting as central places(for economic,administrativeor religious services)without urban status-'small towns'- were placed in a 'grey' areaand, therefore, labels, Also both from suchas villa or village (vicus), are all too rural studies. urban and omitted often appliedon the basisof too little archaeologicalevidence,and for this reason,no stationes, in Secondly, temples studies. earlier are mentioned very little attempthasbeen or rural mansiones functional from landscape Therefore, interpret the to the a point of view. whole made betweensettlements interrelationships and the interpretationof the whole economy(resource exploitation, agricultural and industrial production,trade,-transport and communications),society, life indeed, outside colonial or municipal establishments religious or, are administration-taxation between For the rural settlementsand cultivated fields hasnot yet relationship example, unclear. beenrevealedbecause or environmentalanalysisand, therefore,the of a lack of landscape
139

largely location in is based their these assumption on an regionswith sites agricultural economyof known agricultural potential, and sometimes on finds evidence. Also, land divisions and the division Finally, the towns landscape territories the of are unknown. the administrative within within of is Roman invariably dominance interpretations, the the these element evident, of as almost previous based bricks by Roman the on use of stone walls, models and tiles. 214 architectural are represented bricks, features have tiles, mortar, wall plaster -sometimes to as stone walls, such used sites seem However, few have indeed, been decorationpavements. very sites elaborate or, with painted fewer (e. Dacian Cetea, belonging to the population and even g. native as settlements recognised Noslac, Cicau) haveprovided evidencefor continuity of occupation from the pre-Romanto the Romanperiod.

1.1 Individual settlement: villas and homesteads literature,useof the name'villa! was strongly influenced in the in archaeological Much debated beginning by the phenomenon of Italian luxury villas and ancient literary descriptionsand prompted in lavish luxury life interest, to the artistic of relation expressions within villa especially scholarly have hardly in 1997,510). However, done Smith (see discussion a would such model architecture justice to the large majority of Romanbuildings in the rural landscapes within the provinces, it functional Europe; in the the those complexity of the could cover nor non-Mediterranean especially identification in its But to the economic of economic relation activities. especially phenomenon, villa functionality or that of occupationalcharacter(whether temporary, seasonal or permanent)is usually analysis,while constructiontechniqueor site plan, a result of more in-depthpost-excavation is identification identified by the common survey, nowadays most mode of archaeological normally features. into For this reason,presumptiveinterpretationas a villa rural archaeological and research is defining data. The features, the setting architectural rural one of essential relies on along with still in least 1970,13 but, Smith (at 9) (1997,10-11), as architecture part argues stone more -Wightman farm buildings layout in (e. timber of evidence of romanised g. Druten in Holland) or Roman recent 'urban comfort! (e.g. bath buildings amonground or rectangulartimber structuresat Harting-Garden Hill or BarnsleyPark IV) can also give supportto villa/proto-villa site interpretations.Therefore,the in the context of Romanprovincial archaeologyto term'vilW hasendedup by being generalised include farms of Romandate,with signsof Romaninfluence, either in their useof building materials, include features design. These that are usually classified as 'urban their might architectural or flooring installations hypocaust baths, (such elaborate and and wall painting). In as comfort' with their functions, essentiallyof accommodationand economic (agricultural and accordance to include multiple buildings falling into two main industrial) production,they are supposed house baths (including building the the the and within urbana, same or as a categories, pars -whether different complex),and thepars rustica (containingancillary buildings largely relatedto economic activities), all of them locatedwithin an enclosure. The total nurnberof villas within the study area,as indeed,throughout Dacia is uncertain. Lessthan 30 appearon the publishedheritagelists
140

htxnl -visited 14.04.2004)thoughthis (http://www. ministerulculturii.ro/patrimoniu/patrimoniu-index. is clearly an underestimate.For example,in the mid-Mures valley some 9 villas are listed by the heritageauthorities,but the presentanalysissuggests a higher figures. In some20 casesthe evidence indicate hasbeenconsidered to with reasonable confidencethe presenceof villas, sufficiently strong but as many as 108 suchsitescould haveexistedin Tara Hategului and the mid-Mures valley on the basis of more fragmentaryremainscurrently attested.Very few exampleshave beenexcavatedto any layout but the to supportthe them entire site revealed all of not unfortunately great extent, Thepars urbana has constitutedlargely the main focus typological identification of the settlement. for excavation.Indeed,for someexamplesthe existenceof ancillary buildings and an enclosureare identified if In be to were on the ground surface, such elements even confirmed. other cases, yet their location was not included in the site plans,so it remainsdifficult to establishwhat the site might have looked like. This situationis not unique in Romanprovincial archaeology.Similar problems in (Smith 1997, in European Britain to relation older excavations provinces or other encountered are had sincebeenundertakenin villas than is the casein 20), but in thoseareas,more recentexcavations Romania,which hashelpedto improve outdatedinterpretations. However, caremust be taken not to over-estimate their numberby the identification methodology has identification fieldwalking, When tendedto be based the this on methodologyrelies employed. hypocaust bricks, discovery tiles, the the and of roof sometimes materials, presence of stone walls, on tesseraeor paintedwall plaster. Unfortunately,thesefeaturesare proof only of the use of romanised building materialsand techniques, and perhapsof a concern for providing someelementsof urban comfort. But sincesuch featuresare not restrictedto villas, (e.g. evidenceof such featuresin the small town at Cristesti -seeHusar and Man 1998,58), this evidencealone, without other indications identification does layout the the the preclude of the site as a vicus, site, not possible size and of of mansio, temple,or even funeraryconstruction.Previous interpretationswere more relaxed in identifying villas in any solitary complex on agricultural land with evidenceof Romanbuilding when no site plans or more detailed researchare material. This is probably a safeassumption available and for this reasonmost of them were probably villas, basedsimply on the assumptionthat in a normally developedRomanprovincial settlementpatternthe density of villas is likely to be higher than that of vici. In one caseto the north of Alba Iulia (Figure 5.2) the site was thought by building its be but to of squarelrectangular consists of only one small plan a villa, shape, some unlikely to be a villa sinceno other (ancillary) buildings, or even a multi-roomed housecould be identified. Nonetheless, over 20 siteshavebeenidentified as certain or very likely villas (figure 5.26), and the evidenceis consideredin more detail below. from only some 1.3 kilometres Hobita (Hobenilor hill -figure 5.24), overlookingSartnizegetusa distanceaway to the southof the town is one of the very few villas of Dacia where the layout of the The defined is known. by buildings the yard, stone enclosurewall, is within of enclosureand irregular, its shapedictatedby the local topography(although rectilinear, not organic), and encloses built in The 1953,744-5). (Floca hectares 0.58 wall, stoneand mortar, was well preserved an areaof (up to a height of 0.8 metresbuilt on top of a foundation 0.7 metresdeepand 0.9 metreswide) despitethe fact that the mortar linking the upper coursesof stonehas disintegrated(mention in the
141

in between found the the topsoil stones of upper coursescontrastingwith the only of report published in be interpreted dry lower in this that the way, and only not can surely stone courses of mortar use has indication been found, No but it the entrance top of was wall). a mortared of was usedon being located (Floca been have the the side or northern as to most accessible western on supposed 1953,745). Within the enclosurethe excavatorsfound threebuildings in stoneand four in timber. Two of the (70.70 inside) by 9.50 built 7.90 buildings, metres of along the construction a square-ish stone by 25.3 15 (11), have been (I) construction of metres a multi-roomed and easternenclosurewall identified as of residentialuse;the third -and largeststonebuilding of 20.20 by 38.40 metres(111) 4 by 3.50 located inside b (5 by 4.50 buildings timber the and metres respectively, a, along with d (according III to the plan about 15 the walls), north-eastern c and and northern construction along by 3 and 12by 2.5 metresalong the northernand north-easternenclosurewalls) were interpretedas have had (tower) by I Construction buildings. upper storey and was covered an could ancillary Roman-fashiontiled roof which was alsousedfor the constructionsH, a, b, c and d. It was paved displayed inner decorated despite lack the the the walls side of and and of plaster signinum with opus is indicated long iron its by discovery to timber, some extent of use nails. of evidence structural ConstructionH, identified as the villa house,had severalrooms groupedin a slightly imperfect by both divided large block, a middle row of at eastern western ends and rooms with rectangular by (9.60) long 8.90 (8) 12.60 largest The the the metres on western and space side of rooms. smaller it, (7) (corridor? ) to the of the median small north of along with the southernmost narrow room interpreted (5) as probably having clay floors (but 0.4 metreslower and were unpaved were rooms than the level of the other rooms!); they were thereforeinterpretedas having a utilitarian purposes is in light 1953,750), (Floca by the though this the of the current unlikely roof and not covered interpretationsof the architectureof villa houses(Smith, 1997).Room 3 and the L-shapedspace betweenrooms 3 and 5 (4 -interpretedas acorridor) were pavedwith a layer of stoneson clay and it, 1, bricks top room running along the entire easternpart of the house(14 of on of while one another by 5.70 metres),was pavedonly with bricks. The latter spacewas interpretedoriginally as an 'inner its brick indicates but (Floca 1953,747), that the spacewas surely protectedby pavement courtyard! lower level in hypocaust (some 0.5 The than the the traces stepping metres a only of a roof. 1.90 by 2 (only I metre!), where the hypocaustin from the crampedroom! surroundingrooms) come basis for its identification fragment considered as a of clay pipe was one as a bath. with association in rooms 2 and 3 were markedby marble slabs(Floca 1953,750). Only a few of the finds Entrances iron in terra the pottery, artefactsand two clay lamps, along as sigillata such report, are mentioned details Construction (other III decorated fragments are missing). plaster occupiesa of wall with by its foundation is defined (18.40 by 36.60 the stone walls and enclosure centralplace within by 4.50; b4 by (a-5 3.50 inner its 2 timber-walled to cells metres) attached with northernand metres) building, it has dimensions been interpreted Because the the of of as a courtyard, easternouter walls. The buildings b) its inside tiled timber (a timber the a roof. covered with structures on and with only by 2 (d (c by 2 the to two metres) and the northern north-eastern attached metres) and other -10 -12 based different interpreted their the on as annexes were villa constructionmaterial of walls enclosure
142

(iron long lock by fragments, keys 2 finds in association the excavation nails, produced and a with b; large including buildings in fragment timber and quantities of a pottery a of pottery small quantity from an amphora,a lamp, millstone fragments,ashin a thick layer and a coin datedto the reign of Antoninus Pius in timber building c; and finally a ploughsharenear building d. locatedsome 17-18kilometresto the east-northeast Santamaria-Orlea of the colonial settlementat in Dacia. The is considered Wpia Tralana Sannizegetusa amongthe largest villa establishments by included 220 ISO layout to of about metres and at was accounts according antiquarian enclosure least 5 buildings, visible at that date asraisedplatforms/banksof square-rectangular shape,along (more likely interpreted tower as a a small possible with anothersmall circular stoneenclosure (Martian 1910,341, 535). In 1970, funeray the to the tolos) nr. enclosure east,outside religious or fieldwalking over the areaalreadyaffectedby modem agriculture producedRoman pottery and 20 1 denafius Septimius Severus AD of of silver with a constructionmaterials,along -10. In 1971a small areawithin a 150by 1540 metrezone untouchedby modem ploughing was buildings One 2 1972), (Popa the the the within villa complex. of of of remains revealing excavated orientation, with multiple rooms and with sufficient them was of 22 by 15.8metreson an east-west indicationsto identify it as the villa house.It overlappedearlier tracesof occupationfrom the early Bronze Age and Iron Age (Hallstatt), the latter being explicable given the immediatevicinity of the large enclosedsettlementfrom Subcetate with a similar date of occupation.Only the easternrow of 3 house, 40 Another in detail. the west of villa construction metres some more was excavated rooms dimensions by had (23 15 metres)but in built tiled a roof, very similar covered with stoneand also found. finther building Finally, interior division traces possible space were a with traces of of no function, but has been the unknown not and with which researched was ground surface, visible on located 120metresto the eastof the villa house. The villa housewas built in opusincertum asusual (outer walls of 0.75-0.8metresand the inner have been 0.5-0.6 fixed tiles, covered with a of some of which and roof made would of metres) walls found during The (from iron (one tile such excavation). was rooms of example north to nails with 0.9 by 5.4 3.7 by 3.7 through 3.7 by 3.7,4.35 metreswide communicated metres) and south (with bricks S-shaped finger-made loosely lines patterned and were apparentlypavedwith entrances before fiting). The southernroom was equippedin the secondphaseof occupationwith a T-shaped hypocaustinstallation with 3 rows of brickpilde at the southernend. A central 'corridor' running leading from towardsthe southernareawas apparentlycoveredwith the entrance north-south foundation 2 "concrete-opus stone on walls built parallel to the eastern signinum slabs" supported had building its The the perhaps another row the whole of rooms along room. of walls western and large hall-like 4.8 allowed which a metres, of width central spaceof a probable westernsidewith dimensions have been Another 11 by 1014 of structure/room small possible metres. might some building interpretation it the the that the and presumptive to of comer was north-eastem attached but hypocaust, for for forward have the without any argument as a put praefurnium served might suchinterpretation.

143

The househad 2 distinct phases of occupation,identified only on the basis of vertical stratigraphy. According to the excavationreport aP phasewas datedafter the villa haspartially gone out of use (Popa 197244 1), althoughthe presence of a layer of mortar betweenthe 2nd and the 3rdphasescould also imply partial demolition and complexrefurbishment,not necessarilya break in occupation. In P this casethe phasecould represent only a sub-phase of the 2"dphaseof the villa. Indeed,this P likely sincethe collapsedroof coversthis phaseas well. The earlier demolition seemsmore material could havederived from the demolition of the inner walls (which is attestedby the fact that by layer is from the collapseof the roof foundation demolished the tile sealed compact also a wall from final dilapidation The Popa 1972,441). the of the walls was later material resulting see subjectedto robbery and reusein the early medievalperiod (as attestedby pottery fragments),which is probably why no other architecturalpieceshavebeenfound in situ. The finds included numerous pottery fragments,a chain fragment,iron mils and fittings, glasswarefragments,spindles(or loom The pottery also presentedsomeinterestingaspects. As weights) and interestingly, an arrowhead. expected,the large majority was Romancoarseware for storage(including amphorae)with a few examplesof fine ware (tableware-red or grey), but there severalfragmentsof Dacian fine ware were also identified, including one of a plate ('fructiera'-Popa 1972,444-6). The villa at Cincis was excavatedin 1961-62,but the subsequent publication (Floca and Valea 1965) dedicatedmost attentionto the cemeteryassociated with the site rather than to the villa houseitself. The houseis a rectangularconstruction,22.7 by 15.5metres,built in opus incertum and coveredwith roof tiles, with the inner spacedivided into 5 rooms.As in previous examples,the outer walls were thicker than the partition walls (0.75,0.65 and 0.5 metresrespectively).The alignment of the building is north-westto south-east. The whole length of the housewas divided into 3 spaces. The first of them,running along the whole south-eastem side of the house,was a room of some 14.5by 4.85 metresdivided from the rest of the houseby the widest of the partition walls (0.65 mctres). Each of the other 2 sectionswas divided ftuther into 2 different rooms (middle: 10by 7 and 4 by 7 metres; north-westemend: 8 by 7.9 and 6 by 7.9 metres)by walls of 0.5 metresin width. Modem ploughing seeminglyaffectedthe preservationof the structureand the original floor level hasbeenpreserved only in few places,but the report gives no details of the type of floors, wall plaster or other relevant featuresof decoration.The finds included amongothersthe ubiquitous "Roman provincial pottery fragments"(coarse? ) and "a few iron objects(including large nails, a knife, half of a pair of scissors, a door hinge), the pin of a bronze fibula, a round tack, spindles,fragmentsof a volcanic tuff millstone, of a marble mortarium, and animal bones" (Floca and Valea 1965,167-169).The villa and the nearbycemeterywere associated with the intensiveevidenceof iron ore extraction and reduction during in Romantimes. the took that area place activity A villa is locatedwithin the areaof the modemvillage of Strei, in the immediatevicinity of the 1P centuryorthodox church and was discoveredduring restorationworks undertakenduring the late 1960s(Figure 5.12). The published information identifies the site as a villa with certainty without giving any details of its plan or constructiontechnique,but intimates that the church, which contains re-usedRomanspolia, was constructedwithin the areapreviously enclosedby the villa. Late (4h century AD) occupationon the site is documented Roman/post-Roman by the discovery of a
144

large houses and storagepits (report by Popaand Lazin in settlementcontainingsemi-sunken Popescu1970,515). Manerauvilla (figure 5.24) hasbeenthe subjectof one of the earliest villa excavationprojects in Dacia (1912) and, indeed the first within the study area(Mtrofan 1973).Although the entire surface occupiedby the site hasnot beenprecisely identified, the villa houseand one ancillary building were The walls were constructedin opusincertum of variable width (outer walls of some0.7 excavated. inner 0.4-0.6 thicker walls of metres) and the whole building was wall; a north-eastern metreswith coveredwith roof tiles. With dimensionsof 20.7(30.5)by 19(19.5)metres,the houseis twice the size Cincis, Deva) and amongthe of other villa housesin the study area(e.g. Hobita, Santamaria-Orlea, largestin Dacia. The publishedplan presentsa very divided internal spacesplit into two almost symmetric areasby a 5.1 by 16.4metrescentral spacerunning along the whole width of the building. At its north-westem end, the room showedtracesof brick paving, tegulaemammataeand squared-section clay pipes.In alignment with the wall from the neighbouringroom (K) an areawith large quantitiesof ash and burnt wood was identified, which also containeda millstone, small bronze objectsand fragmentsof a interpreted (tray? ). The (Mitrofan 1973,145) as a praefurnium, but it marble vessel space was wide is more likely to represent a wooden screenor partition wall betweenthe central room/corridor L and its pavedand heatednorthernend. The north-eastem part of the housewas divided in 6 smaller rooms. One of them (H) is likely to have represented a transitory room towardsthe others in that area of the house(Smith 1997,210 fig. 60) perhapsconnectedwith a triclinium, given the quantity of pottery (evenpainted- imitation of terra sigillata?) and the iron spoondiscoveredthere. The middle room from the northernside of the houseand the smaller one from the north-eastem comer were both heatedby partial hypocaustinstallationsconstructedin similar fashion and most likely from the very floor madeof 8-shaped beginning, sincethe suspended tesseraewas supporteddirectly on the socle half of the housethe flooring of wall (Mitrofan 1973,145). In the south-westem of the north-eastem the rooms M, N and 0 was not mentioned.The fact that the opussigninum floors of the rooms P and Q on the south-westem side were found at 0.3 metreshigher than in the rest of the house(including that in the room Y, also in opussigninum) indicatesperhapsa raisedfloor level. Indeed,this is very probablefor room M, wherebricks similar with thoseusedfor the hypocaustson the other side of the house(one with an illegible post-firing graffito) could suggestthe presence of similar facilities here. A secondbuilding was discoverednear the first one and was aligned roughly parallel with it at 14.5 metresto the east;in betweenthe two building, the yard may have containedother (possibly timber) in buildings. Built a similar manner,with opus incertum walls (outer ancillary structures, probably 0.7; inner -0.5-0.6 metreswide) and tiled roo& it consistedof a row of 3 rooms aligned north-eastto south-westwhich hassurvived only in part (at least38.35 by 8.95-8.6 metres).The best preserved floor had (B), the and wall plaster (probably not decorated).This which a pebble middle room was found in its oven; collapsed stone south-westerncomer were large contined a room probably broken hand-made homs, bones ), a very usedbronze a animal and pot (Dacian? quantitiesof ashand it interpreted finds brooch; based bronze these was on as a possiblekitchen. The room to a coin and
145

the southof it (A) was expensivelypavedwith hexagonaltesserae.The floor from the room to the but bricks been has tiles (C) the a mixture contained of roof and space preserved, and some not north Given from building, for it is hard been the have this latter to evidence the pavement. used could of dating is for The it the 3' century AD evidence mentioned only structure. consider as an ancillary (discovered in Elagabalus denarius from an unspecifiedcontext). Also of coin, a a second and comes from unspecifiedcontextscome the handleof a bronze mirror, a key, a puncher,one small iron knife, a bonehook and someglassbeads. Another villa was excavatedat Deva (figure 5.24) in 1966-1967(now under modem buildings) and its report (Margbitan 1998)provides very interestingdetails. It identified a villa houseof similar dimensionsto the examplesfrom Hobita-Hobenilor hill, SantamariaOrlea or Cincis (although the dimensionsspecifiedin the text -21.5 by 19.5do not match the published site plan), but the internal division of spaceseems very basic. Partition walls (of 0.4 metres in width, exceptfor the length house into divided 4 areasof like 0.7 the the the of walls) outer which was southernmost, in half by The that perpendicularly another wall. cut plan resembles of which was width, one variable house (Smith 1997,283, figure being 73), Deva (I) Tholey-Sotzweiler the slightly larger in villa of by house, The was surrounded a small rectangularenclosurewith north-south, carefully aligned size. of which 980 squaremetreswere occupiedby a perimeterof 208 metresenclosing0.26 hectares, buildings in similar proportionsto, but on a slightly different alignment from, the house. A number Most blocked buildings the the sides. of them seemto southern and eastern almost completely of have beenlargely built againstthe enclosurewall (0.7 metreswide) defined by narrower walls of 0.4 in indicate interpretation, the this original a gradual considered might and, although not metres buildings havebeen 2 Further to the west and south-west parts of other processof accretion. identified. The houseand the 2 outer buildings were coveredwith roof tiles; no suchmaterial has beendiscoveredin or aroundany of the buildings along the enclosurewalls where alternative been have (shingles? ) used. might materials The generalimpressionof a small and crampedsite is contradictedby the finds. Firstly, the largest had long to the the a hypocaust,along with the westernbuilding outside south room central room and building outside the enclosurehad tessellatedfloors. the 2 rooms of the south-westem the enclosure; Moreover, the large central room and the 2 small rooms of the villa house,along with the rooms of the building outsidethe enclosureto the west were decoratedwith elaboratepolychromewall plaster in shades of green,yellow, red and blue. A fragmentof a plinth indicatesthe use of columns and an house. large The inside the the central room hasbeeninterpreted room of southern apsewas created indicates 1998,305). But (Marghitan the 'hall' that one of the small evidence archaeological also as a (based fragments it have been fine tficlinium tablewareand on to the a of of might north rooms heated long discovered there) that the room to the southernend of the housecould and glassware havebeena bathroom.The latter was possibly attachedto the houseat a later date, sincethe wall dividing this spacefrom the 'hall' had the samewidth as the outer walls (alternatively, it may have beenintendedto bearan equivalentweight load to an outer wall, perhapsfor a-vaulted roof).

146

The buildings along the enclosurewalls havebeeninterpreted as ancillary and they give interesting half insight into the activities carried out there.One of them which covered the whole south-eastem interpreted and the with opus signinum asa millstone workshop enclosurewall was paved of eastern basedon the discoveryof numerousmillstones,someof them unfinished. The activity carried out in the building on the south-westem sideof the yard (which might have had an earlier phasewhen it comer of the enclosureaccessible) was occupiedonly part of that side leaving the south-westem bones, finds discovered if Roman different there the quantities of cattle and pig probably -large involving knives the few of were a result activities sharpenerone and single sided pottery, a dumping the that the comer yard particular of as of use ground and not processingof animal carcases before the extensionof the southernancillary building. At least one of the rooms from the northit large for contained quantities of pottery, mostly Roman storage, since used comer was eastern, fragments (plates) tableware types of Dacian coarsehand-made some pottery. along with storage by storagejars, but there were also a few examplesof Most of the Dacianpottery was represented 'Dacian mugs'-one of unusuallylarge dimensions(Marghitan 1998,319-20).Finally, a square constructionalong the northernwall was very narrow (above 5 squaremetres)but had a concrete pavementandwas probably a tower overlooking the Mures valley. Both of the buildings outsidethe enclosure,particularly that from the west, seemto indicate that they fall into the categoryofpars urbana. The beginningsof the site are evidently early, as indicated by the delib6ratedepositionof a sestertius in between house, 2 Hadrian (AD 124-5) the the the villa small rooms of wall partition and was of demonstrated later, by a very wom Trajan dupondiusdiscovered as until much occupiedextensively in the 'workshop'and a Severus Alexanderdenarius of AD 227 (Marghitan 1998,312-13).The site it had passed indications through a number of constructionphases,someof that provided several in the original analysis.At leasttwo major phaseswere supposed them recoginsed on the grounds that the villa would haveoutgrown its own enclosure.Other details, previously overlooked,provide were involved (e.g. the possiblelater addition of baths, even greatercertainty that a numberof phases of the southernancillary building). However, the hypothesisthat the site had or the enlargement it is less that the than was originally significantly larger, contrary assumption, appealing expanded including the villa houseand the 2 outer buildings, and later had to reducein size and confine itself to the limits of the small enclosurewhich was addedlater and which then followed an independent difference between for This the the villa houseand of alignment explain, example, would evolution. the enclosureand its attachedstructures(or perhapseventhe later addition of the baths, if one of the bath have Indeed, buildings the partition served as originally a complex). western? would outer -the in Roman have been frequent the period, as in any other (Smith 1997, occurrence a would of estates 16-18;for analysisof traditional inheritancecustomsin Romania, seeStahl 1986). Extensiveexcavationin 1966-1967of the villa site at Aiudul de Sus (Valea Groapelor-figure S.I buildings, located 2 house 5.24) the ancillary and along with a sectionof a possible villa revealed and (from ). house The house leading (17.4 by 2 1.1 metres)was the to the gate? alley pavedwith pebbles in a poor stateof conservationwith only the wall foundationsstill surviving and large quantitiesof disturbedRomanmaterial littering the groundsurface(including a fragment of a limestonecolumn
147

had in incertum, built It of and small portions opus mixtum, evidenceof a with opus capital). was tiled roof andhypocaustflooring to someextent (evidenceof legula niammala) (Winkler et aL 1968, here,but the to other villa housespresented 59-67). The houseplan is similar in many aspects be (see further discussion in (10 Us its layout to interpretation revised rooms) needs of original internal facing figure 5.1): the below the south-east was and spacewas entrance main and chapter divided into 3 main sectionsrunning along the whole width, one of which was further subdivided into smallerrooms.The impressionof 10 rooms is createdby what were probably several indicated in in differences by the publishedreport along indicated widths wall as constructionphases, (Moga the both brief used walls and that cobbles were within and river stone the quarry mention with Ciugudean1995,27). It is, therefore,probablethat at a later stagethe structureof the housemight have containedonepossibly semi-enclosed entrance'corridor' (porlicus?) developedalong the width is depth its (with the house the and end where plan unclear) with a the of 4.5 southern exception of of length, but (approximately 5.5 by followed This slightly wider similar of a room was space metres. in 2 house Finally, the third the presented a plan which pairs of small rooms of section main metres). disturbed ). Room 6 house (hall? large displayed a sunken central room of of a on eachside were in included from date. Finds (Hallstatt) Age the Iron the site excavation report mentioned an early brick frame large fragment the with tracesof preon edge, a a moulded stonewith of unidentified firing cursiveinscription and clay pipes.The pottery was mainly wheel-thrown, in both its red and fragments hints A large fine including of millstone and give mortar wares. stone some grey variants, Dacian like (including type) tools, a complete example of ploughshares other and of grain processing include iron finds indicate Other fragment, activities. nails of variable size, a agricultural and a sickle fragment of a large iron chain, 2 chisels2 keys, lock and door hinge fragments,but also 2 knife fragmentsand a spearbutt. The ploughshareis not the only exampleof Dacian material on the site; at buildings Dacian in house, inside the the and elsewhere a storage one of ancillary villa various points discovered. from Unfortunately the including ('fructiera'), fragments, a were one plate pot and other AD) dating of the site wasplacedwithin the broad context of the Roman occupation(2nd centuries -P details provided. no other with The site at RapoltuMare (92) is likely to represent anothervilla, indicatedby Romanpottery in 1999. The research trial excavation the small-scale a which prompted groundsurface scatteredon Roman (bricks Roman (stone? ), tiles, and along with material pottery, produceda possiblewall including terra sigillata, cattle bones(bos taurus), a fragment of coloured glassand one of an iron later indicating Medieval occupation or robbery of Romanmaterial also present, pottery was pin. k--890; visited (Balos andTutuianu in http://www. cimec.ro/scriptstarh/cronica/detaliu. asp? 30.04.2004). The site at Rahau(36 1) was subjectedto partial excavationin 1960,which revealedthe remainsof buildings some20 metresapart,both built in opus incertum, which have beenidentified two separate first building Two the south-western side on of a rooms site. were excavated. a villa as very probably The outer wall continuedon both sidesof theserooms and at least anotherinternal wall hints building in further that the towards to the north-east room extended southern perpendicular thosedirections.Both rooms were pavedwith bricks and one of them (the northern of the 2
148

discovered)had a hypocaustfloor. Theserooms also had painted wall plaster (red and white). The building overlappedearlier layersof Dacian andNeolithic (Cotofeni) occupationsdocumented only by pottery. The secondbuilding also had multiple rooms (4 or 5 rooms excavatedfrom the northfrom I to 0.4 metres.In this area building), the the the of walls width ranged although western endof the finds includeda bone pin, an iron key and Romanpottery, including terra sigillata. Nearby at 'Fundatura' the excavationdiscoveredpottery datedto the e century AD, indicating a late 1995,148 Ciugudean (Moga the nos.4 and 12; Popa2002,15 1, no.507/1; and site occupationon 1) of a Mitrofan 1972,147-8).Probably from this areacomesa funerary monument (CIL 11197 led Mitrofan 1972,148) family, (Mitrofan his XI Claudia legion to suppose which the and veteranof for foundation date the villa. of an early The publishedexcavationreportsregardingthe villa from Seusa(site 22; figure 5.5) contain only brief information aboutthe Romanoccupationof the site (Ciuta 1996k=347 1997http://www. cimec.ro/scfipts/rb/cronica/detaliu. asp? k=565; and 1999http://www. cimec. asp? ro/scril2ts/rlVcronica/detaliu. k=876; visited 30.04.2004).It was recordedonly http://www.cimee. asp? ro/scripts/rh/cronica/detaliu. in terms of its stratigraphy,without a publishedsite plan, and its interpretation as a villa was proposedasthe most probable.The site containsevidenceof stone walls, tegulae,tracesof burnt 'metallic ), (from timber objects' and Romanpottery, someof which were structures? materials disturbed from their stratigraphiccontextby modem ploughing, along with later (post-Romanand by data (Figure The 5.5) seemsto the geophysical site produced survey on materials. medieval) it interpretation the as a villa, with the houseof essentiallysimilar dimensionsto other of confirm villa housesin the study areaand a plan which falls in the usual categoryof 'block building' with internal division of spaceinto at leastone row of 2-3 small rooms at one end leaving spacefor a large indicates The least that the towards excavation other. at one pit which cuts through the entire room in (some 2.5 depth) was associated metres stratigraphy with the Romanoccupation. archaeological The villa overlay and partially damagedthe layers of earlier occupationof late Dacian and middle La ) date (seechapter4) and which, in turn, overlay Neolithic (Starcevo-Cris)traces(see Tene (Celtic? k=565; and 1999Ciuta 1997-http://www. cimec. asp? ro/scripts/arh/Cronica/detaliu. k--876; visited 30.04.2004).One of the pits http://www. cimec.ro/scripts/arWcronica/detatiu. asp? discoveredcontaineda child burial of Dacian fashion (information M. Ciuta and I. Haynes). The Romanoccupationin the areaof the modem village of Ghirborn is dense,with at least4 sitesof Roman date,of which at least2 (possibly 3) are very likely to representvillas. That in the immediate be is Veli, 236) (Intre to the a villa extending over some3-3.5 hectares estimated village vicinity of 1979. between 1974 Part to and of the villa housewas revealedin an excavation which was subjected by damaged by 8.40 10.60 modem ploughing. The building was metreswhich was not areaof 5 by 3.6m NNW-SSE the one room revealed and excavation along with small areasof other oriented rooms. A 1.5metre areabetweenthe southwall of the room and a brick wall was heatedby a hypocaustinstallation built on an opussigninumfloor and 3 rows ofpilae. The hypocaustcontinued I (according in betweenstonewalls to the approximately site plan metre wide) space along a narrow ) to the east,which was interpretedby thinner than the outer walls (some0.4m as opposedto 0.8m?
149

the excavatorsas a "heatedcorridor" leadingtowardsa presumedsecondheatedroom. Unfortunately, the areaexcavatedis insufficient to clarify the problems raisedby these interpretationsof the useof internal space.The finds are describedas 'pooe and, apart from the usual Roman pottery, iron nails, a stampedtile fragment(VII) and a 3.5 cm,bronze brooch are mentioned; but, exceptionallyon this site, fragmentsof glassindicatedthe presenceof windows (Moga 1995). has been noted before from the villa at Window glassis a rare occurrencein Dacia,but its presence Apahida outsidethe study area(Mitrofan 1972,131). Another probable villa site near Ghirborn is located at at Capul Sesului(238), discoveredthrough a trial excavation in 1967which attemptedto locate a cemeteryindicatedby accidentaldiscoveriesin the area(located later few hundredmeters has been The brief Only 239). no site plan ever published. to the with stone report a west -site away limited but bricks (some have been building to to a only extent, with unrevealed seems and mortar in its hypocaust to traces tiles are mentioned relation architecture. and mentionedofficina stamps), On the natureof the finds, specialmentionshasbeenmadeonly of a silver coin of Hadrian recovered in the areaimmediatelyadjacentto the building, to significant quantities of Romanpottery fragments,and to unspecified"iron objects" (report by Aldea et al. in Popescu1970,507; Moga and Ciugudean 1995,98-100). At Valea Lupului (5 11) limited rescueexcavation(1981-2) revealedparts of a large site badly damagedby modem intervention.The stonewalls survived until after the SecondWorld War up to a height of 2 metres,but were deliberatelydamaged afterwardswith the intention of converting the land to agriculture(information Dr. A Diaconescu).The excavationsexposedthe opus incertum foundationsof an apsedroom provided with a hypocaustand evidenceof a tessellatedfloor (with figure of eight-shaped and rhomboidal tesserae).They also uncovereda 50 metre long part of the boulders bonded in base incertum (0.9-1.0 of with clay) with a a opus on metreswide, enclosurewall to it which replaceda burnt timber construction.The finds included large tower structureattached quantitiesof Romanpottery. There is anothermention of a site with pottery and stonebuilding traces,mortar, bricks, tiles and tesseraein the place called 'Valea Verde' (site 5 10),but it is unsure bronze A (14cm) (genius) describe the they or another similar one. small statue site same whether 2002,209). Popa (Popa 1989,55-56; from the samearea could come The remainsfrom Blandiana(112) are very scarceand inconclusive.They indicate pre-Roman followed by Romanoccupation(seechapter4). However,the Dacian material was discovered limited its from disturbed the and stratigraphic context, excavation(1974) revealed accidentallyand the remainsof only one building. Mentioned amongthe finds, along with large quantitiesof pottery, bricks and tiles, were a clay lamp, a lead weight and a bronzeplaque. What is completely missing is far, least for its Roman the the and so at settlement of phase,nothing character a confirmation of indicatesa nucleatedsettlement(village). Acrossthe river there are more substantialtracesof little indicating larger there and seems settlement a chancethat 2 large extensiveoccupation from distance have one another.Another possibility is that short such emerged at would settlements the site was a combinationof villa and native village, on the model of Vintu de Jos (415 -seebelow)

150

Apart from one exampleof villa discoveredthrough field walking and subsequent geophysical list in Dacia are examplesat below), (Oarda 2the to the of additions villa sites newest survey see below in more detail. All three were revealed Oarda, Sibot and Vintu de Joswhich will be discussed between2000 and 2003, and were confirmed by as crop marksduring summerreconnaissance field visits. subsequent identified a previously unknown Romanvilla During the dry summerof 2000 aerial reconnaissance some 1.5Ian to the southof the modem village of Oarda(Figures 5.3-5.4) and 3.5 kilometres to the south of the colonial-rankedtown ofApulum. It was revealedas a seriesof negativecrop marks in a fields 2003). Some in Oltean barley (Hanson the this areaare and of ripening cerealcrop, probably more extensivethan the patternof strip fields that is the norm (see abovechapter 1), so that a building the the complex was more readily visible. The villa lies of remains of proportion reasonable its Sebes by its the on western side, river confluencewith a small overlooking on raisedground stream.A visit to the site in August 2001 revealedthat the surfaceof the field was littered with building materials(stone,tiles, bricks and mortar fragments)and pottery fragmentsof Romandate identification its therefore, confirmed as a villa, althoughthis also indicatesthat the remainslie and, immediatelybelow the surfaceand are regularly being disturbedby plough action. The local archaeologicalrecord noteschancediscoveriesfrom pre-Romantimes and much Romanmaterial somewherein that area,suchas a column capitals,building materials and kilns (Moga and Ciugudean,1995,132). The remainsare quite extensive,spreadingacrossan areaof approximately I hectare(seefigure 5.4) and provide one of the few examplesof villa sites in Dacia where multiple buildings are known. building ranges,someshowing signs of subdivision, someconnected There are a number of separate to a wall. They appearto be groupedaroundthree sidesof what was probably a large central layout, but details of the individual buildings arc not courtyard (C) of irregular, perhapsfan-shaped sufficient to offer interpretationsof their fiinction. The dimensionsand internal arrangements of one of the structures(A) are reminiscentof one of the buildings of the villa from Chinteni (figure 5.24), least 2 Napoca (Alicu At Cluj 1998). overlappingdistinctive phasesare recognisablein the near southernareaof the site, involving one of the buildings on the south overlappinga small, subdivided rectangularstructure(B) (Hansonand Oltean2003,109-114). The latter is reminiscentof the basic orientation with large room -hall villa plans seenin the area(9 by 13 metres,northwest-southeast and end areasubdividedinto 2 smallerroomsby a middle wall). The villa at Vintu de Jos(415), (figures 5.6-5.8) discoveredduring the reconnaissance season of 2000 and confirmed by site visit in the summerof 2002, sharesits location with the Bronze ageand describedin the previous chapter,though without Late Iron Age village of pit-and-sunken-houses overlappingany of the sunkenstructures.Some450 metresfinther to the eastin a different field, indicating in building 2002 taken crop marks showed remainson a different aerial photographs layout and, as confirmed by a site visit in 2003 (Oltean2004; Hanson and Oltean 2003,115-16), they in features ftirther that the area are only ancient pits of small and medium size, modem; are probably location (see figure 5.7). The Bronze Age from the of the villa lies at the westernend of this probably
151

Mures, its 100 first is the the terraceon the left metres of on edge of within situated complex and bank only 4.3 kilometresaway from Apulum to the north-eastand 3.4 kilometres west of the previously describedvilla at Oarda. The site (figure 5.8) coversat least0.24 hectares and consistsof one large rectangularconstruction built (at leastpartially) in stoneof some 14by 20 metresand parts of another2 buildings, located by field boundary. One of the latter is the terrace the to the modem and overlapped of closer edge likely to be another'tower'-like structureof 3.3 by at least 3.6 metres,while the other seemsto be an internally divided building of at least 17 by 7.5 metres.At leastone partition wall divides its length into 2 sections,one of 4, the other of 12 metres.Because of the fi-agmentary stateof the crop mark evidencein this area,it is impossibleto decidewhether 17 metresis the length or the width of the Both variantsare house,hencewhetherthe long or its short sideof the housewas facing south-east. possible in termsof analogieswith other examplesfrom the area.The modem day topographymight indicate a slight preferencefor the former, given the fact that the steepedgeof the terraceis only 1319 metresaway,but, of course,almost certainly more recent erosion has occurredand very possibly the spaceavailablein the Romantime was greater. However, the evidenceprovided by aerial photographs and analogieswith other villa sites in the area is sufficient to indicatethat the site included probably-(A) one houseof fairly simple plan including at least one largeroom ('hall') and one small room, both with dimensionssimilar to most of the examplesof villa housespresentedin this chapter);(B) one 'tower' at the highestpoint on the edge of the terrace;and one large building with only outer walls built in stone,probably an ancillary building (Q. All the describedfeatureswere probablybuilt in stoneand coveredwith roof tiles, severallarge fragmentsof which were recordedduring the site visit (figure 5.7). Someof the sunken date, be Roman could of evencontemporarywith the villa. Excavationwould be also structures of the site stratigraphyand chronological evolution, and especiallythe required to elucidateaspects relationshipwith the sunkenstructureand the native occupationof the site. Another possiblevilla revealedas crop marks on aerial photographsfrom the 2002 and 2003 is locatedsome3.7 kilometresto the south-westof the previous example,at seasons reconnaissance the edgeof the modem small town of Vintu de Jos(411) (figures 5.9-10) nearthe bridge over the Mures and the site of the early modem bishop's palace.Further to the west is the confluenceof the and fragmentaryrecovery of the site plan noted so small Pianu river with the Mures. The scattered far and the likely occupationof the areain later (perhapseven earlier) times doesnot allow its settlement.If, however, the site doesrepresent positive identification as an individual or aggregated a hectares had least 0.8 it and at multiple buildings. One rectangular extended over was probably villa, (probably stone-built,some II by 18 metres)constructionstandsout. It faced south-east with its internal spacesub-dividedinto 3 rooms, one large ('hall'? ) to the south-eastand two small rooms at the oppositeend.Another squarestonebuilding (13 by 13 metres)20 metresaway to the south was by both alignmentand morphological details.Further to the north as suggested probably associated, least 2-3 buildings terrace the to the at other stone river edge of were identified with and closer different alignmentsand morphology, suggesting the possibility of different date of construction.A
152

date. (figure ). 5.11 Roman The location and medieval potentially of of the pottery site visit recorded it in fact, that however, the was, a roadsidevillage, which seemsto be cannotexclude possibility site, (Moga and Ciugudean 1995,209) basedon the the preferredinterpretationof the county gazetteer discoveryof tracesof a Romanroad and various materials,including stampedbricks of legion XIII Geminabasedat 10 kilometres away at Apulum, an inscription giving a list of names,perhapsof figurine along with other figurines, legionaries(CIL III, 8064=1629),and the headof a terracotta, But (CIL HI, 7798=6264,14473,7782,1133). without any altars votif amulets,sculpturesand indicate buildings the range of artefactsmentionedcould to settlement or pottery mention of stone cemeteryor sacredarea. perhapsindicatean associated In the fields acrossthe river from the modem village of Sibot (figures 5.13-14), again on the first terraceof the main river, lies anothervilla site identified from crop mark evidencefrom 2002 and 2003 and a subsequent visit in 2003 (figures 5.13-14).The site contains a set of stonebuildings hectares. least 0.19 A long total to the their a area of at small covering south-east side with aligned internal 3.5 has 2 by 13 building 7 walls, one partition at metresparallel with metres of rectangular the north-eastem short wall and the other probably dividing the remaining spaceinto 2 rooms eachof its intemally 14 by 30 had length large building divided by 3 A 8.5 of some metres also metres. some into 3 sectionsof 12,8 and 8.5 nictres.Probably 2 other buildings were locatedto the eastconnected by a wall (possiblypart of an enclosure)on the samealignmentwhich seemnot to havebeensubdivided and were perhapsancillary in function. A building revealedas faint negativecrop mark in the summerof 2002 at Sebes(figures 5.15-5.16) near a probableRomanroad is anotherpossibleexampleof a villa settlement.No other buildings disturbed is It 20 by by 12-13 in the river movements. was greatly multiple area which visible were and sub-dividedinto 4, perhaps5 rooms -2 square-ishat the metres,orientednorth-west-south-east 3 dividing 2 long Its the rooms space possibly remaining perpendicularly. end and southern -with dimensions,internal layout and perhapsits orientation, which is consistentwith other villa sites, might commendthe site as a housefrom a villa or a roadsidevillage. On Delinestilor (Sucioni) hill to the eastof the villages of Sarmizegetusa and Hobita (within the in 2000,2002 and 2003 recordedanother(possibly 2) territory of the latter) aerial reconnaissance (Hansonand Oltean 2002,114 and plate 43) which were also likely examplesof villa settlements in be buildings Roman date in 2002. The 2001 to ruined rich area was reported of and and a visited kiln for the productionof building materialswas also discoveredin the area(Popa 1989,44). The first site (figures 5.17-18)overlooks the sourceof a small streamand the fields below acrossa wide 5.21). Only building (figure Sannizegetusa Hateg one towards of 12.6by 17 metreswas and area identified, revealedas a parch-mark.As in the caseof the building at Sebes,the dimensions,internal layout (reminiscentof the villa from Hobenilor hill nearby,with large rooms on both endsand a row of small rooms in the middle section)and orientation are similar to a number of villa sitesthroughout this chapter.The secondpossiblesite (figures 5.19-20)is located 600 metresto the north along the The but buildings its two remains over. grassed of extant, stone partly walls were samestream, identified, one of 19by 12.5metreswithout internal subdivisionsoriented with its long side facing
153

displaced by 35 19 the was metres perpendicularly some25 metresto other one of while south-east, the south-westand showsindicationsof internal subdivisions.There were no tracesof an enclosure, but this was likely to havebeenirregular in shapesurroundingthe plateau,perhapsin a manner hill. Hobenilor The thicknessof the extant featurescould indicatea to the on villa similar excavated layout buildings but date (early later the the of and the accidentaldiscoveryon medieval), possible the site of the 2 partsof a large mill of Romantype by the locals (figure 5.2 1) could indicate a Roman date. Further possiblevilla sitesattestedin the aerial photographicevidencewere noted at Salasude Sus (figure 5.22-23) and at Sarmizegetusa, only 500 metresfrom the north-westerncomer of the town is (figure 5.54). Although this not within the extramuralarearecordedon the 19'hcentury enclosure land survey mapsof Transylvaniaas compactly coveredwith Romanruins, it still represents most probably a 'suburban' villa-house.Finally, anothervilla was recently discoveredand surveyed(by fieldwalking and geophysicalsurvey)to the south-east of the village at Oardaby K Lockyear of the Apulurn Hinterland Projectteam (information I. Haynes)(figure 5.5) Of the large numberof sites which have producedRomanfinds in the study areaand which have beenpostulatedas potentially villas, a further 95 could havedone so, but the basisof the identfication is too limited to justify discussionin detail here. I will try to re-analysethe level of evolution and sophisticationindicated In the following paragraphs by the sitespresented so far (reflecting that of their occupants),in the light of the more recentstudies on provincial Romanvillas elsewhere. There are severalissueswhich needto be clarified in relation to villa sites from the study areaand indeed,from Dacia. For example,most of the rooms were have had brick by floors. This to wall paintings, mosaics and research with assumed previous assumptionwas basedin part on the poor evidenceavailable,and largely in comparisonwith sites from other provincesof the empire.But as shown above,the poor condition of the remainsand the limited excavationmeansthat no stuccodecorationand very few examplesof wall painting are known in Dacia, in either urban and rural contexts,possibly the most extensivebeing presentat Deva. If this patternis maintainedby future research,it could indicate that decoratedwall plaster Moreover, despitepreviouspublications, in fact no mosaic neednot have beena normal occurrence. floor hasyet beenfound in a villa (the few examplesknown come exclusively from urban contexts, from Sarmizegetusa and,4pulum). At best villas are likely to have had tessellatedfloors (with figure or hexagonaltesserae) related to the presence of heating systemsbeneath,brick of eight-shaped floors or opussigninum.The surfacescoveredwith such floors could have often coveredlessthan 50% of a villa house.The only examplewith more extensiveuse of such flooring is Manerau,with 7 (perhaps8) of the 13 rooms coveredwith bricks, tesserae or opussigninum, and perhapsDeva.At Manerau,eventhe floors in I (possibly 2) of the 3 rooms excavatedin an adjacentbuilding -thought to be ancillary in function- had sucha pavement(the third, thought to be a kitchen was pavedwith inside flooring Some attested either were cases of pebble stonewalled rooms as mentioned pebbles). (Aiudul de Sus-Winkler et al. 1968) Manerau outdoor paved areas or, more often, as aboveat (e. Deva the to the yards g. where the yard was pavedwith of cover whole perhapsextended limestoneslabsrepairedin places-Marghitan 1998,309-10).Significant surfaceareascould
154

inside houses in floored been the have villa clay, present as well with as stone-builtor probably still timber ancillary buildings. Hypocaustswere presentin most of the more extensively excavatedvilla sites (absentonly at Cincis). Readingthe publishedevidence,one could seethat someof them were probably installed from the beginning(Manerau-see above).Many others though were addedin a later phase(e.g. Orlea wherethe hypocaustresultedin the floor level in that room being some0.6 mctres Santamaria higher than the rest of the rooms,and part of the wall plaster of the earlier phasegot caughtunder the dc in Aiudul Sus With hypocaust). floor level the the exception of villa, possible noneof above new into hypocaust lead In Dacia in hot is the the the the the excavated clear. air was only way examples interpreted by They detail Manerau the the lack of this excavators. noted particularly was caseof such featureand of tracesof firing as indicating that the hypocaustwas not usedfor heatingat all. Mitrofan (1972,145) mentionsthat it could havebeenusedto protect againstwater infiltration from the Romanconstructors the nearbystream.This explanationis, however,difficult to acceptbecause had much more efficient methodsfor water insulation, essentiallyconsisting of tl&k layersof hard believe floor been it is hard have tessellated to that a would usedabovea and signinum, opus hyposcaust from The flooded Britain only other example noted of an unfired comes space. potentially (Whitton) whereother reasons might explain it (seebelow). Orlea) it is clear that the hypocaustcovered In someof the examples(Manerau,Ghirbom, Santamaria supportingwalls (normally thinner) of stoneor brick were used. only part of the room, in which cases Orlea or Manerau,the areastrictly defined by hypocaustpilae did not define the room At Santarnaria including supplementary limits. Thereforeit createdthe needfor more complicatedsubstructures, from floor hot infilling delimiting boxes material empty under where of spaces air would be walls allowed to circulate.Another exampleof this kind was found at Apahida outsidethe study area (Mitrofan 1972,130-2).This might indicate a similar caseat Aiud where the gap betweenthe wall bordering the hypocaustareaand the wall continuing the alignment of the other room on that side of the 'hall' was interpretedas a corridor (seeWinkler et aL 1968).As for the tiny spaceat the HobitaHobenilor hill villa, it requiresfinther re-examinationalong with the whole context of the villa house. Further problemsof villa analysisare relatedto the identification of accessand movementflow inside the buildings. In somecasesentrances were identified in sufficiently well-preservedwalls, by (even in the marble-at Hobita) slabs.But very rarely was stone wall or marked whether as gaps the relationshipbetweenthe 'entrance' level and the floor level madeexplicit, as indeed,the level floors identified level the between the the and of the socle of the outer and of relationship interpret has (1997) based Smith to possible entranceand access attempted schemes partition walls. that it was likely that the number of passage rooms would have beenkept to a on the assumption have to all the rooms aroundit. This that ensuredaccess could one central room and minimum from in find does the pre-Romanarchitecture,in neithercircular nor evidence support not assumption On it Dacia. is from the the contrary, obvious there that access was prc-conquest examples rectilinear (2,3) (see from through the rooms successive south-east, chapter4). Also, it is evident madeusually
155

inside the housewas probably made from the south-east (Aiud, in a numberof villa cases that access Manerau,Hobita-Hobenihill within the study area;Apahida and Ciumafaia outsideto the north). Thennaehavebeenidentified in very few Dacian villas, and in those casesbaths incorporatedinto the villa houseare thoughtto be the norm (e.g. Apahida, Hobita, Chinteni III). Within the studyarea, the room provided with a hypocaustat Hobita-Hobenilor hill is thought to have represented a bath, but the detailsprovidedby the excavationare insufficient to support such an interpretation.Despite Orlea and in the publishedreports,bathsmight still have been presentat Santamaria their absence in latter, At the southernmost Deva. the the spaceof the villa revealed excavation very possibly at housetracesof hypocaustpilaematerial and significant quantities of ash,which could be relatedto thennae.Furthermore,the transformationof the easternend of the room into an internal apseand the between in 0.8 the the wall at western end aI metre wide square outer wide gap metre of a presence ) and the comer of the hall could have supplied perhapsthe necessary base(pylon, column? gap for ) into the room from outside. leading hot air (or perhaps water? buildings dedicatedto bathing is extremely rare throughoutthe province. The occurrenceof separate In fact, the only certainexampleof the latter is at Chinteni outside the study area,wherethe baths building to the eastof the villa housewhoseprevious function was were installed in a square-ish became house-andits function building Later this a and changed once more whole uncertain. thermaecomplex (smaller thermaewere constructedon one side of the building copying the exact layout of the previousphase-Alicu 1994and 1998).A baths complex is howeververy likely in the large villa complex at Oardawherethe plan indicatesmultiple buildings, and amongthem a squareish constructionis reminiscentof the bath complex at Chinteni in its early phase. If attentionwere given to indicationsof evolution phases(especiallyin relation to the introduction of hypocausts)and floor levels (especiallyin relation to that of so-calledentrances and of the wall in finther Dacia it typology re-interpretations and perhapsof the even of villa could produce socle), The below). (see evidencefrom Chinteni indicatesclearly that the patternof neighbouringprovinces site evolution there involved transformingthe bathscomplex into living quarters(perhapsto take benefit from the extensiveheatinginstallation which alreadyexisted there but which was totally from Also, first house from the exampleat the the of occupation). second phase and of villa missing Orlea, it is clear that the late addition of a hypocaustproduceda significant raising of the Santamaria floor level. A possiblesimilar effect might have takenplace at Manerau in room M (if it did, indeed, have a hypocaust).The villa at Apahida was also provided with hypocaustsof obviously different identified in baths being (the the of small rooms as row one at a raisedlevel). construction of phases Orlea, the hypocaustfrom the bath areawas a late addition It is very possiblethat, like at Santamaria building function both Chinteni, like the the of that, as accommodation combined and baths at and This baths. function scenarioopensthe possibility that a whole as replaceda previousunique interpreted by Europe, Smith in (1997,207-8) houses south-eastern as"houseswith categoryof villa explanationof the particularity of their plan, may multiple small rooms" without giving a reasonable have oncebeenusedas large bathsbefore being convertedinto houses.

156

As statedby Smith (1997),villas in Dacia, as in other areasof south-eastemEurope,are rectangular block buildings with multiple small rooms,someof them provided with apses. But our have be been to the phases of construction since or repair revised, needs plans of understanding highlighted in only a very few examples.Different repairs or changesof plan within a building, or by frequently in in buildings, Dacia the recorded more recent excavations are of of use even changes likely have Therefore, to sites are villa experiencedsimilar changes. contexts. civilian archaeological Accordingly, someof the 'small rooms' quite frequently mentioned might be nothing but an artificial impressioncreatedby adjacentwalls belongingto different phasesof construction. Published in identification phases of successive site excavationreportsrarely expressany concernabout incomplete have, Such therefore, site plans where chronological produced excavations evolution. developments at are now only to be guessed Orlea the excavationrevealed2 different concretefloor levels and the hypocaustalso At Santamaria from identified 1972,442-3). But Popa (in the later apart addition a secondphase? constituteda deliberately demolished, indication that the of a wall was althoughthat gives report phases, published the significanceof this find hasnot beencorrectly acknowledged(seeabove).Another demolished (?) wall is presenton the plan of Manerauand the parallel walls 0.8 metresapart on the south-eastern, in its house different different At indicate fair the of occupation. phases widths of certainty with side circuit inside the latter, an attempthasbeenmadeto interpret different phasesof useand of access (Smith 1997,fig. 60), but thesecannotbe entirely validated by the current level of research. There are many cases where interpretationas so-called 'corridors' hasbeenput forward for narrow less de Sus, in length (sometimes Aiudul Manerau,Hobita Im than even e. g. width of variable spaces internal fragmentation figure 5.24) to the the great of space.But thesecould and which contribute see have beencreatedeitherby elaboratefloor foundation systems(especiallyrelated to hypocausts -see above),or as resultsof the movementof partition walls in different phasesof occupation(e.g. is likely to make them disappearfrom the plans.One Chinteni -see Alicu 1998);further research in in for indication difference date is villa construction a walls complexes of given by their possible (figure Most houses have 5.1). villa partition walls widths, of walls of varied especially variable inner (0.8-0.9 0.6 for the thinner to the and metres) walls are wider walls normally outer widths; is bearing the (the this the of rooo; a basic architectural most of weight outer walls practical reasons in for However, there those significant are variations where width within each examples requirement. different dates the the these walls could perhaps reflect width of of walls, of their categories of background) do if (e. topography, geological not apply. g. other reasons construction, As shownabove,finds havebeenrecoveredfrom villas in only relatively small quantities(certainly less than the norm in urbanor military contexts,which probably has madethem lessattractiveas a focus for research).They are,however,quite interestingand can potentially provide information Unfortimately the the precisearchaeological site. at the out carried activities economic about found, is Therefore, it is they the always not specified. were where room now or even context, difficult to identify the function of most of the rooms with any certainty, possible tridinia were documented at Deva andManerauand a millstone workshop was probably located at Deva.In a
157

interpreted Manerau), (e. Aiud, rooms as possible corridors or halls were usedfor of cases g. number storageor domesticactivities asmillstones,storagepottery or even agricultural tools were present in identified few ancillary buildings (e.g. Deva, Hobita-Hobenihill). were and a other storagespaces being for identified The spaces used storageare very scarce,especiallyin respectto as previously to vesselor tool storage,which are more easily identifiable). On the other grain storage(as opposed hand, large buildings in stonewithout internal divisions (or in a few caseswith timber 'box' rooms attachedto the stonewalls) are a frequentoccurrencein excavatedexamples,although sometimes interpretedas 'internal yards'. The outline of large rectangularstonebuildings like theseare also visible in severalexamplesof sitesdiscoveredthrough aerial photography(e.g. Vintu de Jos,Oarda, Sibot and possibly Hobita). Their dimensionsand outline is similar to stonebuildings usedfor (e.g. the so-called'aisled buildings' seeDark and Dark 1997,44). storagein Dacia or elsewhere Given the excavationmethodologyemployed,it is possiblethat the Dacian exampleswere provided previous research. with internal featuresto help supportthe roof, which have escaped Given the poor contextualrecordingof the finds, the chronology of the sites is basedentirely on the meagrecoin evidence. Within the study area,coins have beenfound inside the villa houseor ancillary rooms at: Deva (3 -Trajan; Hadrian - AD 124-5; SeverusAlexander - AD 227); Hobita Hobeni hill (2 -Antoninus Pius - AD 139; and Elagabalus- AD 222); Santamaria Orlea (I - Septimius SeverusAD 201-210) and Manerau(I -Elagabal);4 other coins were discoveredin the villa cemetery at Cincis, but for only one of them is an identification attempted,indicating possibledating in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Both of the earliestexamplescome from the samesite (Deva). The remaining are more evenly distributedchronologically and spatially and reflect the beginningsof coinagepresence sinceAntoninus Pius,but more intensely in the early Yd century AD. In general, the coins discoveredin villa contextsin Dacia range from Trajan to Philip the Arab, but most of them are of Severandate (Mitrofan 1998,171), suggestingthat it took most of tile 2ndcentury AD for villas One must not forget, though,that the hoard discoveredat Rahau to becomeproperly established. of both Republicanand Imperial coin, and in anothercase,in relatedto the villa hasaccumulations the location of a probablevilla at Salasude Sus(Sasa)a hoard of early Republicandenarii was discovered(Popa 1989,53). listed above,any attemptto producetypologies of villas in Dacia and neighbouring For the reasons areasshouldbe considered as premature,and only further researchwill be able to prove the validity The purposeof the argumentpresentedabove is to raise awareness of these(or others)speculations. of the unreliability of the currentdataand perhapsto give hints of alternative interpretationsrather The inappropriateand inadequatemethodsof data collection than to producedefinitive conclusions. in the past have tendedto impedethe recognitionof other site types, such as individual homesteads other than villas, which may be relatedto native farming. The few such sites which havebeen included underthis category(seefigure 5.26) are mainly sporadicsunkenhousesunrelatedto clear indicationsof a larger native-typesettlement(village) (e.g. Aiudul de Sus- site 165,nearthe villa in Also, 152 Noslac I have included Aiud this indicating category or site, sites -277). -Cetatuie workshopactivity (iron metallurgy-e. g. Hunedoarasite 83; ceramicproduction -e. g. Breazova420,
158

Silvasude Jos495 and Silvasude Sus60, or Folt 28 -see figure 5.47) not associated with larger settlements, which may, therefore,be relatedto settlementsof individual type (homesteads or villas).

1.2 Villages (figure 5.44) During the period of the Romanoccupation,the settlementpattern of the study areashowsa significant shift towardsnucleation.The terminology used for such settlementsis extremelyvaried in find definition deal has to the most appropriate and re-definition order of and suffereda great labels for the even more varied archaeological evidence.According to Hanley (2000,6) the list of Romanprovincial settlementsinclude: "'village', 'small town', terms usedin relation to aggregated 'vicus', 'larger rural settlement',lower order settlement,lowest- order market centre', 'non-villa Yoadside settlement',local centre','local market centre','proto-urban settlemenf,!native settlement', though that "the most commonly usedof centre','hamlet'and 'nucleatedsettlement"'. He estimates thesetermstend to be 'village', 'small town' and 'vicus"'. Following the approachemployedin the previous chapter,the presentstudy will leavebehind the terminological issuesas an ultimately sterile debateand usemainly the terms 'village' and 'small town' as providing togetherreasonable coverage for the classof 'nucleated' settlement. In the study of rural settlements, most of the attention to datehas focusedon juridical and in defining the terminology for settlements of non-municipal status(for administrativeaspects issue), issue (e.g. Tudor 1968,319-328) and much lesson the the or civitates example vicus-pagus the archaeologicalevidence. But despitetheseefforts, the boundariesof all the municipal territories are still unsure,though various attemptshavebeenmadeto define them (Piso 1995;Ardevan 1998; is highly uncertain. Romanian Gudeaand Motu 1994;Popa2002) and the number of settlements has operatedso far with mainly 2 types of villages of Roman date. On one hand,there archaeology are the examplesbuilt in the Romanfashion,of a structureresemblingthe vici describedby Rorison in Gaul (2001). On the other, there are thosebuilt in a traditional manner,many still with largely sunkenhousesand in a few examplesshowing evolution towards surfacetimber constructions. Inside the study areathere are approximately10 villages (aggregated settlements)of uncertain function, most likely agricultural, and a fiirther 18 siteswhich may also fit into this category.The in (which following architectural model somecasesshow an evolution towards a pre-Roman villages Romanmodels)were easierto identify and represent the largestmajority, the evidencefor Romantype villages without evidentgroundsto be considered as having someurban character(small towns) but it is rather a consequence is very scarce. The reasonis not their absence, of the lack of methodology.To define thesesites,simple mention of artefacts(evenif appropriateresearch indication of the extent of the remainsthan 'small' or 'large', which is precise more sometimes with the norm) is not sufficient. As seenabove,villa sites -which are also built using RomanmaterialsAt the beginning of this chapterit was also mentioned can extendover areasas large as 3 hectares. from the study area,some214 show clear evidence that, out of 266-270possibleRomansettlements for the useof Romanbuilding materialsand some95 of them might generouslytaken into accountas for indeed, (see But for the remaining 119 there is at the those many of and, above). villas possible 159

This indication their to character. needs clearer site of estimating plans give an no possibility moment household (whether the the with a single unit or with severalunits). Such settlement of structureof domestic between differentiation sites and cemeteries, religious sites allow plans would also (temples)or military installations,all of which could reveal themselvesthrough similar classesof artefacts.

1.2.1.Villages with traditional architecture The settlementat Obreja (281) hasbeenthe most extensively excavated(between 1961-1973),but for the momentit is difficult to appreciate the extent of the areainvestigatedand its relationshipto to be approximately6 hectares, the entire site. Its size is understood partially overlaping earlier however, Bronze Age; Neolithic the and any trace of Iron Age occupation prehistoric occupationof (Hallstatt or La Tene) is missing.Interpretedas a Daco-Romanvillage (with a possiblemarginal built on pre-Romanarchitecturalconcepts,with both sunken of colonists), it is a settlement presence in houses the and practiceof storage pits still in operation. The excavatedarearevealed and surface 30 sunken(and semi-sunken) and 8 surface(timber) houses,along with 80 pits and a bread oven, in is The finds houses the tools. used and workshop sunken pottery agricultural and pottery numerous it is Roman, but in Roman, Dacian the revealing an evident surface examples exclusively and mixed, in level developed towards above ground parallel with the evolution accommodation evolution towardsan exclusively Romanmaterial culture, not just in pottery usebut also in tools or oven type. Overall, the Dacianpottery is presenton the site only in a proportion of 10-15 %. The cemeteryof the settlement was locatedin the vicinity (seebelow); basedon the dating evidence(coins and brooches)coming mostly from the cemetery,the settlementseemsto have beenoccupiedfrom the invasion Huns nd 4'h, (Moga and AD 2 the the the the possibly of until until century middle of 1995,132-33). CiugUdean Excavationsbetween 1963-1966 revealeda fairly similar village at Noslac (278) datedto the 2nd and P centuriesAD. It consistsof 6 semi-sunken houseswith 13 storagepits, I kiln/oven and 2 hearths. The settlement overlapstracesof occupationfrom the Bronze Age (Wietenberg)and early Iron Age (Hallstatt). But in this case,the architectureremainsthe samethroughout the occupationand the is (only Other lower Obreja 55%). finds included Roman than at of pottery several proportion millstones anda ploughshareamongother iron and bronzeobjects. Specialmention needsto be made of the tracesof slag, which attestssomelevel of metallurgical production. At Radesti(314), on the bank of the Mures, only the storagepits (reusedas rubbish pits?) were discoveredby excavationsin 1884-1887 and later in 1973.The 27 pits excavatedwere 0.7-8 metres in depth with a width varying between0.7 to 3 metresand had beendeliberately fired. They Dacian including Roman mixed and artefacts pottery, ash, animal bones,glass of a range contained fragments,bronzeand iron objects.Unfortunatelyno evidenceof houseshasbeenfound and only the largenumberof pits could be interpretedas an indicator of a larger community. It is possiblethat the ) structures, houseswere light surface(timber? whosetracesmight have escaped notice or vanished
160

included both fine Roman But the time. coarse and ware examples,even terra sigillata. Its red over indicates the economic level of the community. artefacts of glass alongwith evidence presence, If the Dacianvillage from Vintu de Jos(415 -figures 4.3-4.4) describedin the previous chapter it Roman be the to probably represented period, anotherexampleof a continued occupiedwithin settlementwheretraditional architecturecontinuedto be usedto someextent.The chancethat it was, indeed,still in useis high, given the fact that the Roman villa did not overlap any of the sunken structuresidentified on aerial photographs(seealso chapter4). Somesiteshavebeenidentified exclusively through pottery (figures 5.44 and 6.2), as for exampleto the southof Razboieniand Ocna Mures, (Asinip -31,170, Hoparta -250 Silvas -350, Spalnaca -369) and fin-thersouth at Petrisat(302 and 303), but also near to Razboieni,at Lunca Muresului (268) Unirea (403) and LopadeaVeche (263). Othersare located in the Mures valley (Telna -388, Sasciori in the Orastie Mountains area(Deriu -44; Bircea Mare-36), Folt-73; Ceru Bacainti-136; -326; Prihodiste-179),or in Tara Hategului (Ohabade sub Piatra-459;Poieni-472; Farcadin-71, Bercu418) (Figure 6.2). Given the frequentoccurrenceof Romanconstructionmaterialsindicating settlements, it is possiblethat thesesitesdo representsettlements similar to thosepresented above,especiallyin that for some 12 of the 18 Dacian pottery (traces)was also mentioned.One must not forget, however, differ significantly accordingto methodologyand specific that the ways sitesreveal themselves conditions,including the specific momentin time when the discoveryoccurred.For example,the site from RapoltuMare -La Vie, which was originally identified exclusively by pottery, is now believed to be a villa (seeabove). Uioara de Jos and possibly Hunedoara-SampetruHill (where The Dacianvillages at Cicau-Saliste, the detailsare lessclear) (figure 4.12) embracedsurfacetimber architecturein the Romanperiod. The large Daco-Roman village at Cicau-Saliste(148) examinedbetween 1969-1973overlies earlier occupationin the Bronze Age, early Iron Age and pre-RomanDacian (3d- I' centuriesBQ periods and had two levels of occupation.In the first Romanphase,the houseswere built in traditional (semisunken)fashion,but thesewere replacedby surfacetimber houseswith dry stonebasesand tiled roofs. The techniquewas not entirely new perhaps,since someof the housesin the upland in built before Roman timber with stonebeing usedat the baseof the conquest also were settlements the walls, but the examplesfrom Cicau usedRomanroof tiles. Romanpottery presenton the site was by coarseand fine ware, including terra sigillata, original or local imitation. Other finds represented included stoneand iron tools and a sestertiusof Trajan. The latter, along with the Whcenturypottery, indicate that the settlementwas probably occupiedthroughoutthe Romanperiod and for a while thereafter.At Uioara de Jos(394) a very large settlementwas locatedoccupying an areaestimatedto be at leastsome8 hectares(although its structuremight havebeen of scattered or semi-compact indicating Hallstatt Neolithic previous occupation.The only research and pottery with nature) identified in 1963, Dacian pottery mixed with tracesof field through which walking was undertaken from bases (supposed to mortared come of timber buildings -Popa2002,206), mortar and stonewall but this detail could indicate that this exampleshouldbe included into the next category.

161

1.2.2. Villages built in the Roman fashion (figure 5.44) At Aurel Vlaicu-Voivoda (site 89), in the immediatevicinity of the Mures, a typical roadsidevillage fire. The is known through located have been to ended occupation site whose only from a brief seems been but has description, it fieldwalking to the provided, according site plan and no of report Roman in 2 buildings the along road with interstitia delimiting rows parallel grouped consistedof eachproperty.Quite possibly, the houseswere of the strip-housctype. The basesof walls were brick is in (mortar and tile material was also present.Indeed, and not mentioned) constructed stone this is the only site with a descriptionsufficiently detailed to indicate the certain existenceof a village here(Popa2002,28-29). A larger settlement could alsohavebeenlocatedin the areaof Sebes. The building identified during (see interpreted as a possible villa above) could haverepresented and part of a aerial reconnaissance larger settlement In the vicinity extensiveflinerary activity hasbeendiscoveredwith cremations (with Dacianpottery presentamonglargely Romanartefacts),inhurnations(one stonesarcophagus containing an infant and a denarius),and disturbedmaterials containing bricks, tiles and a fragment of fimerary inscription (Moga and Ciugudean1995,167). The pre-Romanvillage nearby continued to be settledin the Romanperiod, but given the analogy with Obreja it is unlikely that all thesetraces (especiallythe sarcophagus and the fimerary inscription) are relatedto the Daco-Romanvillage. However, the county gazetteerlocatesa large settlementat Sebessomewhere to the eastof the Secas river and not in this location (Moga and Ciugudean1995,168), but neither its preciselocation, extent or structureare known. The Romanphaseof occupationwithin the multi-period (including pre-RomanDacian -see chapter 4) settlementat Cetea(La Pietri, site 147)could be either a village or an individual homestead.It is buildings Ciugudean by (Moga 1995,72) "foundations stone of and and a cemetery" represented details. The artefactualevidencecomesmainly from the cemeteryand other architectural without includes coarseware and terra sigillata, bronze and iron artefacts(keys, knives, nails, needles, bracelets,beads)and millstones. Another possibleexampleis vessels-bronze?), jewellery (brooches, does if future Vint-bridge, that the site not representa villa. proves research at Even with site plansbeing available,it is often difficult to estimatewhen a group of farms (be they 'romanised' farms or not) makesa community-, without site plans it is even harder. To the northRoman (441) Hateg there of a settlementwith stonebuilding basesand 'Roman are reports of west and pottery) extending over an areaof some2 materials' (including fragmentsof a sarcophagus hectares. But again,the natureof the site is uncertain,despitethe important cluster of discoveries is It individual that the town. the some the possible of also several modem of area within have been Apulum Paclisa tied togetherinto somesort of may near clustered at units/possiblevillas (246) different Hapria 5 locations with discoverieslie very Similarly, at community. semi-nucleated closeto eachother, along a streamto the south-westof the modem village, at 'Vadul Balgradului' (pottery, roof tiles, stonewalls), 'FantanaLisului' (pottery, bricks and roof tiles), 'Gura Zapozii' (pottery, roof tiles, and clay pipes),"La Groape" (sarcophagus) and 'Gruiul Faurului' (bronzefibula) (Moga and Ciugudean1995,105).
162

Finally, anotherpossiblelarger site (perhapsscattered)could have beenlocatedaroundBenic (183) fragment Pater) Liber (Jupiter dedications a of funerary stela (private yard) and and where votive (at fiinerary Tantana Satului', bricks, fanerary tiles, to context second a material probablyrelated lion and the lower part of a "stone grapepress') have beendiscoveredin severalplaces(Moga and discoveries,their numbermight indicate the Ciugudean1995,53). Although recordedas separate larger in location than a villa. Similarly, many other settlements the of a settlement area of possible have been finds distribution Bacia ('Palota' type could villages: extensive with unidentified -Palatiste (140); Hoparta(250); Lunca Muresului ('DeasupraViilor' -267); Geoagiu Drambar (228); -6); PestisuMare (41); Rahau('Biserica Alba' -364); Soimus ('Telegi' -61).

13 lSmaUtowns' (figure 5.44) The boundarybetweentheseYomanized' villages and most of the sites that fall under the categoryof $smalltowns'is very faint. This interpretationhasbeenapplied mostly to siteswhich acted as central interest in to smaller communities around,without bcingproper' of certain services places providing to have some significance;sitesclassedas towns. According to Hingley (1991,76) "Size appears in hectares least Some ten towns size and can be as large as 50 or more hectares. small are usually at is division less The large be however, the towns. to presumably as extensive small as appear villages, one betweenvillages which had a primarily agricultural function and small towns which were involved, at leastin part, in tradeand industry." His view has beenemployedin the presentstudy the increasingnumberof the workforce involved in activities other than food simply because for increase the a market apparatusto supply the food from somewhere need productionwould else. This is the reasonwhy mining communitieshave been included in this category,along with centres of industrialproduction,trade,taxation, or othersproviding various servicesfor areaslarger than their own limits.

1.3.1 Specialisedsettlements(figure 5.44) belonging to Within the study areathere are 29 sitesrelatedto industrial activities. Settlements have been identified by involved in iron, exploitation stone or salt mainly gold, referenceto workers finds of specific tools and sometimestracesof buildings. occasional quarriesnearby,combinedwith Among other examplesof suchstonequarrying settlementsare the onesfor andesiteat Uroi (attemptedidentification asPetris mentionedin the Tabula Peutingeriana -figure 5.30) and in the Deva-Coziaarea;for limestonein the Calanarea(Santamariade Piatra -76, Valea Sangiorgiului -67, (lordachel valley -figure 5.29), in the large areato the Sarmizegetusa Streisangeorgiu near -75), Remetea); Sard TeIna, Ighiel Remetea, (Ighiu, to eastofApulum (Ciugud); and and north ofApulum Carpinis Geoagiu); Cabesti, Caiti, (Banita, and and at Bucova linked to places other scattered marble quarrying(Wollmann 1996).A further possibleexampleof a mining settlementmight have beenlocatedat Cozia nearDeva, whereaerial photographyhas recordeda cluster of rectangular by (Figure 5.27) (Hanson low grass covered and Oltean 2002,113) which stonewalls with structures
163

by Romans in immediate been have the the andesite quarry exploited another with connected may Other 1968,126). (Tudor settlements were connectedto the exploitation of iron (Ruda, vicinity Teliucu Inferior, Alun, Ghelar,Hunedoara, possibly Almasul Mic), gold (Pianu de Sus-figure 5.28) have been Unfortunately, (Ocna Mures). themselves the settlements all subjectto very limited or salt (Wollmann 1996). Uioara de At Jos being to the tracesof sites extraction given priority research, being identified (pit) related to a specific natural resource(Moga and without were surface extraction Ciugudean1995,195). in but Dacia, better Potterssettlements settlement present are specialised class of are another Within Mcasasa Cristesti). (e. the study areaceramic the and area g. study outside represented is better in (whether materials) represented relation to villa and or construction pottery production is Micia (see figure 5.44), but the Extensive attested at pottery production sites. possiblevilla is far more complex (seebelow). function of this settlement Apart from the main towns (Sannizegetusa andApulum), the itinerary depictedby the Tabula Peutingerianamentionsthe following settlements along the main route within the province: Aquae, Petris, Germisara,Blandiana (betweenSannizegetusa andApulum) and Brucla (beyondApulum (figures 5.44 and 5.48). The number of settlementnamesin the Tabula towardsPotaissa) Peutingerianaand other itinerariesis very small comparedwith the number and location of sites identified asrural settlements.The former might well representonly the larger settlements placed exclusively on the main roads,which could havebeen of interest for travel, communication,tradeor other suchactivities,and perhapsthey shouldbe recognisedas 'central Places'.This would meanthat their ftinction was more complex, including somethat are characteristicof urban or semi-urbansites. is Germisara functional (Cigmau) (Calan-Bai) In the cases the complexity and evident. ofAquae Aquae was also a spa(and probably a religious) centre (figure 5.52), while Germisarawas a military (figure (for 5.53), 5.36-5.39) both (figures spa and extensive associated quarry cemetery with vicus indeed, located healing If Petris was centre). at Uroi (figure 5.30) -possibly extendedon and vicus both sidesof the river-, it would havebeenprimarily an industrial centre (seeabove),which would have also beenan important site for tradeand the communicationnetwork. It is very likely to have had a harbour,importantfor river navigationand transportationof stone,and it would have provided the river crossingfor the main road of the province. Like Petfis-Uroi, Blandiana andBrucla-Aiud were not confirmed by epigraphic evidence.Blandiana locatednearthe modem settlementwith the samename (45) where excavationsin is supposedly 1888and 1948revealedtracesof an importantrural settlement. Discoveriesincluded stonewall bases,bricks, tiles, sculpturalpieces,a column capital, a fragment of votive inscription along with 'bronze objects', and large quantitiesof pottery fragments.Further settlementremainswere bronze nail, 2 ceramiclamps,pottery discoveredin the village areaincluding a millstone, spearhead, indicate Also the presenceof a cemetery. (unspecified) gravesand skeletons coins. and At Aiud, underthe modemtown and in the surroundingarea,numerousremainshavebeen Apart from Romanbuilding materials discoveredindicating a very large Romansettlement. bricks of the VMacedonicalegion from Potaissa)and pottery, finds included (including stamped
164

a fragmentof a military diploma (AD 86), inscriptions (CIL 111,940-943), many altars,sculptures, including a dedicationto the governorP. Furius Saturninusand a dedication (altar?) to Jupiter OptimusMaximus(CIL 111,942-943), andnumerouscoins (various denominationsand issues throughoutthe 2d and the Yd centuriesAD and someexamplesof the 4h). The Romansettlement was surely locatedon the main road of the province which followed the Mures valley and its traces have beenidentified to the south-west,west and north-west of the modem town which probable least in Along that that the north-westernsection, the road, at settlement. core of overlies main a funerary multiple tracesof funeraryactivity havebeenidentified such as a brick sarcophagus, inventory (coins,jewellery, pottery) and cremationgraveswith ums. But surprisingly for a settlement finds, in highly terms these of character archaeologicalresearchin the areaof romanized with sucha the late medievalfortressrevealedtwo surfacehousesbuilt perhapsin timber on un-mortaredstone foundationswithout evidenceof useof tiles and which, apparently,used the traditional mode of storagein pits. The inventory (mainly pottery) was exclusively Roman and included also 2 bronze coins-oneprovincial (Dacia) and oneas of Phillip the Arab (AD 246)- and an unidentified denarius.

1.3.2. NUlitary vid There are a lot of settlements supposedly connectedwith military sites.Unfortunately, in many cases this is merelyan assumption where a fort is known, or where a fort is assumed on the basis of finding a stampedbrick with the nameof a military troop even in an otherwise civilian context. There have in military vid in Dacia, but within the study areathey were undertaken beena few excavations mostly at Micia. The existenceof an auxiliary fort in the Mures Valley betweenthe modem villages of Vetel andMintia hasbeenknown sincethe 18'hcentury. It has beenrepeatedlydamagedand (ploughing and constructionof a railway, a road and a continuesto be so by modem development large industrial site). Excavationsin the fort and the surroundingarea,particularly focusedon the military barracksand the bathsto the north-east,have taken place over a number of yearssince 1929 (Alicu 1998). To the north and north-eastof the fort, on the riverbank, a group of unidentified buildings hasbeenexcavated, along with a baths andpalaestra complex, a small amphitheatre (Figures5.5.31 and 5.35 T and A) and a large building with cellar and hypocaust(interpretedat the time as a basilica -Teposu-Marinescu1985,126). Along the line of the modem road, severalprivate houseshavebeenrecorded(though that nearestto the fort was also thought to have represented a public building - Marghitan 1970,579-594).Among other discoveriesare elevenpottery kilns (one probably developedalong the main further to the north-east(Floca et al. 1970),two cemeteries, towardsthe east,the secondlocated Ilan to the south-wcstof the fort road outsidethe settlement Ciongradi 2004b), a temple for the native godsof the Moorish garrison and anotherfor Jupiter Erapolitanus(Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000,77 and 92-94). But an impressivenumberof some 100aerial photographsof Micia from the summersof 2000,2002 buried have 2003 of archaeologicalremainsand provided the basis amount revealeda significant and for a new and detailedplan and interpretationof the site (Oltean et al. forthcoming). The majority of (figures 5.32-5.34) are stonebuildings, which featuresvisible on the photographs the archaeological
165

fort, for Ilan from the approximately of extending north-eastto southsides on all are now attested west acrossthe limits of the settlement(figure 5.35). The main focus of intenseactivity remainsto the north and eastof the fort, which is also the most densely populated area. Recentsystematic in 2000, four Micia, Wcus threeof the uncovered started at structuralphases, military excavationof timber and one of stone.It is possiblethat possiblefurther stonephases(three stonephaseshavebeen Marghitan have in 1970) been far the the settlement see area of same away removed recoredednot by intensive agricultural activity. According to the new excavations,the earliestphaseof Hadrianic from Trajanic date the to period, confirming probably that the or constructionappears dating foundation fort. The the the the of with of the third contemporary was establishment of vicus timber phaseto the Antonine period, basedon the discovery of a coin hoard of 12 denarii of in the early history of the site were quite rapid. The four Antoninus Pius, suggests that changes hope that the site plan producedthrough giving quite closely, each other phases mirrored structural (which tendsto record mostly the final stonephaseof the interpretationof aerial photographs indicator likely is 1) the of natureand extent of the vicus a reasonable chapter above occupation-see by by (so-called in its As their excavations and strip-buildings plan phases. revealed earlier also facing the main roadswith their narrow end to maximise streetaccess),most of the buildings in the busy areaof the Wcuswere of combinedindustrial/comercialand domesticuse.In severalplaces, kilns (figure 5.45). To the west of the fort, however,larger could haverepresented circular structures buildings with yards(one of them with the housewithin an enclosedyard in a villa-like fashion) indicate a primarily domesticfunction (figure 5.35). Finally, a number of small buildings in the area of the cemeteryto the southof the fort could havebeen funerary enclosuresor small mausolea. The settlementaroundthe auxiliary fort at Razboieni(Valinae) (figure 5.40-5.43)of the ala by a huge amountof unstructuredinformation. The site Batavorum miliaria usedto be represented hasbeenidentified on the plateaucalled 'Cetate' (fortification) and in the immediateareaunder During Roman the amount areas. centuries a vast of and cultivated past settlement material modem hasbeencollectedthrough agriculture, development or even occasionalexcavationsof early or more include They date (1847,1859,1960). many tracesof stoneconstructions,bricks and tiles recent (some with the stampsof theMII Geminaandthe VMacedonica legions or of the local ala 7712; Batavorum miliaria) or pavementbricks, and lead and clay pipes. Inscriptions (CIL 111933; 1394;7789), sculpturesin marble and bronzehonouring gods (Apollo, Pan, Epona,Hercules Magusanus),silver and bronzecoins (from Antoninus Pius, to Caracalla)along with numeroussmall jewellery, lamps or glassware) finds (weapons, and large quantities of pottery depict a very important Materials indicating the cemeteryhave been discoveredin a small rescue and romanizedsettlement. houses late Neolithic (which 'Cetate' the the of also produced and Scythiangraves) excavationon Ciugudean 1995,153-4). (Moga in in locations the and vicinity other and in 2002 (OlteanandHanson2001,129-3 1) and especially2003 has Recentaerial reconnaissance important information to an part of the settlement(especiallythe stone map now provided sufficient buildings showingas negativecrop marksmostly in fields under cereal cultivation -figures 5.40-42) buildings fort. The fort the the outside within are mainly aligned to the of structures and a number form (figure 5.43). did The areaoccupiedby the identified, a grid not necessarily which roads
166

Romansettlementwas shownto havebeenvery extensiveand extendedconsiderablybeyond the limits of the 'Cetate' plateau,wherethe fort and settlementwas supposed to have beenlocated.The in heavily the areato the north of the fort, where that this occupied was crop mark evidenceshows the existing 'gaps' in the site plan (figure 5.43) were probably determinedby modem buildings or dense However, another nucleus of coverage. occupationhasbeen vegetation non-responsive identified in one cultivated field to the south of the modem village, towards the Mures River and its is This located some300 metresto the south of (nowadays) marshes. and multiple palaeo-channels the probablesouthernlimit of the fort, and consistsof a number of buildings mainly groupedon each layout for 300 the resembling metres, of the excavatedpart some side of a road running north-south of the Wcusfrom Tibiscurn (Benea 1993).In the northern sector from the Cetateplateau,the civilian fort for least 200 750 metresfrom eastto west the to the and of at north metres extended some area (figure 5.43). Here too someof the buildings along with someminor roads(alleys) seemto havebeen (parallel the east-west with the fort), but other examplesare axis of a road running aligned along following a totally different allignment dictatedby a different street grid orientedwest-north-westto is house Razboieni fragmentary The than at Cigmau and of plans at recovery more east-south-east. Micia due to the specific conditions of photographyand cropmark.formation, but most of the buildings seemto havebeendomesticor with combinedfunctions. As in the other cases, the site at Cigmau (figures 5.36-5.38)was identified on the basisof chance discoveriesrecordedover the last century,though its preciselimit on the ground were unclear.The fort is locatedon a narrow spur on the right bank of the river Mures betweenBobaInaand Geoagiu, some5 kilometressouthof the Romanhot springsresort of Geoagiu-Bai with which it sharedthe Romannameof Germisara(cf Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000,66). According to brick stampsand inscriptions,the fort hasbeenoccupiedby the NumerusSingularium Britannicorum, and by vexillations of the Legio; Uff Gemina.(Tudor 1969,130-1). Excavationsbeganat the fort in July 2000 underthe direction of Dr. Adriana Pescaruand Mr. EugenPescaru(Museum of Dacian and RomanCivilizations, Deva), soon after aerial photographstaken in Juneand July 2000 (figure 5.36) its Oltean (Hanson 2003). and much of plan revealed Unfortunately, the entire areaof the vicus lies beneaththe surroundingcultivated fields (figure 5.36) and is slowly being destroyedeachyear. Large quantitiesof archaeologicalmaterial have been discoveredin the fields eastof the fort and to the west of the neighbouring modem village of Geoagiu.The quantity of remainsstill brought to the surfaceevery year by ploughing is significant, fields debris by the the or collected aroundthem. Theseremains cultivated on scattered as proven include not just the usual pottery fragmentsor bricks, tiles and stonesusedin construction,but also larger stonesnormally usedfor the pavements of public spaces or roads,and even possible fragments. architectural has greatly enhanced Recentaerial reconnaissance our understandingof the vicus by revealing the to be walls of numerousstonebuildings through a combinationof parch marks in what appeared in barley (Oltean cereal crops, mainly cropmarks negative and Hanson 2001). and rough grazing The vicus settlement(figure 5.38) was laid out on a north-west/south-east alignment, with a
167

Micia. This be the to area, as at main settlement grid seems subdividing grid rudimentarystreet further beyond to 2 the settlement, extend one to which seem roads, perpendicular roughly aligned The the to the the (probably the and other of province) north-west. road main to the one north-east fort, but focus beyond immediately began the the the buildings rampart eastern of of the cluster of foM distances between 250the flatter the lay to extending of at the north east ground settlement on 350 metresaway from the probableareaof the fort (figure 5.38). Somebasic strip-buildings were look leading to the east, which very similar to other off a road with revealed,particularly aligned buildings fort, however, Nearer to the the from Dacia buildings or elsewhere. examplesof vicus building large least include They of approximately rectangular one at showedgreatercomplexity. 15x6Ometressubdividedin the mannerof a military barrack block (A); one corridor building within into less buildings least 4 (B); elongated subdivided a numberof of examples at a walled enclosure building (Q. Different buildings two alignmentsare enclosures small within similar rooms; and least two phases of constructionor settlementplanning. of at suggestive perhaps The nameof Germisaraattestedby the TabulaPeutingeriana and epigraphicmaterial (IDR 111/3 baths Roman both fortlWcus in for been have the the 213-257) to at and complex use seems nos. the latter were Geoagiu-Bai(figure 5.52), (cf Rusu-Pescaru andAlicu 2000,66) probably because in have A the caseof another belong to the to situation existed might vicus. similar considered famoushot springscomplex at Baile Herculanesomekilometres away from the fort and settlementat Mehadia (Beneaand Lalescu 1998).Germisaraseemsthereforeto have included a whole complex of between hot 5.53, the (military mid-distance vicus springs quarry vicus, cemetery, sites -figure -at from Cigmau to Geoagiuand Geoagiu-Bai. the area spa),occupyinga significant and Finally, the fort and military vicus at Orastioarade Sus locatedto the north of the modem village, discoveries have least Since is Bucium, the photographic towards well-known. no aerial currently beenmade,it demonstrates a striking contrastwith Micia, Razboieni or indeed,Cigmau in the vicinity. Most information comesfrom antiquarianreports(including occasionalamateurexcavation) in in 1957 Limited only excavation was a north-westerntower of undertaken and epigraphicsources. the forL The vicus and cemeteryare only briefly mentionedaround the fort (with inscriptions, (1969,134-5) believes Tudor 1984,257), EDR Russu funerary lions that and al = el sculptures, -see the likely economicactivities would havebeenanimal farming and wood exploitation, althoughthe landscape location be the basis for the to this within seems assumption only Despite its limitations in terms of the visibility of archaeologicalfeaturesin non-responsive in features, in terms of appreciatingsite built-up and negative areasor of vegetationcoverage, insight into 1), the natureof (see considerable provides evidence chapter aerial photographic phasing Dacia. For first have in throughout the time the and area we some study military vicus settlements indication of the natureand extent of the sitesat Cigmau and Razboieni, while at Micia, despitethe discoveries detail the provide considerable aerial additional of the new many yearsof excavation, fort for Micia, Buildings the attested on all sides of now at the are extending settlement. extent of limits the from lkm to across of the settlement,though the main south-west north-east approximately focus of intenseactivity remainsto the north and eastof the fort. Also, at Razboieni,the extentof
168

the vicus hasbeenproved to be significantly larger than expected,both to the north and to the south from the fort. Although someof the presentgapsin the site layout might have beena result of Razboieni Micia both development, building could be categorisedas a partially and modem (a term usedto describethe vicus at Housesteads dispersedsettlements on Hadrian's Wall with its with cultivation terraces- Snape 1989,469). At Razboienithe clustersof buildings interspersed layout in the northernpart of the vicus, with two setsof grid aligriments and a variable density of that the settlementfirst startedto evolve as a ribbon-type occupation(fig. 5.43 above),might suggest developmentalong the east-west road (very likely part of the main road systemof the province), as in the southernsectorof the vicus along the road to the river crossing, and later the empty spaceswere. gradually infilled (Burnhamand Wacher 1990,24-5; Rorison 2001,33. ) A ribbon-type arrangement fort is further to the the west of at Micia, but to the eastin the main focus evolution apparent without is highly Cigmau, the the more use of space structured. At Cigrnau,the vicus is more site, and at of focusedand compact,but still extendsfor some500m mainly around the north and eastof the fort and away from it along the main road, in a fashionhighly reminiscent of the military vicus at Old Carlisle in Cumbria,also recordedentirely from aerial photography(Jonesand Mattingly 1990,174). Its layout fits a combinationof two types of vicus layout (tangential and circular) as defined by Sommer(1999,81-3). level of planning control and organisation,(either by The layout of the vici indicatesa considerable is discussion in forthcoming). This Hanson from the military or the Wcanithemselves apparent -see details of streetandbuilding layout, evidenceof initial planning of the size of the settlementas indicatedby the position, when known, of the cemeteries(sufficiently far away to allow adequate spacefor the constructionof the vicus -seeSommer 1989,472; 1999,86) or by evidenceof stress habitable the the area.Systemsof minor roadsare apparent,forming a available space within upon loose grid patternand emphasising the proto-urbancharacterof the settlements. Suchsystemsof above,especiallyat Micia. There, major roadsoriented eastroads are evidentin the sitesdiscussed west (3-4) and north-south(2) were locatedat some90m intervals (in a pattern paralleledin the civilian Wcusat Mathay in Gaul -seeRorison 2001,189-190), although on a slightly different angle to the fort allgmnent Most of theseinternal roadsappearto have stonedrains on eachside. Precise is availableonly at Micia, where they are found at some evidenceof the location of the cemeteries distanceto the southand eastof the fort, but their approximatelocation at Cigmau and Razboieni indicatessimilar concernsfor space.Small templesand shrinescan be found towardsthe limits of the with the cemeteries,as is evidencedat Micia, settlement(Rorison2001,44), sometimesassociated where two small rectangularbuildings and one rectangularstructurewith an apseto the south-westof templesor mausolea(Fig. 5.35). the fort may represent Micia and Cigmau(lessso Razboieni)hint at considerable pressureon spacein the vicus and the importanceof proximity to the fort itselL At neither of them is any sign of restrictionson buildings forts defences the to the apparent. Though the natural topographyconstrains of right up encroaching the extentto which this is possibleat Cigmau,there are buildings immediately outsidethe eastgate fort, by the the althoughthesecould have included the sharedfacilities on plateauoccupiedprimarily baths buildings, Micia Similarly, the baths. them the among at complex, occupiedthe limited of
169

spacebetweenthe fort andthe river Mures. At Razboieni,however, denseoccupationaroundthe fort areamight not havebeenso apparentfrom the beginning, the spacebeing occupiedsubsequently when facedwith many settlersseekingto be locatedas close as possible to the fort, but without the that had facedMicia and Cigmau. In Britain it is assumed that the forts sametopographicpressure an unoccupiedareabeyondthe defencesas a security cordon, and a similar would haveneeded is thought to be a late (Severan? ) development,explainedby the abolition of pattern of encroachment the ban on military marriageresulting in an increasein the demandfor spacein the vicus, or as a reflection of the peacefidcharacterof the frontier by that time (e.g. Salway 1967,13-14). To some for forts, by Piso for legionary this similar auxilia as demonstrated a situation extent would suggest bases,that militaryjurisdiction extendedfor 2 leuga around(Piso 1991). But this evidenceis exclusively relatedto the property rights of Romancommunities and is not linked to strategic dispositions,sinceit is known that cannabaewere normally located intra leugam.Moreover, in Germany,wheremore extensiveexcavationsof military vici have taken place (Sommer 1989,472), there is no indication that empty spacewas ever left betweenthe fort ditches and the first houses. Without excavationit is impossibleto say whetherthe crowding of buildings up againstthe defences of the forts is a late developmentin Dacia, or merely a normal reflection of the closeassociation betweenthe military and civil communities,but the latter seemsmore likely given the current indications that the stonebuildings mirror the position of their earliest timber predecessors. Furthermore,the fact that the buildings at Micia had beendemolishedand rebuilt systematicallyin the samelocation,re-usingmaterial from earlier phases, and the absence of finds (mainly coarse pottery andbroken lamps) indicating that they had beensystematicallyclearedbefore demolition (Oltean el aL forthcoming), emphasises onceagain the pressureon the available space(seealso Ruscu 1999). hasoffered a further opportunity to identify particular types of activity within The aerial perspective the settlementon the basisof the morphology of the buildings revealed. Within the vici at Micia, Cigmau and Razboieniseveraltypes of buildings havebeenidentified. The most common form in a military vicus is generallyconsideredto be the so-calledstrip-house,a long rectangularstructure usually positionedwith its narrow end facing the road to maximise accessto the streetfrontage (Salway 1967,167-9). Suchbuildings are frequentlycharacterised as tavernsor shops,possibly involving small-scale production on the premises(e.g. Sommer 1988and forthcoming). Possible examplesof suchstructuresare apparentat the north-eastemlimit of the vicus at Cigmau lining the main road from the settlement,for they are frequentlyfound especially along major arteries,but also (Rorison2001,44). Severalpossible examplesof such on secondary roadswithin settlements structuresare apparentat Micia in the busy areato the eastof the fort, where the recentexcavations in one areaallowed greaterdetail in their analysis.The length of the excavatedbuildings and their fall into in indicates they that the categoryof strip-buildings. the of road orientation respect to have combinedboth domesticand industrial Furthermore,their function in most phases seems activity. The natureof the commercial/industrialactivities involved is indicatedby someof the artefactualmaterialrecovered,such as iron slag,melted glass,unfinished artefacts,and quantitiesof domestic is by bones, the presenceof decoratedwall plasterin the their confirmed use while animal
170

indicated two-storey tiled Their structures with possibly and roofs timber construction, phase. second in the third timber phase,also attestsa certain level of architectural pretension(Oltean et aL forthcoming). Cellars are commonfeaturesof housesand workshopsin both civilian and military vid in Gaul (Rorison 2001,38-9) and Germany(Sommer 1999,88). Severalpositive crop marks indicate sunken including Razboieni large in them too the at pits, some of the vicus of comer north-eastern structures their function was for storage.Their chronological associationsare unclear from the aerial to suppose by Roman being the stone structures of them or overlapping visibly overlapped photographs,noneof Indeed, somelarge sunkenstructures/pits, date, so they are potentially contemporaneous. which seem to have beenintegratedwithin the plan of stonebuildings at Razboieni (in the north-eastemcomer), in However, been have the areaof the previous rescue excavations as cellars. used could perhaps Neolithic indicate the occupationand thesestructurescould, therefore, of presence northern vicus belong to a much earlierphaseof occupation(Moga and Ciugudean 1995,1534). The barrack-like structurefrom Cigmau (Fig. 5.38 A) is not readily parallelled in Dacia, but can be It is not dissimilar in plan to severalbuildings in the found in a few other exampleselsewhere. in in England (Jones Mattingly 1990,17) Old Carlisle the civilian and and northern military vicus at is It (Rorison 2001,70-1). in Gaul Malain Bliesbruck probably a result of conjoining a and vici at in interstitia, the earliestphaseof the as provision of without strip-houses number of standard England (Frere 1971,14-19 in Vendamium. in insulaVV the of southern at municipium construction is involve likely function Us Cigmau building fig. 8). This to the that of at a would suggest and industrial/commercial like the ordinary examplesof stripactivity and combination of residential buildings. Their layout seemslikely to reflect somemilitary influence in their constructionand the in building Micia local by the one at legulde and attestsa military civilian officina produced use of 1985,126). (Teposu-Marinescu relationship similar Many of the houseswithin vici seemto have a plan similar to those encounteredin villa sites,though house dimensions. Here is have too the them compact reduced plan visible, considerably most of building division. (Fig. An internal 5.35,1) with a central corridor elongated space similar along with house' is 'row known in Micia to type the the a of the similar at vicus sideof north-eastern on Danubearea,paralleledin the villa housefrom Winden am See,Austria (Smith 1997,203 and fig. 56). At Tibiscum andPorolissumin Dacia, a number of excavatedbuildings have rooms ranged indeed, of entrance portico a sort or, with colonnadesfacing the and corridor on eachside of a central been delimited by have individual to There well passageways or alleys propertiesseem road. back (Benea 2000,33-6 the 10). from 3 the to the at workshops and plates and street access providing in plan Examplesof this type are presentalso at Micia (Fig. 5.35), Razboieni (where the resemblance in in is the Cigmau the Tibiscum sector of southern vicus) and probably especially at striking, with the north-eastern sectoralong the main road. Finally, a numberof buildings appearto be associated with enclosuresor yards containing ancillary 450m 250m located buildings The two and respectively to the west of the fort at some structures. Micia, both rectangularand internally subdivided,are associated with enclosurescontaining ancillary
171

structures.Both seemlikely to be domesticstructureswith a yard, the westcrnmostof them -with the houseinside a rectangularyard with ancillary buildings along the enclosurewalls- looking very Three buildings (e. Deva, immediately (Figure 5.35,2) to see to the eastof above). g. similar a villa the fort at Cigmau (Fig. 5.38, Q, are probably also domestic. So far, noneof the military vici displaysobvious examplesof buildings that might reasonablybe interpretedashaving a public function. There are as yet, for example, no indicationsof designated German (e. Sommer 1999,86-7). Therefore, the sites of g. at some as attested public market spaces, have taken place within the workshopsand this that trading activities must we must assume assumptioncould be supportedby the large numberof buildings with accessandporticoes facing the buildings found in (Salway frequently The official vici are mansiones attested most main roads. 1967,170-73; Sommer 1984,47), though evenon the basis of excavation thesecan be difficult to here are the identify with any certainty. The only possiblecandidatesat any of the sites discussed buildings with rooms groupedarounda centralyard at Cigmau and perhapsone to the north of the hasbeenundertaken,it is best to assume fort at Razboieni. Until fin-therresearch that theseare more likely to be domesticstructures. for local administration purposes, Nor are there any clearly identified formal spaces either basilica or curia, indicating that noneof the siteshad acquiredmunicipal status,despitetheir size and importance. Severalattemptshavebeenmadeat Micia to identify a basilica within the vicus. But the large building identified as a possibleexample(Teposu-Marinescu1985,126) lacks adequate confirmation, and the provision of both a cellar and hypocaustis more indicative of a combined residential and commercialproperty than a public building. Similarly, the possiblepublic building nearestto the fort, identified by Marghitan (1970,591) on the basis of its architecturalelaboration, has more in commonwith other domesticand commercialbuildings in the vicinity, including the discovery hypocausts. However, the of of what looks to be an aisledbuilding of provision considerablesize within the easternareaof the vicus addsa new possible candidateon morphological grounds(Figure 5.35,3). The development are uncertain. Only at Micia havethe phases and chronology of thesesettlements usual estimationsbasedon finds and epigraphicevidencebeenverified by excavation,most of them above,the vicus there seemsto have beenestablishedat the of the very recentdate.As presented local it the the time garrison of and soon establishment was not for sometime that or very after same the timber architecture,althoughundoubtelypretentious,was replacedby stonebuildings (Olteanet have Razboieni forthcoming). At Cigmau timber such phases and not yet beenhighlighted (as in al. basis Micia but the Dacia), the new excavations of at on of and that at Casei(see military vici most infer have been at leastone earlier phase that there Isac forthcoming), it seems to would reasonable in Dacia inmost the timber prior to their constructionin stone. In any vici of military construction of internal the these the with along provision of various amenities,attests settlements, size of case, very their importance,not just as centralplacesfor a large areaarround,but as examplesof what would have beenthe most commonform of substantiallyRomanisedsettlementin the province.

172

2. Location of settlements It is perhapsprematureto generalise about settlementpatternson current evidencebecause of the difficulty of identifying settlement type. As shown above,the characterof a very large numberof based be is on their extent or the natureof associated estimated easily cannot sites unknown and it is believed be At few However, that the most populated present can made. remarks a artefacts. Mures Transylvania, the Dacia valley and along the main road of particularly was western zone of the province, most of which is coveredby the study area.Indeed, settlementis very densethere (see figure 5.44), and as might be expected,the most populatedclusters are groupedaroundthe major andApulum. urban centresat Sannizegetusa The recordedsitesare fairly evenly distributed acrossthe territory. With extremely few exceptions they are locatedin the lowlands and it would appearthat occupation did not extendabovealtitudesof 400m. The exceptionsare usually specialisedsettlements, mainly for the extraction of natural from (quarrying the pre-Romantimes at the continuing settlement or represent or mining), resources (e. (e. few Cetea). A temporary to traces are related military activity g. Sarmizegetusa sameplace g. in the OrastieMountains),while ffirther tracesat FeteleAlbe havenot Regia and Tarsa-Prihodiste been explored. Also, as many as 153 out of 402 recordedsites are located within 5 kilometres of the Mures, another 101 being locatedin Tara Hategului (figure 5.44). Indeed,clustering is evident arroundcolonia kilomctres, located 15 71 Sarmizegetusa, of sites a as recorded within radius and with with as many most of the remaining 30 at lessthan 27 kilometres.The only site located further away is the quarry (and possiblesettlement)at Banita. Similar clustering of sites is recordedaroundApulum, with 93 just few kilometres 15 towns the and outside this zone.The small of a more recordedsiteswithin by Tabula Peutingeriana the the the and possible sites such as military vici mentioned also centres, have signsof activity around,with the exceptionof Micia and Orastioarade Sus (figure 5.44). Much like in other provincesof the empire,villas (figure 5.26) are locatedmainly in areaswith agricultural potential and idylic settingssuchas on gentle slopespreferably facing south,near in location Dacia seeMitrofan 1974and 1998). (for of earlier assessments villa streamsor rivers including in the new additions found through Indeed,most of the examples this chapter, examined it However, has been fiilfill these requirements. of noted that many some aerial photography, but hill located slopes, quite the contrary (e.g. Hobita-Hobeni south-facing on exampleswere not Hill, Hobita-Sucioni,Deva,Aiud, Salasude Sus,Oarda).Indeed,the expectationthat villas would have usedonly south-facingslopeswould greatly and unreasonablylimit the number of such dictated have been by location location inevitably the their would of the individual establishments; in However, its topography. many exampleswhere site plans were available,a tendency property and of the villa housesto be orientedon a north-westto south-eastalignment has beennoted (seeabove). But if a south-facinghill-slope was not available,villas were certainly 'houses with a view'. From their location, they overlookedlarge areasof the rural countryside, and in some examplesit hasbeen investment in luxury flooring or wall in the that it these complex of that parts particular was noted decorationwas made(e.g. Hobita, Deva, Aiud -see above).Moreover, in somecasesa tower was
173

built on that particular side along the enclosurewall (Hobita and Deva -figure 5.24). Whether 'the landscape important from the towards the was surrounding or, on the contrary, from the view' villa about the expressionof social status settlementsaroundtowardsthe villas (basedon assumptions through architecturalmonumentality,as in the caseof hillforts) is debatable. Probably both were equally important But the location of villas, certainand possible,in relation to other sites shows a different patternto that which hasbeenassumed so far to be in force. The location of villa sites hasbeengenerally to the towns related simply to their proximity to main roadsand navigablerivers, and to easyaccess or military centreswhich providedthe market for their products (Mitrofan 1974,46). However, though within the study areathesesitesare locatedwithout exception in arable areas,they are found mainly within the buffer zonesof the major towns, which seemto have attractedthem more than with 32 andApulum with 34 -figure 5.26). Very few other central smaller centres(Sannizegetusa Calan; (Strei) (Rapoltu in Mare) and one have the near one certain one certain vicinityvillas places possible nearUroi; 3 possiblenearCigrnau;one certain (Sibot - 149) near Blandiana; one certain (Aiudul de Sus),and one possiblenearAiud; and one possiblenear Razboieni. The two major towns do have severalvillas locatedwithin lessthan 5 kilometres, but at Apulum they start to emergeonly (the for kilometres distance least 2.4-3 this contrast are discussedin more possible reasons of at at a detail in the next chapter). Theoretical studieshave observedthe tendencyof ancient and modern rural centralplacesto emerge at distancesof 5-10 kilometresand that of larger towns at even 30 kilornetres apart(Bintliff 1997). Within the presentstudy area,there are 30-32 kilornetresbetweenthe main centresof Sannizegelusa Aiud for. 4pulum, but not and Apulum and the nearestsmallercentre(Calan for Sarmizegetusa; Blandiana,which is at lessthan 15kilometres away from Apulum). Whether or not this theoretical (see is Diaconescu but it is is 1997,14-15), reality uncertain clear that the reflecting model distribution of centralplacesin the landscape was reasonablycapableof covering the eventualneeds arroundthem. One exceptionis visible, however, on the easternside of Tara of the settlements distances(27-32 kilometres) from both Hategului, where severalsitesare locatedat considerable and Calan. nearestcentres,Sarmizegetusa The majority of sitesthroughoutthe study areaprovide evidencefor extensiveuseof Romanbuilding in in the easternhalf (Popa2002,22 1the especially of province, with other parts contrast material, 2). This hasbeenonce againtakento reflect ethnicity and wealth. But according to current data, to Roman products given their location thesesiteswere also the most favouredin having easyaccess in terms of road and river transport,or in relation to the main urban centres.Out of 214 siteswith 3 kilometres 147 bricks tiles, are within and of the line of an identified stone walls, use of reported road or of the site of a reportedroad, and quite possibly more of the remaining 67 would comeinto on the Roman road systemof the area.By way the first group if further work were to be undertaken finds located further than 3 kilometres from 21 13 are pottery only sites with out of of comparison, the roads. The relationshipto the tranport systemwould appearto have been an important factor, (figure 5.49). therefore,in the processof romanizationof the landscape
174

3. Economy 3.1. Agriculture In other provincesof the empire,clear indicationsof the agricultural use of rural territories come Centuriatedlands,with centuride usually of 20 by 20 aclus (i. e. from studiesof ancientfield systems. 200 iugera each- cf. Dilke 1971,82-88) are often presentin Italy and in the Mediterraneanarea (Chouquerand Favory 1991; Arino-Gil et aL 1992),but non-centuriatedfield systemshave alsobeen detected(e.g. in Britain). In Britain, agricultureof Romandate has been investigated field drainage identified largely identification the and through systems systems of archaeologically This hasprovided the opportunity for huge areasof through interpretationof aerial photographs. landscape to be mappedin detail (e.g. Palmer 1995and 1996).Grazing lands or exarnplesof plough has identified, been have analysis provided evidenceof the types of crops pollen while also marks used (seeDark and Dark 1997,93-113). But in Dacia, sinceno previous landscape studieshavebeenundertakenin order to reveal clear to connectionsbetweensettlementoccupationand arablefields, the relationship of settlements more implicit than explicit. Indeed,although aerial photographywithin agriculture is in most cases the study areahasrecordeda numberof linear featuresindicating previous field boundaries,the (see date 1) has chapter within property systems of recent changes additional problem of multiple basis field for to the ancient sufficient attempts reconstruct systems. a reduced chanceof providing Moreover, the distribution of land to colonists(adsignatio) that everybodyassumes to have taken place still remainslargely a supposition.Veteransfrom the legions usedto be given land properties deduclae (secundum the territory to their within of coloniae gradum milifiae) rank suchas according is the most likely (Piso 1995,63). Indeed,the rural territory of Sartnizegetusa Sannizegetusa foundation indicated by its for the circumstances and on analogywith of candidate centuriation,as the contemporarycolonia at Poetovioin Pannonia. Although clear signs of ccrituriation have not yet beendiscoveredat the latter settlementeither, a referencein the 4grimensoresindicatesthat it did indicating Mures 90* junctions 1974,119). In havebeen (Mocsy the valley cropmarks road existed locations,onejust outsidethe areaoccupiedby buildings at Micia and the discoveredin two separate (see below). lattcr involved de (415) The Vintu Jos to the the a more at villa site eastof other indicate more convincingly the centuriation of the territory south of which could area, substantial further study is neededbefore this possibility can be Apulum (fig. 5.50 below). However, considerable confirmed. The focus on settling the lowlands in Romantimes is, however, a clear indicator of a stresson arable large buildings the In the provision of above, probably used for presented villa cases cultivation. finds indicate (e.g. their along with economy, associated the of ploughshares producealso storageof Hobita -Hobeni hill, Aiudul de Sus)andmillstones (e.g. Deva, Hobita-Hobeni hill and Sucioni hill 2, Orlea, Cincis, Aiudul de Sus,Manerau)or other relatedmaterials(scissorsand spindles-Santamaria and sickles were recordedin other sickle-e. g. Aiudul de Sus).Millstones, someploughshares homesteads in or many other settlementsof unknown too, possible agricultural villages, contexts (Cetea, Obreja, Daco-Roman Noslac, Blandiana,Sebes, Roman both culture material and naturewith
175

figure 6.2). Varmaga,Ciumbrud, Ciuguzel,Decea,Miraslau, Petresti,Paclisa, Spalnaca Sebesel, -see From Benic (183) comesthe lower part of a grapepressand at Spalnaca(368) fishing net weights for (Cincis Lechinta de Muresbeen it has discovered. Although and argued seeProtase1968, were is documented 508), the association perhaps villages and villas so far only at Vintu de of agricultural Jos (415), if the villa provesto be contemporaneous with the habitation of the adjacentvillage (see in is due failures finther lack the However, to the the archaeological record examples of of above). landscape. to their than the real absence the previousresearch within rather methodology havebeenhighlighted at any of the sites, the animal fanning economyis Since no animal enclosures bone (especially implicitly, documented the through quantities of significant of of evidence and also (although in in the excavations archaeological rarely mentioned all virtually cattle) present and pigs (CIL III 933) lambs Montana list from Rosia A the tablet proving p. availability of and wax print). local for the market and the epigraphicreferenceto a collegium on consumption meat piglets locally A (CIL III 1174,1208,1217) use of produced wool. suggests possible study centonadorum house in from Cicau-Saliste (2000) Gudea by Gudea bone the a sunken settlement at and material of bones, horse, 16 10 of pig and only 3 of sheep/goat. for fragments 44 of cattle of producedevidence Significantly larger quantitiescome,as expected,from the fort at Micia (cattle-894; sheep/goat-324; de (cattle-792; from, 4pulum-Statia Salvare horse-44, birds-30 sheep/goat-317; pieces); and pig-343; (cattle-133; Sartnizegetusa from birds-I 5 horse-229; the and at amphitheatre pieces); and pig-317; in if latter The 1). to they consumption military and meat even refer examples, pig-59; sheep/goat-2 in farming In territories. these the the of surrounding rural animals reflect contexts, should still urban indicate bones for large the of could carcasses, as processing of examplein the quantities cases some Manerau. Deva Further forthcoming) (Oltean Micia the and at or perhaps villas aL at et vicus from (including in have been the study area)the the that sites general examined made observations they would have animals killed were generallyadults,which meansthat for cattle and sheep/goats been exploitedprimarily for non-meatproducts(milk, wool) or for traction (use of cattle for traction hasbeenclearly documentedin the osteologicalmaterial fromApulum). The samestudy also improvements breed have beenmade, as suggested by an that the could some observation advances increasein size of the adult animals(Gudeaand Gudea2000,264-5).

3.2. Exploitation of natural resources The exploitation of natural resources suchasgold, iron, stoneand salt in Dacia was extensive(figure 5.47). In order to eliminate an obvious bias factor, the presentstudy has deliberately excludedthe famousgold mining district in the Apuseni Mountains,which was intensively and systematically is the The by Romans. the surface within study site the area exploitation gold only exploited de Sus (Wollmann 1996,149-50), Pianu large at of which tracesare still area exploitation over a very (see 4). However, 5.47) (figure pre-conquest activity continued chapter probably and which extant intensive Rusca in in Poiana district iron the Roman the mountains attracted activity the mining Inferior, Teliucu Ruda, Hunedoara, Ghelar, Alun such as centres; and perhaps extraction period, with Almasu Mic. Tracesof quarrying, mining tools and eventracesof buildings related to the extraction
176

have been discovered (Wollmann 1996).However, indicating there settlements associated activity or from the OrastieMountains around Sarmizegetusa Regia ceased it seems to be that the iron resources (see Roman during the any aparent reason without earlier in chapter4 and further period exploited discussionin chapter6). An important resourceavailable in the areaat Ocna Mures was salt which was also exploited by the Romans(figure 5.47). Even the Latin nameof the settlement,Salinae (for Ocna Mures itself, for Razboieniacrossthe Mures or perhapsfor both of them) confirms this. According to Wollmann (1996,24 1) tracesof Romansurfaceexploitation and adjacentbuildings (someof them with vaulted large between Ocna Spalnaca. Mures in 19'h the area and over a century roofs) were still visible Probably the tracesof pit quarrying identified nearUioara de Jos are also relatedto salt resources. Finally, numeroustracesof stonequarrying in the Romantime have beenidentified (figure 5.47). Probably the most famousquarry in Dacia is the marble exploitation at Bucova imediately to the from kilometres Sarmizegetusa. "Until 1884 II Gates Iron the away when and only passage west of the marblequarry at Ruschitawas opened,[Bucova ... ] provided almost without interruption the and even lime" (Wollmann 1996,260). The capital at material for urban constructions,monuments Sarmizegetusa madethe most extensiveuseof this material, so intensive that it entitled someto identify a genuine"culture of marble' (seeCiongradi 2004 a; Diaconescu2004), but the marble originating in this quarry travelled aroundthe whole province and was usedat Apulum and in many (Deva, Deva Bejan, locations. Andesite around avaliability was concentrated other urban or rural Pietroasa,Cozia, Uroi -figure 5.30). From there, it travelled accordingto market needs,probably as finite products(millstones,but also funerarymonumentsor architecturalpieces)since the tools found in the quarries(e.g. Bejan) included stonemason's tools amongthoseusedfor extraction. Other Limestone located Deva, from like that the was more readily at were nearby. villa also workshops, availableacrossthe area.It continuedto be extractedat the Magura Calanului quarry and in the area, where now at least4 quarriesare in operation(Calan, Streisangiorgiu,Valea Sangiorgiului, de Piatra).The quarry at Telna north of Apulum also continuesto be used,but (despitean Santamaria evident intensification of activity in the area,with anotherquarry at Tclna and new quarriesat Ighiu and Ighiel) not that at Craiva.Sannizegetusa Remetea, also usedlimestoneavailable in the imediately (figure Iordachel 5.29). from to the the town that the west of valley vicinity, probably Other quarrieswere locatedat Banita, Caijiti, Geoagiu,Carpinis and Cabesti.At someof thesesites de Piatra,Pianu de Sus,Teliucu Inferior, Ghelar, Deva, tools were also found (at Ighiu, Santarnaria, identified has been far it Sard, but Cincis). So the within quarry study sandstone area at only one and is also supposed that a sandstone quarry would have existedin the Deva-Micia area(Wollmann the presence 1996,260).For similar reasons, of anothersourcein the vicinity of we should assume (e.g. Sannizegetusa, was usedextensivelyespeciallywithin the early stonephases where sandstone for the Hadrianic forum seeDiaconescu2004). The mineswere probably under the imperial administration,but some involvement especiallyof The discovery of extraction tools in the villa house individuals and villa sitesmust also be accepted. from in deposited the small cemeteryof the villa at Cincis nearby iron the graves ore ritually and of
177

in someway with iron ore extraction, as hasbeen indicatesthat the site was probably associated highlighted in previous studies(Floca and Valea, 1965).At the Deva villa numerousmillstones, including unfinishedpieces,indicate the presence of a workshop producing millstones rather than simply the intensiveinvolvementof the site in cereal cultivation and processing(seeabove).Since the villa site is locatedat the foot of the large andesitequarriesaround Deva (Deva, Bejan, Pietroasa),the workshopwas most likely using the andesiteavailable nearby.The opening of new quarriesas well as the continuity of previousextraction sitesand their location not far away from the main urban centresand populatedareas,reflectsthe generalspreadof stone architecturein the study areain the Romanperiod. Also, although sometransport of stonewas undertaken,it has beennoted that, unlike the pre-conquest were usedwheneveravailable and future period, local resources researchinto the location of Romanquarrieswill probably confirm this (seealso Wollmann 1996, 267).

3.3. Manufacture As in the pre-Romanperiod, evidencefor craftmanshipand manufacturewithin the province are in biased by the archaeologicalcontexts.Sinceno waterlogged of artefacts survival severely preservationof organic materialsmeansthat only manufacture complexeshavebeenexcavated, involving pottery production,metalworking and stoneworking are well represented within the study area.However,tool finds indicate weaving taking place to someextent in the villa at Santamaria Orlea (spindlesor loom weight discoveredthere) or probablewoodworking in the village at Obreja (borer, axe, adze)and at the site at Spalnaca(chisel, axe). Extensivepottery production was undertakenin Micia, wherea large group of potttery kilns have beenexcavated to the north-eastof the vicus,probably on the outskirts of the settlementand nearone Aerial photographyhasrevealeda numberof circular structureswhich could of the cemeteries. indicate fin-ther kilns the presence of within the settlementitself a little distancefrom the fort perhaps (figure 5.45). Pottery productionhasbeenattestedelsewheremainly by presence of kilns, someused for constructionmaterials(Zeicani, Hobita-Sucioni Hill, Breazova,Silvasu de Jos) and someprobably for pottery production (Oarda,Folt, Silvasu de Sus).However, a mould used for terra sigillata which could suggesta workshop imitating terra sigillata production hasbeendiscoveredat Pesteana, in the area.Thesediscoveriesare locatedmainly at possiblevilla sites in Tara Hategului (with the hint (figure Folt) 5.47) this at villa-related industrial production,in a could perhaps and exceptionof (e.g. Italy seeAttolini et al. 1991; Britain fashion which hasbeenrevealedalso elsewhere -see Darvill and McWhirr 1984). From similar contexts,althoughlocatedprimarily on the easternside of Tara Hategului, comes in form (2 iron Sampetru, for 2 at Bucium-Orlea of mainly slag activities at metallurgical evidence both Interestingly, Sampetru 5.47). (figure Daljii) Valea at and Bucium Orlea iron and one at (see in in 4) immediate been has the context chapter a pre-Roman attested vicinity. metallurgy
178

(iron ingot discoveredat Reductionof iron oreswas certainly undertakenin the areaof Hunedoara. 'Manastire'-site 83) probably using local ore extraction (site 82). Recentexcavationsinside the north-eastern sectorof the Wcusat Micia also revealedevidenceof iron slag and melted glass, indicating the probablepresence of an iron and glassworkshop there (Oltean et aL forthcoming). Stoneworking (figure 5.47) is attested mainly through the discovery of tools relatedto suchactivities de Piatra), although one millstone workshop was located at quarry sites (e.g. Deva-Bejan,Santarnaria indication Further (see Deva the of the presenceof stoneworking above). within villa site at Apulum by discovery Sarmizegetusa the the and are provided area outside of study activities within one fragmentof a stonecolumn from Calanwith the inscription of Diogeneslapidarius (CIL III Also, the results 7859) and anotherlapidarius, M. CoceiusLucius is attestedat Micia (CIL 1111365). of a recentstudy of the funerarymonumentsfrom Dacia supportsthe idea of the presenceat Micia of a local workshopproducing fanerarymonuments(stelae)basedon stylistic and typological (Ciongradi 2004 b). arguments

3.4. Networking and communication (figure 5.48) All thesesiteswere not separate entitiesbut maintainedrelationshipsand were communicatingwith eachother.The communicationsystemin the Roman period continuedto make active use of the Mures river, both for navigationand for structuring the terrestrial network aroundit (figure 5.48). The exacttrajectoriesof the roadsare unknown, for too little researchhasbeenundertakenon this to have run from the topic. As indicatedby the TabulaPeutingeriana,the main road is supposed TransylvanianIron Gatesand Bucovathrough Sannizegetusa, crossingthe whole of Tara Hategului to reachthe Strei valley. It would then have followed the line of the river until reachingthe Mures it East Simeria somewhere where would have crossedthe river to Uroi (Petris) and of valley continuedfollowing the Mures line on its north side towards Germisara.The road continuedto follow the river through Blandiana,Apulum, Aiud and Razboieni,where it had preferredto follow the line of Aries river to reachPotaissaoutsidethe study area(and from there to Napoca and led to other centresof the province or beyond its boundaries. Porolissum).Further extensions hasbeendoneinto the Romanroad network of Dacia. In most casespublications But little research do not include plans of the identified sectionsof roadsand they had to be included here only as point discoveries. This study hasmappedseveralsectorsof the road, which were identified on the 18701875cadastralmap of Transylvania(indicatedby labels suchas "ROmer Weg";"Drum Trajan'). Aerial surveyhas also identified and enabledthe mapping of further road sectorsto the eastof Cigmau (Hansonand Oltean 2003,103-9; Oltean and Hanson200 1; also visible on CoronaKH4A 26 1965), from July Bobalna and Sebes(figure 5.48). DS1022-21104DF025 satellite sequence havebeenidentified at Micia and to the south of Aulum, and east Furtherroadsoutsidesettlements de latter Jos. In Vintu the traditional the case,they consist of T-junctions on a village at of villa and but 5.50-5.5 1), discovered (figures these in the future to until more of are consistent alignment insufficient basis to advancethe interpretationthat they they provide confirm a consistentpattern, were part of a systemof centuriation.
179

The road systemwas little affectedby problemsof river crossings.Thesewould have beenmore difficult acrossthe Mures, but river crossingserviceswere probably in place in multiple locations.in the easternpart of the study areaall the towns and small towns (Uroi, Germisara, Blandiana, Razboieni)arc locatedon the right bank of the river, while many of the villa sitesand 4pulum, Aiud, . far, left. According located to the the mapped roads so major river crossingswould villages are on have beennecessary at leastat Uroi-Simeria, Geoagiu-Gelmar,Alba lulia (Partos)-Oarda and Razboieni-Ocna Mures. The importanceof the Mures river for transportationwas maintainedand from harbour Apart Roman during the the at, 4pulum, such instalationsare period. probably enhanced to havebeenin place at Micia, to which we could probably supposeothersat Uroi and supposed Razboieni-Ocna Mures in order to facilitate the marketability of their product. like administrationand taxation within territories are difficult to define. They rely largely Processes on the possibility of defining the statusof the settlementsand on historical information about such Moreover,the territories belongingto the main Roman towns are difficult to define. Piso processes. (1995) tried to define the limits of the rural territory of Samizegetusa on basisof epigraphic evidencementioningindividuals from Sannizegetusa's citizen-body. This hasestablishedthat the only colonia deductain the province, foundedimmediately after the conquest,had a very large half of the study area,perhapsdivided from the territory extendingover the whole southwestern territory of Apulum by the Cioara stream.However, important parts of its territory would havebeen under imperial administrationas mining (e.g. the iron mines of the PoianaRuscaMountains) or of gold, iron and salt were more localised,but stone quarrying districts. In Dacia, the resources were more scattered(seefigure 5.47). Indeed,the quarries,especiallylimestoneand sandstone, tendencyto uselocal stonewheneverpossiblehasbeen noted. It is, therefore,possiblethat the iron mining 'district' in the PoianaRuscaMountainswas an extensiveimperial estate. Considerably smaller areascould have includedthe salt mining zone aroundOcna Mures or eventhe clustersof stonequarriesarroundDeva, Calanor north of Apulum. But for all the remaining quarries,it would be more reasonable to suppose small, site-focusedestates. Apart from theseareaswhich would have in someway with the imperial taxation system,the way taxation was carried out been connected within the territory is uncertain.At leastone site, though, would also have beeninvolved with imperial taxation.At Micia, which is thoughtto lie close to the provincial border, epigraphic atteststhe existenceof a customsoffice (Dob6 1975,150). Micia and.4quae evidence(CIL 1117853) involved (Calan) in the territory of Sarmizegetusa probably at a local level of administration, were although it is unclearin what way. PagusAquensisandpagus Miciensis are both attestedby 7847; and IDR 111/3 inscriptions (Calan-. 4quae: IDR 11113, nr. 10;Micia: CIL 1111352; nr. 80). What exactly that statuscoveredis unsure(possibly a territorial unit subordinatedto the town -Piso 1995; but seeArdevan 1998,75-78). The spatialdistribution of settlementwithin the study areaindicates significant potential problemsof access resulting from the distancebetweenthe major towns and the settlements within their territories. Although someof the problemsinvolving the movementof people and goodshad been by introduction improved the the period pre-conquest since of the road systemsoon significantly it would haveremainedimpractical to travel on a regular basismore than 10-15 after the conquest,
180

kilometres to the local market and servicecentre(Bintliff 1997).Both Apulum and Sarmizegelusa in latter but is local have the there this case centre, a more limited numberof of role performed could its location it have because Man of would experienceddifficulty in and radius, settlements within a Smaller have Hategului. been Tara therefore, the centres must, of neededand it covering even whole is probably not coincidentalthat most of the known and potential smaller centres(e.g. Calan,Micia, Cigmau, and eventuallyUroi and Blandiana)are positioned fairly evenly within the areasnot readily is located 17 kilometres beyond Calan 15 Sarmizegetusa. Apulum by the some or covered either kilometres buffer-zonearoundSarmizegetusa and 22 kilometres from Micia. The distancefrom is much larger,but the positioning of the iron mining 'district' in between Micia to Sarmizegetusa kilometres from itself further Cigmau 21 Calan The less this with at pattern repeats relevant makes kilometres buffer-zone; Aiud 15.5 from Apulum beyond kilometres 18.5 the and at away and some Razboieni and 17 kilometres from the Apulum buffer-zone.Therefore, this patternof spatial distribution suggests that Cigmau,Aiud andRazboienicould have similar administrative significance pagi at Micla and Calan. as the attested The centralplacesthus identified are likely to havebeen important as local trade centres.The in becomes 'poorer' Roman the the so even study area overwhelmingly within culture material impossible imagine it is to that sucha result without the easeof native occupants, with settlements to suchgoods,and, as shownabove,the major towns alone could not properly cover the access demandwithin the territory. Tradeactivities were clearly undertakenin vici elsewhere,whether 1990) forthcoming, Rorison 200 1, Whittaker (e. Sommer and often they were military or civilian g. provided with specialmarket-buildings.As noted above,however, no suchbuildings have been detectedwithin the military vici of the study area.The architectural type of the strip-houseis likely indicates taking frequently attested, that trade within the samebuildings most was place which in which the goodswere produced.They indicate particular attentionbeing given to access to the streetfrontage. Thesewere normally provided with front porticoeswhich, apart from attracting clientele through architecturaldecoration,provided coveredsidewalkswheneverneeded. Commercialactivity was probably extremelyactive at Micia, since it was involved in supplying the in the territory around,and also in import-export activities for the local auxiliary unit, the settlements Cigmau Razboieni, boundary. Also, beyond the at and positioning along especially provincial areas the main road of the province passingthrough the settlementhad a special value. It is significant that haveprovided the largestquantitiesof coinagefrom archaeologicalexcavationsor thesesettlements (see in discoveries the throughout study contexts area non-urban above). accidental as in Although so far no clear evidencehascome from the study area,filrdier trade was necessary have been Of the the tradedto some quarries of would products course, specialisedsettlements. did local food implies fact but their that the the the not produce workforce there, own also extent Calan-Aquae Also, in the for the spa centres at market. and Geoagiu-Germisara need suchproducts Roman but just the likely also equivalent of the servicesthat relateto the to visitors, attractnot were modem 'tourist trade.

181

Finally, the presence with villa sites within the study area indicates of 'cash industries' associated had significantly larger involvement in the local market systemthan previously that thesesettlements More basis than market providers, thesesites the products. agricultural exclusively of anticipatedon just 'luxury Roman is in of not goods'. and pottery consumption, present of sector were a significant large quantitiesat every site, and the simple distribution of bricks and tiles acrossthe study area (although consideredas falling within a low demandmarket sector-see Darvill and McWhirr 1984, 242) provides striking evidenceof the extentof the market that neededto be supplied with such

materials.

5. Spirituality (figure 5.55) 5.1 Religion The largestreligious centreoutsideSannizegetusa orIpulum was at Micia. So far 2 temples,one for the Dii Mauri and the other probably for Jupiter Erapolitanus, have been identified archaeologically. They were locatedoutsidethe town to the south(at some distance)and south-east respectively(the latter very poorly preserved)(Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000,77 and 92-4). Basedon epigraphic Mithras (Sol Invictus), Isis, Hercules deities Nemesis there were worshiped and other evidence, inscription (one discovered Diana 2000) Alicu (Rusu-Pescaru within the northvotive even or and imperial The 63) Liber Domesticus. Paler Silvanus IR/3, the cult or nr. vicus-IDR easternzoneof (numerousIOM dedications,somewith particular nuances-IOMDolichenus, or to the Domus Divina) and thoserelatedto local public administration(e.g. GeniusMiciae, GeniusPagi Miciae) are also present.However, culti activities and eventempleswere probably presentin the military vic! at Cigmau and Razboieni,aspossibly indicatedby a dedicationto Mithras (Sol Inviclus) at Cigmau, latter, Razboieni. At Epona, Hercules Magusanus Pan, Rusulike 4pollo, the that at of gods and . Pescaruand Alicu (20W, 126)advancethe possibilty of the presence of ajanum. Finally, a de Sus. dedicationto Diana was discoveredat Orastioara, Not much is known so far aboutreligious foci (solitary temples)within the rural landscape.The sites to at Aquae (figure 5.52) and Gerinisara (figure 5.53) probably startedas religious centresconnected into have developed but hot they the presence more complex might well springs, of natural in Dacia largest Baile The Herculane because their to complex was at attraction. public of settlements the west of the study area,which seemsto havehad complex installations (with pools and baths)and hot local (Benea to the use of springs and Lalescu 1998).Similar of worship connected severalplaces in hot features,taking advantage the bedrock, have also the and gas accumulations water natural of beenfound on a smaller scaleat Germisara(GeoagiuBai) some5 Hometres away from the military Alicu 2000,65-74). Rusu-Pescaru 1993, They Pescaru (Rusu Cigmau and consistedof a and vicus at large complex, excavated since 1986,involving at the beginning elaboratechannelling of the water from its natural stonepool into basinscut into the native bedrock, and probably lined with timber, buildings One identified facing the buildings of was channel. one as afanum; the and associated function of the other building nearbyremainedunidentified, but its inventory of finds (pottery, small involvement its in indicates healing bronze possible spatula) practices.In front of glassvesselsand a 182

them and towardsthe natural pool stonealtarshave beendiscovered(although somewere probably statuebases)with dedicationsto Diana and the Nymphsby officers of the Numerus Singulariorum Britannicianorum from Cigmau and of the XIII Gemina legion. The natural pool itself was usedonly for ritual deposits,and about 600 coins and,exceptionally, 7 gold votive tablets dedicatedto Diana, Hygia and the Nymphshave beenfound. Damagedby localised tectonic movement,the complex was Baile Herculane, Unlike in its where the god generally second phase. enlarged rebuilt and much focused Diana, (Aesculap Hercules, around was and) Hygia and the cult activity worshipedwas Nymphs(Rusuand Pescaru1993,Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000,65-74). Less archaeologicalevidencecomesfrom Aquae k--251 visited 20.05.2003),where no tracesof (httv://archweb. ast)? cimec.ro/scripts/arb/cronica/detail. cult buildings or extensiveworks havebeenfound and the natural stonepool was probably usedfor A dedication Hercules (figure 5.52). bathing by to was discoveredaccidentally worshipers ritual indicated is importance by fact that it is However, (CIL 1111406). the the spa of site probably nearby the only one presentin the Tabula Peutingeriana(although this can be explainedby the fact that both Baile Herculaneand GeoagiuBai are somedistancefrom the main road). Mithras was also worshipedat Decea(225), where antiquarianresearchfrom 1901locatedthe cella Roman hill 300-350 from Inside into dug the the the road. of a metres away slope a mithraeum, of (CIL Mithras 11112547-8). dedicated found to two along with altars a relief and a statue, cella were According to Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu (2000,78), it was related to a probablemilitary presence (statio?). Rich finds acrossthe village, including the statueof a goddess, coins (amongthem, one hoard of Romandenarii and one of Daciancoins), pottery -including storagevessels,a ploughshare, lamps and bricks, could also indicate the presence of a larger agricultural settlementprobably of Romanarchitecturaltype. Another mithraeumwith altars and sculpturesis reported at Vurpar, a Mithraic relief was discoveredat LopadeaNoua and an altar to the samegod at Sard. Further dedicationsto gods are to be found at stonequarries(Deva-Bejan,Santamariade Piatra or Valea Sangiorgiului)but they reflect the location of a workshop there and not a place of worship. However,there are numerousplaceswithin the study areawhere dedicationsto numerousgods have beenencountered: Hercules (3 places);Silvanus(3 places),Liber Paler (2 places);Dionysos,Diana, Daphne,Apollo Pythus,BonusPuer, Juno &Nemesis,Saturn &Minerva, or BacchusWeres. An interestingmixture is attestedat Salasude Sus(492), where the owner of a possible villa worshiped Hercules,Silvanusand the Thracian Rider.

5.2. Funerary activity Similarly, the study of the sepulchralaspects of Dacia are far from being completed,even for the better known urban sites. In general,study hasfocusedon funerarYmonuments,either on artistic or information be thaii that the topics, might social recovered(Ciongradi, 2004 a on rather epigraphic 5.35), Razboieni (cast Micia b). The and that under the modem outside cemeteries and -figure have by (possibly Geoagiu to the the visitors spa) used suffered significant destruction settlementat
183

for Ciongradi 2004 b; Razboieni (for Micia because see of modem constructions -Moga and Ciugudean,1995,1534; for Geoagiu-IDR IIIV3,228 and 261-3). They are typically Roman, with funerary monuments(stelaeor more elaboratetypes, even funerary constructions)and sarcophagiin few detected the brick. Aerial of remains a small rectangularenclosures,one of photographs stoneor them with an apse,which could be interpretedasprobable funerary constructions(figure5.35) as crop Micia. in fields the the cemetery at southern area of within cereal marks Within the study area51 sites havebeenlocatedwhere Roman funerary monumentshave been identified (figure 5.55), but only 16 of them indicatedthat the burials/cemeteries were probably found within their archaeologicalcontext. Another 44 locations containedindications of funerary been individual (25). Few have in (19 cemeteries excavated, or cemeteries) activity, whether a group identified Dacian A large focused has in those type. the on as of mostly such work areas rural and Obreja Daco-Roman has been the area at near a village, where study within excavated cemetery between 1967and 1971over 240 cremationand 6 inhurnation graveshave beenrevealed.In only 5 in Epigraphic deposited the an urn. manifestationswere totally remains not cremation were cases inventory in by funerary is, like but the settlement, the the culture proved material absent, in found in Very few Roman. the village, are the ceramics cemetery, well as as overwhelmingly Dacian; indeedindigenouspottery vesselswere presentin only 12 graves(and in only 7 were they in Daco-Roman (in Similarly, being Roman the the red or ware). grey majority vast used as ums), Dacian. Apart 1015% de Campie Soporu the the was pottery study of area, only outside at cemetery but somedeterminedas from the reign of Antoninus from a few bronzecoins (most very damaged, Pius), the inventory included personaljewellery -beadsin glassor amber(one in silver); car and arm brooches in (one bronze earring), several and rings with cameos-and other gold or silver rings bone box, lacrimarium, (e. a comb). a glass and a a cosmetic g. mirrors, possesions (certain - Cincis, Rahau; to be, relatedto villa settlements Somefunerarysites are, or are assumed de Sebes, Salasu de Jos, Hapria). At Reea, Ghirborn, Sus, Orastioara Cincis, Deva, the assumed from included 5 200 the simple pit graves,8 tumulus graves metres villa cremation cemetery small Inside the constructiononly one (one double)and 4 gravesin a funerary enclosurelconstruction. in Previous 40'was 2 had brick the turnuli a simple pit. accidental were and sarcophagus; a grave discoveriesindicatedthat it had 2 funerary statuesin marble from Bucova, and ashlarblocks coming from the funeraryconstruction.The cemeterywas identified as relatedto a native village associated is is by but Valea 1965), (Floca this the small number of gravesand the contradicted and villa with the immediateproximity to the villa. The finds inventory is Roman (with the occasionalpresence of Dacianpottery) and included pottery, lamps,a few bronze coins, personalitems andjewellery (even in gold and silver), but lacking terra sigillata. Exceptionally, near the double tumulus grave a fragmentof a stela was discovered,with its inscription severelywom. Another cremationcemeterythought to be relatedto a villa site was discoveredat Deva (Marghitan 1998).In this case,the graveswere in cists madein brick and tile; the upper part of a stela fine (mainly Thanatos, but the lions 2 and pottery of a grey, side also red wares) on each representing has been The Roman partially only and tradition. excavated no estimation site was madeof a reveal
184

its real extent.However,the fact it is locatedapproximately I kilomctre from the villa and at a lower is dense (although Mures, that there towards the perhapsscattered)occupationin the and altitude be believe Deva, that the cemetery should related to a different site, or perhapseven areaof makesus servedseveralsitesaround. It is clear that in generalthe funerary practicesin the Roman time contrastsignificantly with that in the period beforethe Romanconquestwhen very few suchcontexts have been documented(see in it it identity 4). Nevertheless, the the where evolution context personal perhaps chapter of the best, for Obreja followed Cincis. be towards as example at and can romanisation natives

6. Society A major questionconcernswho inhabitedthe countrysideof Roman Dacia? A simplistic scheme that architecturereflects social status/wealthand, even more, cthnicity. The more would assume including inhabited have been by towns the to settlements small aggregated are assumed romanised colonists,while the others,built in traditional fashion,to have belongedto natives; by the same token, that villas were owned by Romancolonists,veteransand the municipal elite, and formed estatesaroundthe towns in which they lived (e.g. Protase1968,508-509,Diaconescu,2004). Under this traditional scheme,a stratified provincial society hasbeen assumed with an elite stratum of of villa owners,largely of veteranorigin, at the top, including perhapsalso somerich entrepreneurs have beena stratum of colonists in settlements Below built in the this the would colonists. among Roman fashion,and finally, at the lowest level, the native population of the 'poorer villages'. Clearly therewas a stratified society in the areaand their social statuswould have found expression But to through architecturewhich would have influenced the wide typological range of settlements. indicate does architecture wealth?The most romanisedexamplesof architectureoutside extent what the major towns are to be found in the small towns, in particular the military vici, and in villas. Like the 'small towns' (especiallythe military vid) tendedto garnera very cosmopolitan elsewhere, society (Sommer,forthcoming, Rorison 2001,80-9) through the variety of their functions (trade, transport,crafts,religion, administration) and through the availability of money to be spentor invested.Micia, for example,was a centrefor anybodywith interestsconnectedwith the military unit stationedthere.It was a producer of pottery, metal and glassartefacts,stonemonumentsand sculptures,commercialisedin numerousshops. It had large public baths,a small amphitheatreand (at its least financial It through temples. customsoffice), a starting or centre was also a various temporarystoppingpoint for road and water transportand for travel to and from Barbalicum, and it had its own elite and pseudo-institutions(Ardevan 1998,75-8). Unfortunately, not enoughis known for the other small towns in the area,but sincemost of them had multiple and varied functions, some of this descriptioncould fit them as well. Thus the 'small towns' had both a permanentand a temporarypopulation. They were visited on a from distances. basis by large incidental Epigraphic evidencefrom variable groups social regular or GertnisaraandAquae hasprovided sufficient indication of their attractiveness, not just within the 185

levels. We but to the and all social province, meet at Germisara governors(e.g. whole within region, IIV3,232 236) (e. Aurelius P. Furius Saturninus Maximus and or municipal magistrates g. -11DR 1111399), IDR IH/3,215), along with freedmen(e.g. M. Aurelius Crescens and even one of the -CIL very few epigraphicmanifestationsof a probablememberof the native population (DecebalusLuci dedicatinga gold tablet to the Nymphsat Germisara -Rusu and Pescaru1993,Fig. 20). The majority of sitesthroughoutthe study areaprovide evidencefor extensiveuseof Roman building material (figure 5.49), in contrastwith other parts of the province, especiallythe easternhalf (Popa 2002,221-2). This hasbeentaken once againto reflect differences in ethnicity and levels of wealth. But accordingto currentdata,thesesiteswere also the most favoured in terms of easyaccessto Roman productsgiven their location in relation to road and river transport,or to the main urban centres.As shownabove,most of the siteswith reporteduse of stone walls, bricks and tiles, are identified line kilometres 3 the road or of the site of a reportedroad, and more than of an of within half of the siteswith only pottery finds are locatedfurther than 3 kilometres from the roads. Moreover, the siteswhich embraceRomanisedconstructionmethodsinclude somesettlements (e.g. Uioara de continuing from the pre-Romanperiod (Ceteaand Cicau) or 'new' Dacian settlements Jos). It is, therefore,more likely that the distribution of 'romanised architecture'primarily reflects basis On the that villages in the than same we cannot simply assume rather ethnicity. availability the effort and costsinvolved easternhalf of the province were poorer than those in the west, because in acquiring thesematerialswould have increased progressivelywith their distanceaway from the main transportroutesand sourcesof supply. Villa sitesof Dacia have looked disappointingly poor to most scholarsof the subject(including their ). It is often the casethat material culture surviving in archaeologicalcontextscan create excavators! a false or incompleteinterpretationas to the wealth and statusof the site. The practice of comparative when no attention is given to chronology, at both an intra-site analysiscanbe particularly dangerous, and inter-site level of study. In this particular case,the villas of Dacia standlittle chancein comparisonwith villas elsewherein the provincesalong the Danube,or in the Roman Western Europe.According to Y, and P. Dark (1997,43) "archaeologistsof RomanBritain usually define the including 'romanized' by both 'prestige' the and attributes, presence of mosaics,Romanbaths, villa floors, sculpturedcolumns,marble wall veneers,painted plaster and aspectsof the ground tessellated there that many other siteswithout such features plan of the building". Although it hasbeenaccepted when it comesto villas remain those could still be interpretedas villas (seeabove),expectations listed by Kand P. Dark. As shown above,the villas of Dacia rarely have tessellated, brick or even is floors. Painted only occasionallymentionedby excavationreports. plaster wall opussigninum (as at Hobita-Hobenihill) the provision of hypocaustinstallations or indeedbaths is very Sometimes limited or evencompletely absent(e.g. Cincis). Finally, there is very little evidenceof stone/marble formal evidence and no of ornamentation, architectural gardens-indeed,only on very and sculptures buildings is layout the the and within the enclosureknown. On the other of courtyard rare occasions hand,villa housesfrom Dacia with dimensionsof 20-30 by 14-20 metresare not much smallerthan is far Manerau, house (the largest twice the size of other examples so at standardwesternexamples is it ) the often elaborate,even in housesconsidered study area! and when wall painting occurs within
186

(and, have house basis therefore,social) pretensions to their the minimal architectural with plan on of (eg. Deva). The difficulty in estimatingtheir original look and real estatevalue is further increasedon the one hand by the research methodologyemployedfor their study, and on the other, by repeatedlooting in Materials from SantamariaOrlea have doubt had the time, cases. most of occurred no which over been extensivelyusedthroughoutthe modem village and around (Popa 1972),and Romanbricks in buildings in Aiud (Moga and de Sus Aiudul from the modem re-used villa were probably Ciugudean1995,24); also,the medieval strongholdsfrom Malaiesti Rachitova,Rau de Mori, or the Densus(Figure 5.46) and Strei early medieval churchesbuilt extensively with Romanmaterial (Popa 1989,41-58). But the chronologicalevolution of the sitesbeing usedfor comparisonis often overlooked in in indicates Britain The the villa phenomenon of pattern clearly evolutionary studies. comparative that, apart from Fishbourne(and a few other sites in the south-eastEngland) the villas of the first and in both decoration. Most of them are either "characteristically plan and simple, are secondcentury 'cottage houses'as at Lockleys, or winged villas, as at Titsey, with aisled buildings apparentlyonly introduced (perhapsfrom Germany,where the form is common) in the secondcentury" (Dark and Dark 1997,64). The emergence of the villa is related to romanization through architectural biggest in But "the by the number and grandeurof the expansion natives. status of elite expression Romano-Britishvillas was, however, in the fourth century. The most elaboratevillas of this period had more architecturalsophistication,a greatercomplexity of plans, a larger scaleat many of the biggest establishments, and lavish decoration".which were "plainly the centresof the estatesof in Britain were much simpler "the late Roman the time though, majority of villas same magnatee';at impress" intended been buildings have (Dark however, "were to that to seem which still, structures" had Hispanic 1997,69-70). Similarly, Dark the transformation the countryside also started of and lower the altitudes (at the bottom of the river valleys) which settlement on emergence of with and very small villas (Millett 2001,162). consistedmainly of farmsteads Returningto Dacia, its villas never achievedthe "villa boom!' of Britain or the geographicallycloser because by it had 2002), be (Mulvin, Moesia that time Pannonia to simply ceased a and of provinces the evolution of its landscapein both territory of the RomanEmpire and in thosecircumstances, historical andarchaeologicalaspects would havebeenvery different. The emergence of villas starts in the first half of the 2d century AD, but becomesmore establishedmuch later, which in somecases that villas were built directly in stone, is the normal evolution in other provinces.So far it appears be by future But to this though timber verified research. at their peak,these remains phase, without a 'property development similar and probably value' as most of their stage of similar at a were sites westerncounterparts. contemporary Overall, the settlement pattern of the study areaoutsidethe urban centreswithin the Romanperiod its Most large the of the excavatedvillas attestarchitectural to structure. and society part a reflects hypocausts, decorated increasing floors the with of comfort provision and and wall pretensions in baths evolutionary processculminating in the Severan a sustained and plaster,glasswindows, 187

had further have They there not been an early interruption of the evolved period. probably would Roman occupation.In the light of new site plans provided by aerial photographic interpretation,large houseswith plans similar to villas (although smaller in size) have also been discoveredwithin small towns (Micia, Razboieni,Cigmau) or at their edges(e.g. Micia) which were probably the more 'upHowever, these non-urban centresalso provide evidencefor settlements. within market' properties by timber replaced sometime mostly stone architecture(at Micia in architecture, extensiveuseof but in someocasionsstill preserved, later phases) along with the use of native-origin featuressuchas storagepits (Aiud). As for the apparently'poor settlements',againthe conclusionscannot be clear-cut.Lower-order biases because define, difficult the to of affecting the current data set mostly more settlements are is already methodology,but future studiescould addressthis issue if the awareness and research definitions of wealth and status,lower-order (native there. According to the architecturallys-based individual in both and aggregatedtypes of settlements,from are apparent architecture)settlements individual homesteads to very large villages. The finds in the traditional village at Obreja were lacking very expensiveluxury items. However, the finds inventory of the cemeteryclearly indicates Romanjewelry (including a few silver and gold items) and personalhygiene items the useof sandals, (cosmetics,oils, combs,mirrors). But the cemeteryof the villa at Cincis was also lacking in is house items luxury the only recorded the not accidentally, same villa perhaps and, numerous examplefrom the study areawithout a hypocaust. Summarising,it needsto be underlinedthat the contrastbetweenthe study area(with rather poorer villas but traditional-built villages with surprisingly wealthy material culture) and other of the empire is only apparent.Villas do indicate the social statusof their occupants, areas/provinces but the definition of their economicwealth should take into accountseveralfactors.Firstly, there is the chronologyfactor referredto above,which should stop us from making unfair comparisonswith 4'hcentury villas elsewhere.Secondly,one should rememberthat villas were, ultimately, just a and a large variety of types (and probably particular (i.e. romanised)type of individual homestead elsewhere(Smith 1997).In the study area,the villa at values)hasbeendocumented real-estate Manerau,on the basisof its size and degreeof luxury, clearly indicates a degreeof wealth considerablyhigher than the one at Cincis nearby(although smaller villas like Deva can also indicate had levels That the a wealth of sites with evidenceof Roman study area of richness). considerable building materials,perhapshinting at further villas, also indicatesthat smaller farms might have found the materialsreasonablyaffordable. It is hoped,therefore,that a more thorough and nuanced definition of social statuswill sooncome to replacethe onescurrently in force in the archaeologyof Dacia. A more nuanced analysisis alsorequiredwhen it comesto defining ethnicity through material culture. So far architecturehasvery much beentaken as a good indicator of ethnicity in Roman Dacia, as exemplified in the typology applied to villages (Roman-built and traditionally-built), which to someextenthasbeenpreservedin this study. But the material culture (tools, breadovens) of the from is (with Roman, mixed ceramics apart also wheel-thrown Roman,and hand poorer settlements
188

made,non-Romanforms). Moreover, as shown above,the settlementswith traditional architecture into from be the to the Romanperiod all provide those pre-conquest occupied and which continued clear indicationsof architectural'romanisation'. This suggestsquite an extensiveexposureto Roman culture and the processof acculturationtaldng place. Not surprisingly, many colonists are attestedin the military vici, but possibly the processof their have been finalised in their the time arrival of and at may advanced not much was romanisation Dacia. Indeed,the fact that none of the military vici of the study area hasbeengrantedmunicipal indicate fact despite Roman Tibiscurn) the that, (unlike Porolissurn a very appearance might or status large Septimius Severus Roman body lifestyle, to the sufficiently under was not citizens of still and justify suchstatus;it was probably only after the Constitutio Antoniniana that everybodythere becamea citizen (contra Ardevan 1995and 1998,who explains it by lack of land available in the territory). The sameappliesto the colonistsin the gold mining areawho, at least from in Dacia given the their romanised either on arrival very administration'spoint of view, were not (native structures administrative principes are attestedepigraphically of pre-Roman perpetuation CIL III, 1322=ILS,7153). If in both urbanand military sites funerary, epigraphicand other types of evidenceseemto indicate quite a large populationwith an origin other than indigenous (seealso Ciongradi 2004 a and b), the for data level the rural areasmakesit impossible at this point to asserta of archaeological current of colonisedelementsthere.The argumentin supportof a Romanveteranorigin similar percentage for the ownersof villas in Dacia is usually built around the epigraphic evidence. But the huge in discovered Dacia come from urban and military sites; only a majority of epigraphicmonuments few come from rural contextsand, with very few exceptions,they were discoveredin secondary for indication is Indeed, there epigraphic of a veteran origin only one certain a villa owner positions. (outside the study areaat Ciumafaia-Mitrofan 1973,135-136) with only hints from a few other to have examples(e.g. Rahau-Popa 2002,15 1). Moreover, the adsignatio that everybodyassumes taken place still remainslargely a supposition,with very limited direct evidence(seeaboveand Oltean 2004). More recently, the analysisby Smith (1997,199-216), in stressingthe similarities betweenDacian, Pannonianand Mocsian villas as very different in conceptionto villas in Italy or the western provincesof the Empire, intimatesthat it could suggesta local tradition of construction.But despite his generaltendencyto interpret villas from the social perspectiveof the indigenouspre-Roman Europeanareashe fails to considerthe evidenceof population, when dealingwith the south-castcm between link in houses the to social structureand villa architecture, understand order pre-Romanelite fact, for In indeed, to particularities. architectural other explanations examplesof native preseek or, Regia areareveal a strong (figure 4.1) from Luncani and the Sarmizegetusa Romanhouses Europe. from Within local this type the areacoveredby the the of to area of villas resemblance be in details that the can plans paralleled of villa pre-conqestarchitectureare presentstudy, among from the southor south-east),the internal spacedivision and the the orientation (probablyaccessed

189

(contra Smith 1997, different This flow through see above). rooms might, access of possible gradual in in houses Dacia, for Empire. the the the as western part of villa therefore, suggest roots pre-Roman As shown above,the fact that the villa sites in Dacia had only tessellatedfloors insteadof mosaics,or is is indicator from finds poor, not necessarily an sites of their that the numberof villa recovered 'poverty'. The few indicationsof phases of evolution that have emergedfrom the re-interpretationof in this chapterindicate that they did experiencea gradual evolution data discussed the archaeological in wealth and sophistication.The archaeologicalevidencefrom villas included sporadicfinds of hand-madeDacian ceramicfragmentsin thepars nistica of severalvillas, which representmainly function building, indicative be than the the the Although rather of of they of could storagevessels. kind (Protase 1980, its they presence some of native suggest nevertheless ethnic origin of occupants, Orlea, fragmentsof fine Dacian tablewarehavebeen 154-157and fig. 23). In one case,at Santamaria that in this particular casethe site might have been discovered,which haveled to the suggestion Aiudul de Sus, At (see by a similar possibility was the above). native elite owned a memberof fragment (including but Dacian tableware based a of of pottery on evidence advanced -Tructiera), Late (see Dacian-type discovery because the pre-Romannative above). ploughshare of a of mostly (see by Seusa Haynes Rahau, documented has been excavation at and occupationof villa sites Hanson forthcoming) and, outsidethe study area,at Chinteni (interestingly, under the remainsof the between 1998,132). Another Alicu housefrom the earlier phases of a relationship example possible (see 4). The de Jos date is Vintu late above and chapter at pre-Roman a villa site and settlementof lack of evidenceof this kind at other known sites (or, indeed,of earlier timber villa phases)could levels failing limited be to the earlier at most excavated excavation reach stratigraphic result of again be found in hypocaust Manerau therefore, The the might, the villa unfired caseof villa sites. Whitton (Jarrett farmstead Age Romano-British Iron from the at and and analogouswith examples Wrathrriell 1981,79 and 95), and is perhapsindicative of a native owner (Oltean 2004). Finally, most Republican Imperial have in hoards discovered the and of coin the area accumulations study of (Jeledinti, Tisa, Rahau,Teius, Decea-Rahau relatedto villa), and in some cases(Teius, Decea)they Salasu de (Sasa) In Sus hoard Dacian Greek coinage. one case, at a and of early contain evenearlier Republicandenarii (P centuryAD-see Popa 1989,53) was discoveredin the context of a probable villa and its cemetery. It would be wrong to ignore the fact that epigraphicsourcesand ancient historians give a somewhat different picture of the native population of RomanDacia, as virtually non-existent(2% of ThracoDacian names).But it would bejust as wrong to ignore all the other indications that the villa in have Dacia been just (and in as a whole) might the as probably study area population 4multicultural' as elsewherein the Romanprovinces.In this case,another explanationshould be in from than their for the the record, other epigraphic the physical absence of natives absence sought the upper echelons of society.

190

"0 Z0

) C.

: -0 21)
Ln

1 e v %D rcr,

IHM
,Z

0.
-Cl

Ak
f,,

ot, .

,,

"

r it

cc cz
44 .

AL
it

4e

rl

192

W-S

04 . W,
4t I-

IA

pr

Ali I X. ,.
44

e0oA ' :
"'Ago,

CL

5. CDIJ

Ij

73

I,

bb

193

0 0

(0 C%J 0 14)

C%j 0 U5

C%j
Co LO

@D m
9

8 (0 Co Co
CI)

OD Co M

Co Co CI)

194

Figure 5.5: Geophysical surveying results from Seusa (above) and from a second villa site near Oarda (below), produced by the Apulum Project team (courtesy of' Dr. Ian Haynes)

L
t

e ir

l .

L
Al

- --Vl-

195

',,

1/"

11%a

Figure 5.6: General view of the site of Roman villa (encircled) adjacentto the pit and sunken housevillage eastof Vintu de Jos (WSH)

IF

196

Figure

5.8: Roman

villa

prehistoric

village

(in red) nearby the east of Vintu de Jos

503400

Mures

river

'S

'b 0 op
503300

Q? o
V0 C)& 0 0 cf
o0 01
0

0o000.0,
C: ) 0 CD

0 0,110 00
DC)o
Vol

40 0 awo

0
C3

00

0 ,,

9 a0-65
000

og

CQ
0,90 00

'o

005

0() 00 0

50

50

100

Meters

197

I..

10 ,,

rO

c
0"';

11

F _
I
w A;, v lkit Al

roll,

198

12
113 E
Z r4)
412

.00e to

1,10 m
u Ita I
0 0

in

199

Figure 5.11: Roman and medieval material collected from the site of possible Roman villa or village at Vintu de Jos (WSH)

Figure -z.12: Strei villa and early medieval church (10)

Joao
f ' ..

200

.., 1111-,

P-;

.o

C2

co

IS
1) co

"u

-C:

. -4 -0

cl

0. )

=3

-0

201

202

-c i)

E 0
-I--

r0

-2 m

IbIJ

Lj-

2033

Figure 5.16: Possible Roman building alongside road line Sebes

10

496200

496200

.Jtpvt)UV

390600

so

50 Meters

204

40

air

cl

fs,

44
4Q

-T,
co

UN
4ti

A4

205

Est

VU

it

"ALI,

207

CD

1011 -I -I

le

--

c
c; %..
AC.

Ig Ii

CD

--

8 Ir
\"
S "S "S

8 04

"

"S

'S ''S

SS

'S

'S

IS

---------------------------------

8 (0

Co

---------------------------5407

----------

Co

8 U'
) , 1-4
"a C

8
Ul) CXD ci C,2

----------I
cr

04 -gr

208

or-am

Am

., --

I I, tIrC ,( 'ClIcral \ IC\\ -, -, O%erI-ara Hategului from I-lobita villa (fig. 5.17) and millstones coming from the second site (fig. 5.1 I \k .,I I and 1()

209

CP

1::

210

Figure

5.23: Site plan of the possible

villa

at Salasu

de Sus

so

50

Motem

211

Chinteni

Deva

10

30M

! TM

Hobita

Ciumlfaia

Figure 5.24: Plansof villa complexesand buildings in Dacia.

(a) MAnerfLu

Apahida(a)

Apahida(b

Wnerdu (b)
10
30m

Aiud

212

--d

11

"5

14,

Al

CA

CD

213

E 0
02

0 0
.C

.0 1..

's 0

-g

"' l> G ZU0 ,

9 ",

214

te: cu - -0
-0
(D Co

: ir,
72

E. (-)
-i,: CD
Ei r-

cu

MI

215

co

a.

lit

71

E (U
rA

co

Ak-

00

216

OPPO_P__, *Z -

WAINIPW

--, q

Figure 5.29: Limestone quarry of probable Roman date to the west of Sarmizegelusa Ulpia -in the background left (10)

-Ko
A"0"0*

MAI
-, 0
Also-

-AWN
'AL.

,.,... AMAL-W

7-7

iott -, ` t. 0. t, ., .4
oi2

loAd

low

A 00 ,., ;:.
-sib

Figure 5.30: Roman andesite quarry at Uroi (possible Petris) in the Mures valley (Wsl 1)

217

218

co

co

r. k It 't

co

r. a.

j2L

219

IOU
I. )

,.: I-

220

r am

Ar,

Q'i

71 (13

aj

r' .

W.

2-11

; ZnN von,

- --

-tI

A
I
ll\Nk 0000, N
-O
N\

Cemetery area

ll

---

Vicus

'k-TA

FORT to

Figure 5.35: Vetel - Micia Roman military vicus

100 0 100

Meters

'71

Ilk

Legend ? nd Archaeologicalfeatures wall

Cemetery area
41
0 13

road ditch

222

i:
`
4

.--C:

J.

-a , -, -CL "o -

C: u Q;,

';; i

M 2E E (U Aj
0

1
-I

711
d% ult.

E
'A

go.

db

"

101

Q u

. &"_

223

Aj
V &- Al

"

-0
crj 0

, J)

M, -E

= U

r"a C's

La 2.5 .to =
M -0 0

co

C-11 T,
C, V)

E
re v) as . rbb 0 co m

rn

224

359600 490200

359800

3600M 1607r

Figure 5.38: Cigmau-Germisara Roman auxiliary fort 360200 military and vicus 490200
t

A
vicus
f

50

50

100

150 Meters

4900001 I

A/
-- -

/n&I

1489800

-----------------

Fort

771

---

-------

--

--

----

Legend
features archaeological
'I wall road ditch 0

es

359600

359800

360000

225

% 'I

.... ........

..........

Figure 5.39: Layout and terrain model ofthe fOrt and military "'CM "I OKIIIAU Grrrisi.wra height factor 3-dimenslomil location Icrruin GIS) ArcView nuxicl (in o0lic exaggerated and RaAx)icm Airl'holo) (10) (in fort at vicay the military and of

300 260 76n

300 28o 26o

; 4
It

)o

in 21

%At

226

iz

ID

I)

22

V
-

Ja 11

229

-)')L)

z<
.E l*

----------------

----

----------

; 16

cr
;j T. ,F 11

LL

CDO Pl-

/11
aS
4-

CO p
-

1III

230

W Ncm

r- "'

-c 96) b9

ri

ci 0

F u E

231

Figure 5.45: Possible kilns in the vicus at Micia

Figure 5.46: Roman spolia in the wall of the early medieval church at Densus and a funerary altar re-used as a pilaster inside the in the Roman time the sides unused church, images decorated later painted with of a were Chri-Iizin ,dnt (10)

wl 16.

,ca

En

"a

cc-r.

R)c

00

233

aI r-

79 -0

rA

c18

234

cw.M Cl
0 rz ow

=a *= Ix 1: 'RT -"

fl)

235

Figure 5.50: Roman archaeological landscapeat Apulum (archaeological features mapped from aerial photographs in red)

500

500

1000

1500 Meters
236

AIL

741

Figure 5.5 1: Roadssystemas possible indication of centuriation south of Apulum, cast of Vintu de Jos (10)

Figure 5.52: Calan-Bai (Aquae) Roman stone pool nearby niodern one (WSI 1)

237

Ci.

M kr)

238

-0

1-",

....:

J.

239

=X

r_

lull

ZZ

40

LA Z

Z: r_

r_

rm

e.

2E

Z0
--i

240

Chapter

6: Romanisation

of the rural

landscape

Roman

rule affected

not just the inhabitants of the pre-Roman multiple

of conquered

territories

but the whole

landscape.

In this

study the character analysed

and the Roman

settlement

pattern

of the study area have been differences landscape as well

in detail, covering of continuity

aspects. The two patterns the impact

present significant

as elements transforming the province.

which

reflect

that Rome had on the Dacian Roman

and the with

effect of the particular

nature of Dacia on the overall

approach

to dealing

It is time now to return to some of the questions

raised at the beginning

of this study.

1. In what

way

did

the

Roman

conquest

affect hierarchy

the

native

landscape? typology (figure 6.1)

1.1 Transformations

in the settlement

and

in settlement

This study has demonstrated hiliforts/citadels greater complexity (some 80 examples) living in villages

that, despite the traditional

scheme of interpretation settlement

largely pattern

based on shows

of the elite and villages reflecting

of the masses, the pre-Roman Both aggregated

social structure.

(some 20 examples)

and Individual

types of settlement

were present.

As is often the case, the lower social strata in the archaeological and recognition record, the by traditional tends to be those

and individual

homesteads

are the least visible

settlements methods, dominated previously settlements. architecture vicinity.

belonging

to social elite having attracting

a better chance of survival interest.

and subsequently by fortified interpreted

greater research

As a result, the landscape enclosures), including

sites (with as hillforts

murus Dacicus or citadels, importance

or only earthwork

along with those previously within the landscape, to attract further reflected

considered

as fortified

They show variable and more strikingly

to some extent by their and amenities in their Mountains

by their capacity are located

settlement

The best known

examples

in the uplands, (Cucuis,

most of them in the Orastie Cugir, Banita). Capalna), However,

and along the northern (e. g. Craiva, Ardeu,

edge of the Sureanu Mountains

but also elsewhere the present study

Deva, Bretea Muresana,

Campuri-Surduc,

has demonstrated fortified hierarchy disregarded Unfortunately of the villages Jos) are usually

that their occurrence

in the lowlands

can also be possible, At the lowest

with at least one new level of the settlement which, although

site discovered

by aerial reconnaissance but very likely potentially

at Cigmau. numerous

were not just villages, by previous the current differs little research,

individual

homesteads

formed

the largest part of the settlement to estimate their number. villages

pattern. The structure (e. g. Vintu de

level of research in the lowlands

makes it difficult

from those in the uplands. layout. In the uplands Fata Cetei), Although

Lowland

open and have a compact structure

open villages

are also documented

with a more compact

(e. g. Fetele Albe, Rudele).

along with,

more often, open villages

with a scattered structure

(e. g. Meleia,

the latter type is not sufficiently

241

documented settlement lowlands consist houses. still both often

within probably

the lowlands extended

to justify there

consideration

as a distinct de Jos -592).

type

in this study, differences

scattered between the

too (e. g. Orastioara in architecture.

Deeper dwellings disposal although

and the uplands of sunken-floored In the uplands ancillary

are visible houses with

The predominant or rubbish and, timber plan.

of the lowlands and ovens in a few around the

pits used for storage architecture usually

surface structures there with

timber consist

is predominant of surface-buift house

cases pits are buildings. houses towards In is

present,

granaries/storage The with layout

areas, however, more elaborate,

is a preference several rooms

for the circular (2,3)

of upland access

laid out concentrically

gradual

the centre

of the house.

Apart

from the fortified

sites and the settlements

for the masses, the present study has identified has escaped previous studies. This is around. materials indicating

new intermediate represented

category

of sites, whose significance

by the tower-house structures

sites, some of them with traces of open settlement built in murus Dacicus present within with upper storeys of lighter hilifort enclosures, clearly orbiting

These (brick, their

rectangular/square

and perhaps also timber) function (mainly

are sometimes

as elite houses. They are to be found for the most part, however, Costesti -Cetatuie and Blidaruand Craiva; Very

a few hillforts Regia

a few also at Piatra Rosie, Sarmizegetusa little research has been carried elite stratum

and Gradistea

Muncelului-Varful

lui Hulpe).

out on these sites, in Dacian society,

but their emergence

associated The most directly functionally

could be related to a clear definition

with political complex Gradistii leadership from other

of a warrior
elite members. places

settlements has already

were been

probably

of central

interest. as the most

Gradistea important the capital site of

Muncelului-Dealul of Dacia Decebalus. open prior

convincingly correctly built

demonstrated identified Dacicus

to Roman

conquest

and probably a hillfort

as Sarmizegetusa, surrounded extensive in stone other

Indeed,

the site included other with

in murus

by an extensive religious in 2 distinct which presence building makes large

settlement.

But unlike

sites in this category, several monumental

it had the most sanctuaries built The

documented programmes,

so far in Dacia the first using

limestone

and the later

using

andesite. particularly sacra-

feature

this site unique workshops arguably central

is its extensive

metallurgical

production, vicinity

iron,

carried

out in several

-one of them the largest iron

in the immediate producer Costesti,

of the area at that time

making

Sarrnizegetusa 1997). Other

Regia important

in Barbaricum Craiva and Deva.

(laroslavschi

places

included

The Roman conquest Firstly, the totality

produced

multiple

changes in the existing of the previous

settlement (hillforts

typology

and hierarchy.

of high-status

settlements

period

and tower-houses) evidence from

disappears, hillforts

both in terms of location

and as types of settlement. especially from

Archaeological Mountains,

and other types of settlements, This was interpreted

the Orastie

shows deliberate despite the fact of

destruction.

as a normal

consequence

of the wars of conquest, still containing destruction

that only at Sarrnizegetusa stored grain) or at Meleia settlement

Regia (with

its burned down grananes that the violent

large quantities while the

is there clear indication

occurred

was still in use. But the hillforts

are unlikely

to present a picture

other than of destruction

242

and abandonment have The

after

the wars rather

of conquest than the rule.

and, therefore,

continuity

of occupation

there

is likely

to

been the exception wider landscape numbers

experiences and settlement

the emergence density,

of Roman-type

urbanism,

a large

increase

in

settlement and probably under study

diversification

in the range

and function itself.

of settlements, Within the area of Trajan,

also diversification major towns emerged

in the organisation quickly deducta and later received

and division The some

of the land first, time, during

after the conquest. in Dacia. After

the reign

was Sarmizegelusa municipal legionary remain other their status canabae the only towns Dacian

the only by Marcus at Apulum, towns

colonia Aurelius which

Apulum With

was granted of the these of the despite are

it too became municipal

a colonia. under period.

the exception Severus,

status

Septimius Following Dacian

major

of the area throughout neither 1993). was founded The Dacian

the Roman

the pattern settlement, their names Roman

of the province, names (Glodanu

on the site of a previous sites thought to have north

inspired

located

42 kilometres

east (Sarmizegetusa)

and 20 kilometres

(Apulum)

of their

counterparts. But outside opposed increase both them seems these centres some a dense occupation has been before traced, with some 266-270 settlements as

to only

140-150

in the period

the Roman with

conquest, variety

demonstrating of settlement though

a clear types. Again, of it still

in density

(and probably

also in population) and nucleated cannot give

a wide

categories (213)

of settlement, level

individual of research

were sufficient

present,

and even

for most

the current

indication

as to their ones.

character, The

that once again

individual

settlement

forms

outnumber to only two

the aggregated main groups

settlement level

hierarchy without sufficiently settlement loosely Roman

in each of these an intermediary varied pattern as including, influence

categories one).

was confined the types social

(an upper

and lower levels level were

However, significant

of settlements of their towns.

within

each of these

to reflect

differences

occupants.

The upper

of the

is represented in the first

by villas

and by small

These

categories

have been with evidence

defined of than

case, any individual aggregated

settlements with

(homesteads) fiinctions

and, in the second, vici

settlements

more

complex

agricultural were Among of which located

(military

and specialised and agricultural categories,

aggregated villages

settlements). (of both traditional

At the other

end of the spectrum type). homesteads of this situation in the pre-Roman and easily (farms), is the

homesteads broad

and Roman

these four only

the least well

attested One

is that of the non-villa of the possible causes

a few

examples

have been identified. to the identification through traditional 'romanised

methodological period,

bias relating identifiable

of this category methods farms' tend

of settlement to be very indeed

since traces

scarce

overlooked. Since

But another

possibility

is that

were

the non-n in the landscape. of Roman of homesteads Indeed, building found it has

the indicator (particularly

of 'romanisation' bricks

is in most it is very

cases provided likely that

by the presence many occupants

materials these been

and tiles),

materials observed extent

available previously

and affordable in this study Roman

and eventually that most

decided

to make which

use of them.

of the villages

perpetuated evolution

native

architecture surface to farms.

to some dwellings)

also showed

influence

in building

technique of evolution

(with could

towards

and materials,

and therefore

such a scheme

also have applied

243

Future research clarifying the chronologyand layout of thesesites could shedmore light on this aspect. It hasbeenshownin this study that thosevillas and military vici where more detail of their layout, is known have been dissimilar features internal to to contemporarytypes of seem not structureand further These development from sites show a constant afield. or even sites neighbouringprovinces throughoutthe 2"dcenturyAD with evolution in complexity and pretensions,reflecting not only their social status,but also their economicprosperity.This cameto an end without any archeologically identifiable signsof previous decline when the province was abandoned. The presentanalysisof the settlementpatternand typology has revealedthat, despiteall of the therewere more elementsof continuity than previously estimated.Excavated significant changes, (e. Obreja, Noslac) beginning type that they the traditional g. show started architectural at villages of of the secondcentury AD at the sametime as thoseof the Roman type. This hasbeenusedto support theoriesof the extremetreatmentappliedby the Romansto native society after the conquest(see is by 3). But manifested continuity of occupationin a number of of population continuity chapter by from in both the the the throughout survivals area and pre-Roman study period settlements in Dacia have beenproved to be typology and architectureof sites.Very few settlements period. Within the study areathe most continuouslyoccupiedfrom the pre- to the post-conquest famous examplesare the settlements at Ceteaand Cicau (seeabove chapter5). At least in the caseof Cetea,it seems that the Romansdid not move all the Dacian settlementsinto the lowlands by force. however,settlementmovementtowardslower altitudes involved only short distances, Sometimes in different thart to adjustments minor response more economicand social no which may reflect for Varmaga, At example,Dacian occupation(588) was identified on the top of the circumstances. hill to the north of the modem village, while occupationof Roman-date(423) was discovereda little distancefurther down the hill, closer to the modem village. Some46 sites throughout the areahave in both Tene Roman La location beendocumented the the and periods, and future research same on 6.2). One (figure their explicitly such example is at more occupation continuous could prove Hunedoara,wheretracesof both Dacianand Romanoccupationhave beenidentified on the Sampctru largely by pottery, until limited rescue Hill nearthe medievalcastle.This was documented buildings (in 'romanised' identified there the areaof the modem cemetery). In traces of excavations that the Dacian pottery found in the areamight have beenof this context, one might have assumed Roman datetoo, but in the recent yearsexcavationsnearbyrevealedthe presenceof a Dacian before Roman immediately dated infants. the This conquest(seechapter4) and was was cemeteryof Trajan in immediately burials thereafter coin of associated the one with one use still of perhaps -as from late Dacian to the indicate. In the the to this of occupation on site continuity context, seems Romanperiod becomesevident. Other aspects of of continuity have beendetectedin architecture,in principle as the persistence traditional fb=s of sunkenhousesand storagepits in severallocations where continuity of site occupationwas not necessarilyapplicable(e.g. Obreja).But although previous interpretationsrelated such architectureto 'native villages' of low economicand social importance,it is now clear that these
244

traditional forms have a much larger distribution; indeed, storagein pits hasbeendetectedevenin small towns suchas Aiud (seeaboveChapter5). Furthermore,the current study hasbeensuccessful in tracing probablepre-Romanarchitecturalsurvivals even in the type of settlementconsideredby traditional interpretationsas the most 'Roman' in nature: the villas. Wheneversite plans have been available, it hasbeennoted that villa houseswere oriented on a north-west-south-east alignmen4 fit layout features did (probable location if the this surrounding with of not of gates sometimeseven in houses This directly Dacian the trend the reflects attested settlement). outside or cvcn main roads (seeabovechapter4). Also, the analysisof their location has clearly shown a tendencyfor thesesites to occupy dominantpositions in the landscape wherethey can easily overlook the surroundings as well as be seen,again reflecting similar attitudesof the elite identified in the pre-conquest period.

1.2 The choice or settlement location According to Aston (1997,93) normally the settlementpattern of any areadevelopsin relation to (e. to g. water, arablelpastureland, natural resources, resources values:proximity subsistence dependingon the characterof the economy);easeof access(less steepslopesand non-marshy (services, However, roads/tramport network, etc). sometimesthe commodities ground); and influenced by be ideology to than to other reasons can related more emergence of settlement pragniatism. The Dacian settlementevidence(figure 6.3) is clearly incomplete, strongly biasedby both survival high (traditional level interest in detection the OrastieMountains survey, of methodology zonesand image This an creates whereby settlementwas largely restrictedto upland to as opposed other areas). farming inhabitants from the lowlands for cerealsand using the higher altitudes the were where areas for summergrazing.But such a patternis clearly not economically viable, at least with respectto involved distances far because the too large to make it practical. Also, any are cercal production, least, is lacking. (wads, infi-A=Cture and, not administration peace) necessary Despite the fragmentaryevidencefor settlementlocation, which clearly impacts on estimationsof denser is it density, there that several are areas of settlementwithin the study area. clear settlement By far the highestdensity is recordedin the OrastieMountains, where it is artificially increasedby the existing methodologicalbias on the one hand,and possibly by the fact that most of thesesites A been individual have settlements. smaller areaof very denseoccupationis also or scattered would (with indicates it Deva, the exceptionof the tower-house'belt') is a settlement which where visible at Costesti. different level At to the settlement at a extensive scattered of density, a more similar distribution is attestedin the lowlands of the northern half of the study area,where homogenous were perhapsinvolved in arablecultivation. However, extensive mostly lowcr-order settlements zonesin the mid- and lower Strei valley or in the Mures valley were probably scarcelyoccupied(if at all). The areaof Tara Hategului was thought to havebeenunoccupiedin the Iron Age prior to the in Romanconquest,but subsequently field involving the traditional walking more extensivesurvey 1980s(Popa 1989)identified severalsettlements including a few sites involved in iron reductionand in this arearemainsscarce.This demonstrates processing.StilL the pre-RomanDacianpresence 245

clearly

that the impact

of Roman than

colonisation suggested

on the native by traditional

property

system

in the area was

considerably Before

less aggressive conquest,

interpretations.

the Roman

the natural

landscape human

had already exploitation.

experienced The most

significant significant most

changes effort in

in

topography changing hilltops terracing. the hillforts, some gold,

and possibly natural

vegetation

through

topography

is documented (sometimes

by the construction involving digging

of hillforts, even through

of them

located and

on

flattened

by soil removal terracing upland

native

bedrock) associated

Extensive

was needed settlements. -limestone

also

for sanctuaries

Or domestic

buildings (iron

with

or in other but particularly Apart from

The extraction and andesite) vegetation

of natural would

resources

ore, perhaps on the a certain

stone the effect

also have

impacted

environment. level tools The

on local

by terracing quantity

and hilltop

flattening, variety

of deforestation and the extent current evidence may were period

is suggested of timber

by the significant

and typological

of woodworking

architecture. location and distribution economic it is known higher areas' needs to be re-addressed at the moment. although than by future It is likely clear that that

for settlement result in it making densely

survey,

which

a lot more than

sense than at present, altitudes

the lowlands in the Dacian Also future it is still

more

occupied went

it is already

settlements

to significantly

in the Roman study will stand

occupation. up to seems

to be seen whether At the moment, only

or not the 'empty this study reveals

detected

by this location

research.

that settlement of natural

in the Dacian (e. g. arable

period ore

to have been influenced sources) large other

in part by the provision

resources previous vicinity

land,

or ease of access place (Deva)

and communications, has been located within

contradicting

theories.

Indeed,

only

one to

central centres,

the immediate

of the Mures, religion) would

and access have been

for various more difficult.

services/functions Still, most

(e. g. trade, of them tend

administration,

considerably overlooking Craiva, Access difficult. human economic Regia

to be located

not too deep Cucuis,

in the mountains, Cugir, Capaina,

the Mures Bretea into

Valley

or those

of its main

tributaries

(Costesti,

Ardeu, deeper

Muresana). Mountains extensive and to Sarmizegetusa inhabited landscape Regia created have been increasingly

the Orastie that the whole other

would

It seems effort

at the cost of significant The only at Sarmizegetusa of the site and effort significance. Craiva at

had reasons apparent other

than pragmatism

for its emergence of iron

and development.

reason

is related locations

to the provision around. could could However, have

ore, used extensively religious

and in several related

the large

significance settlement

(possibly documented MY opinion further

to iron

metallurgy)

determined attracted

the extensive

there,

and, ultimately, centre

even have

the politico-administrative candidate centre, (and

is that the large in the Mures Regia The shift would

at Costesti

is the most

likely

in that area (like and that such metallurgical) represent,

upstream

valley) have

for a politico-administrative by its religious

functions

Sarmizegetusa significance. a later political

been preceded sphere

perhaps Regia

of the political Such

towards

Sarmizegelusa seems

could

therefore, accounts

development. events

an interpretation of the Dacian during

to be supported The

by the historical reform

of the political given to royalty

in the late phase priest

civillsation. the reign

religious

and support by the

by the great

Dekaineos

of Burebista

was followed

246

acquisition first king.

of these powers This ensuring acquisition authority

(both

political

and religious) on several despite

by the former occasions

after

the dramatic

death with

of the

of powers over

occurred

under

his successors, unity after

religion Burebista

all the Dacians

the loss of political to be demonstrated

the death

of

(see chapter chronology. the Roman The great metres high)

3). However,

this assumption

needs

by future

clarification

of the site's By contrast, pragmatic. 400-500 arable

settlement

pattern

(figure

6.3)

in the study

area reveals (most

itself

as largely up to some have had to

majority

of settlements

are located

in the lowlands within give

of them would than

and, compared trade

to the modem

land-use, routes

areas which structure

potential.

The main

and communication and the emergence tributaries)

more

ever before

the organisation (that of the Mures

of the landscape and its main

of settlement. factors

Topography in determining bases, which

and the water the access in turn

courses

are the major

network the

throughout construction extraction

the area. This

influenced

the location Further transport

of the military facilities

influenced the

of the road network. sites (or places

were

also needed

to connect

of religious seems

significance very extensive,

such as the spa at Germisara) with a major valley. At access route

to the major heading

routes.

The communication along the Tara

network

northwards Geoagiu

Hategului,

Strei

corridor to have places

and the Mures followed outside

least in the sector sides of the river.

between But

and Apulum, of road network which

the road appears in several other

the valley the main

on both

identification

sectors

line

suggests attracted seem

the presence major towns

of an extensive and smaller an important of Roman and transport harbours, would centres, role in

of secondary emerged along

roads. their

The access line.

facilities

available

Furthermore,

these routes particularly

to have

played

the general architecture have

romanisation and building

of the countryside, techniques.

visible

in the introduction

The proper services,

functioning

of communications crossing points,

detennined

the location

of ancillary

such as river

and even

stationes
Obviously resource quarrying sandstone centres

or customs
the location itself. only This with

centres (see chapter

of mining

5).
sites was related of iron, primarily gold The seem to the location of the to stone and

and quarrying

is clear respect more

especially to special widespread and small

for the exploitation stone (marble

and salt, applies availability to be located connected they Rusca

and andesite). the quarries cases they

of limestone near major to the

was much

and, therefore, towns. In most

of demand

i. e. major

are clearly

transportation existed

network

and in the few cases where access route for the iron

roads

are not documented, district in the Poiana

are likely mountains

to have along

(e. g. a probable

mining

the river Cema towards

The location of sites with

the Mures).
industrial activity is dictated vict). by various factors: location of resources, is attested beyond in villas or for the or

that of the markets industries limits involving

for products stone

(e. g. military

Processing analysis

near extraction determined

centres

and iron,

but the present associated Deva; iron with

that this extends

of the specialised

settlements working: Cincis).

the quarries

and has been detected Sinpetru-2,

homesteads Valea Da1jii;

too (e. g. stone iron extraction:

working:

Hunedoara, working

Bucium-Orlea-2, seems

Indeed,

the iron

at Sinpetru

and Bucium-Orlea

to continue

a pre-Roman

tradition.

247

Finally, factors.

the location The major

of settlements towns

in this landscape centres

seems are located

to have

been influenced

by multiple

and the smaller

in the lowlands emerged or Apulum. centres.

and on the main areas which location of rural in and

communication experienced settlement Tara

routes the most

of the province. difficulty more

Also,

the smaller either

centres

in those The

in reaching by the major within

Sarmizegetusa than the smaller

is attracted

towns

Of the 101 settlements were villas

Hategului, villas. Apart

45 are located Similarly,

15 kilometres

of Sarmizegelusa ofApulum,

and 32 of them 34 were

possible villas. seem their

of the 93 sites within possible ftom equivalents the hinterland and some limestone

15 kilometres

villas

and possible in particular in the

firom some absent

of suburban of the smaller

examples centres. also

(e. g. Micia), In addition determined

villas

to be almost vicinity,

to the settlement to a great extent

the large

centres

of the smaller or sandstone.

centres;

location

of quarries

providing

As outlined lowlands, however, resources exploitation It is possible phenomenon Roman Dacian

above, the general trend in the Roman period but without being too methodical in eliminating

was an increase upland

in settlement

in the seems,

settlement.

One exception

to have been in force: despite of the area and of the province, of the iron resources

the organised

approach

to the exploitation whatsoever capital

of the natural of the Regia.

so far there are no indications around the former Dacian

available

at Sarmizegetusa

that rules of economic

pragmatism

were not in force in this case and that the of occupation however, in the area following the

could be related to a deliberate The same attitude

avoidance

conquest.

cannot be detected,

in the area around the former Mountains described is the only area by ancient

centre at Piatra Craivii,

(see figure 6.3), so It seems that the Orastie movement

that may have experienced

the forced depopulation/settlement interpretations.

sources and accepted by traditional

1.3 The

impact

of the Roman

army

on the creation

of the

rural

landscape

(figure

6.4)

The presence of the Roman forts and camps identified identification analysis

military throughout

in Dacia has been generally the province

accepted 100

as massive. -see

The number

of

is very large (over principles

Gudea 1997), but by dated

of phases of occupation ceramics

by stratigraphic

and their more precise dating

of associated estimations

are still in their infancy,

so that very few have been precisely to estimate.

and overall

of the army contingent

at any given time are difficult evidence, during

According

to estimations present

by Piso (1993,83) Inferior

based on epigraphic and Porolissensis) Apart

some 60 auxiliary

troops were

in Dacia (Superior, command

the Marcomanic

Wars under the auxiliary troops

exceptional

of Pertinax.

from legion AW1 Gemina Cigmau, Orastioara Cigmau

from Apulum,

were present at within

the study area Micia,

de Sus and Razboieni. and Razboieni) until the Roman

At least those

forts located along the Mures occupied throughout century

river and the road (Micia, centuries

all seem to have been retreat in the second Campagonum, were

the 2d and the P AD. At Micia

AD, probably

half of the P cohors located

the fort was garrisoned and the numerus Britannicianorum)

by ala I Hispanorum Miciensium.

H Flavia at Cigmau

Commagennorum, (Singulariorum

Maurorum

Other numeri

and Orastioara

de Sus (Germinicianorum miliaria). In each of

248

Exploratorum)

and a second ala was stationed

at Razboieni

(ala Batavorum

these

forts

tegular

material

indicates

the certain

presence

of (mainly)

legion

A7II

Gemina

(and at

Razboieni The Roman associated played (Apulum of them

also of VMacedonica). army with was clearly an important of highly element romanised in the area. Military settlements sites have been generally and military with both vid which

the emergence role

as canabae 2000), receiving

an important and Potaissa) under

in the urbanisation and as many Severus

of the province 6) military Many

(Oprean vid

canabae status, many as in

as 5 (possibly 1998).

municipal

Septimius

(Ardevan

army

veterans and some

colonised of them

the province became vici

landowners local

(legionary

veterans)

or as the inhabitants As seen in chapter

of towns, 5, within

involved

municipal centres

administration. for a large trade,

the study directed active

area military at both monetary Also, there army

provided

important including centres the vici

number

of activities and religious result

and services activities.

and civilians, in these that

industry,

transport,

The

circulation are indications in the through

is not a surprise might

and is a clear

of the military extent in taxation

presence. and local

have been involved territory. Furthermore, Through

to some

administration authority

neighbouring praefectus rapid

the unit functions

would

have provided

the legal impact

Its to the

castrorum.

their

these sites had a huge

and contributed

romanisation

of the territory.

More than in terms of administration development of the rural landscape the location

or markets, through

the Roman

army crucially and maintenance

influenced

the

the construction

of the communication landscape throughout the

system. This influenced mechanism territory work.

of settlements

and ultimately

made the whole more widely

Therefore,

the fairly

scarce presence of the military

came as a mild surprise.

Approximately

20 sites have some military have stamped

connection,

but other

than attested forts and their vici, in only 9 locations workshop been discovered. Most

tiles or bricks

firom. a military

of them belong to legion N11 Gemina;

in 2 cases, these were found

from Britannicianorum with stamps from other troops - Numerus Singularlorum (uncertain Cigmau (188) and legion IAdiulrix In one location (480) a stamp of legion IV -520). Flavia Felix was discovered. Military elements were also present at mines and quarries (e. g. Uroi), in association and some further cases can religious religious indications dedicated usually traces of their activity adoration be explicitly can be seen in their religious liked to military presence. activity, Altars adoration, although dedicated in only a few to divinities at

centres such as Germisara of an active support by the commanders linked

were perhaps signs of personal

but the site provides through altars

of the centre by the auxiliary in a special location

troop from

Cigmau

on the site (see chapter

5). The only other cult who appears to be

to the presence of the military outside known

is that of Mithras (2 mithraea:

(Sol Invictus) Vurpar,

worshipped Lopadea

in 4 locations

garrisons

Decea; and 2 dedications:

Noua and Sard).

2.

Was there

a state-directed strategies? policy was largely

settlement

policy

or did the changes

result

from

multiple

small-

scale individual State-directed exemptions.

channelled

towards

urbanisation

and the granting and reflected

of status and tax the approaches to 249

In Dacia this is manifested

much like in other provinces

provincial

administration

and tomanisation

by the emperors throughout

the Danubian area and, involvement

indeed, the Empire. Within Western Transylvania came under Trajan (colonia Sarmizegelusa),

the key moments of such political (municipium

Marcus Aurelius

Apulense) and Septimius Gemina; and

Severus (colonia Apulense; a new municipiumApulense jus italicum

from the canabae of LegionU1

for the two coloniae, Sarmizegetusa and Apulum -see Ardevan 1988,111-119). Apart from indicating the largest nuclei of romanisation of the province, their emergence and status explains the concentration of settlement around both Sarmizegetusa and, 4pulum. decisions is significantly differenL Trajan's approach to

However, the context of these political romanisation Was traditional,

centrcd on the establishment of coloniae deductae (e. g. Sarmizegetusa

in Dacia, Poctovio in Pannonia, Ratiaria in Mocsia Superior) and not on raising the status of existing communities, colonia Sarmizegelusa was as much a political which was the line adopted by his successor (Dise 1990,60-65). 'Me foundation of the views of

statement as a result of the traditionalist

Trajan regarding conquest, the rewarding of veterans and finding a solution to the deep cash crisis of the monarchy through economic exploitation of provincial natural resources. Indeed, these features of his policy have been noted elsewhere too (colonial settlements at Poelovio in Pannonia and Ratiaria in Moesia Superior and organisation of ritining in Moesia Superior -see Dise 1991,60-65) and cannot be interpreted as designed specifically for Dacia. The fact that in Dacia this policy was most of the momentum immediately following the wars of extensive is explained fully by the opportunity conquest. As indicated by the landscape analysis, the reasons for location of the town at Sarmizegelusa also seem to be other than purely economic. As a settlement of veterans, one would expect the colonia deducta of veterans to be placed in the middle of the most fertile agricultural land available, but it is hardly so. Firstly it is located in Tara Hategului which is hardly comparable with the Mures Valley in terms of its arable potential; nor is it placed centrally but at the western edge of the plain, where issues of communication and access seem more relevant than agriculture. From that position it

offered uneven coverage for the surrounding area, as only 44 sites out of 10 1 in Tara Hategului arc located within 15 kilometres of the town. That this was economically unviable was proven by the later medieval and modem settlement pattern, which firmly established the local ccntre at Hateg to the east. Moreover, if its territory was indeed originally as large as seems to have been the case, both the Mures valley and Banat, that explains the need for further centres to emerge. extending into The first town at APulum (Alba lulia-Partos) the proximity is an example of such a centre. Its emergence was due to

of the legionary base and centre of provincial government (the governor's palace), have undoubtedly attracted civilian presence. But its location was extremely favourable which would in an economic sense, positioned as it was in the middle of the most fertile sector of the Mures valley, near the gold mining area and in a crucial location for both the riverine and terrestrial communication networks. In this case, however, we see a gradual evolution towards urbanisation. The town emerged leuga buffer legionary its location 2 indicated by fortress, the the the of establishment outside as after local zone of the garrison, when the prosperous non-urban settlement which has developed around the harbour was granted recognition as a town sometime during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. In the case
250

ofApuhan, therefore,political influcrice on the evolution of the settlementpatterncould be intervention limited. Much is visible though and explicit stronger more political considered mom decidedto mu-ardhis lo)-al supportersin the civil wars of AD 193-196, %henSeptimiusSc-svrus amongthem the Dacianarmy and its leaders,and grantedmunicipium statusto the legionary canabae at Apuhan (as well as at Potaina), raising the statusof the existing town there to colonia and granting the jus IMIk= to both Sanni: egewa andApulum (Ardevan 1998,115-119). Apart from the economicactivities in relation to commerceand transport, it is possiblethat the original communityat Apulum also had someinvolvement in agriculture in the immediatevicinity. This could be indicatedby the fact that, unlike SarmizegeftaaApulum doesnot seemto have had (see kilorrictres 2-4-3 las thin away chapter5), so that the arable land up to that distance -oil any closer In from been bave the contrast,the emergence %ithin settlement of villas at culd ated could i Sarmizegewa at distances as tittle as 1.2-1.3kilometres away (without taking into accountexamples interpreted be as sub-urbanvillas) could be interpretedas yet another can cam murw, %hich indication of a community%ith an elitist lifestyle and pretensionsfrom its very beginnings. The political involvementin the emergence and evolution of Roman settlementin the study areais less %isiblein relation to centreswith non-urbanstatus.The emergenceof military vici can be by influenced being strategicthan political reasons(linked to the location of more consideredas forts) and the other possibleccntres(Calan,Aiud-Brucla, possibly Uroi-Petris and Blandiana) seem for local in in have the that region (seeaboveand chapter5). a centre need to sufficicntjustification deliberate the In triany areasaroundthe ? visible most effects of policy impacting on the %lediterranean land pe at one particular momentin time are provided by Centuriatio. As shown in the previous documented is sufficiently this yet anywherein Dacia. The circumstances not chapter, process of town foundation.along %ith the possibleanalogywith Poetovio in Pannoniaand the frequent line indicate Ron= the the to of that sucha systemhad outside main roads road might reference beenin place.So far the only possibletraccsof roadsforming a grid have been found to the southof but are not extensiveenoughto supportthe identification of an extensivesystem.Future Apulun% issue. light this on more shed studiesnight by the analysisof the settlementpattern in the study areaonly The overall picture generated partly its Dacia that the experienced massiveinflux of population from outside its cultural supports view boundariesas result of a rapid, extensiveand deliberatepolicy instigated and actively supportedby therefore,that political factors impacted on the settlementpatternand the state.It can be considered, distribution only to a limited extent,and that this was largely restricted to the reign of Trajan. His focusedparticularly on urbanisationand the colonial Communityof Sarmizegetusa %%-ere measures visible mainly in the Tara Hategului. madean impact as an organisedgroup on the native landscape Tr3jan's original colonists were probably veteransfrom the legions who receivedpropertiesin that region (seechapter3). The establisluncritof forts after the conquestinfluenced the emergence of further civilian groupsthrough the founding of military vici. But it is probably the casethat this deliberatepolicy had echoesin a larger-scaleindividual migration into Dacia, as well as into its neighbouringprovinces(the Pannonias and the Moesias- Dise 199162-3). Suchindividual
251

by Hadrian who, by granting Roman citizenship, contributedto an colonisationwas supported increasein the numberof citizens in the area.The presence of Aelii in a significantly larger number than Ulpii is very visible particularly at Apulum (Piso 1993b,330 and 332), with a total of 38 Ulpii, and 117Aelii (26 and 64 civilians respectively)attestedepigraphically. At Sarmizegetusa there is a 34 Ulpii and 38 Aelii. This provides further indicationsof the different with more evencomposition, evolutionarypatternsof the two centres.However,it should be noted that it was only after half a 4puluni) emerged. Marcus Aurelius' involvement at, 4pulumis century that a secondcharteredtown (. rather limited. It seemslikely that the settlementthere and its satelliteshad alreadyemergedand he by municipal status merely acknowledgedit officially. SeptimiusSeverus' granting prospered,and (new municipium and ius Italicum for the colonia) could have effectedin a more extensivemeasures of satellite settlementin the territory outside. But it is likely that the main strongerencouragement featuresof the settlement patternwould alreadyhavebeenestablishedby that date,hencethe effects detail, than of substance. this of political act were more mattersof

3. Did the conquest result in any perceptible resistancephenomena amongst the natives? According to G. Woolf "Roman culture is the product of a tension betweenRomanizationand In decades lines (1998,19). if' to recent special of researchon resistanceto romanisation resistance or spatialextenthave beendeveloped.The phenomenon and its varied forms of expression was Rome, territories to the north-African of notably Tripolitania (e.g. B6nabou 1976; related particularly Mattingly 1995;Grahame1998),from wherethe discussionwas enlargedto include other areasof the RomanWest (e.g. Hingley 1997).Whereveridentified, resistancehas very rarely taken the form of military action (rebellion),but hasusually involved rather more subtle meansof rejection or reinterpretationof Romanculture, whetherin its ideological or material expression,at a collective or individual level.

Theorthodox theirrule in Daciaandtreated established view of thewaytheRomans thenative (thenatives wereforcedto movefromthetop of themountains andsettlein the populations lowlands; theRomans tookthefertile landsfor theirownproperties andforcedthenatives to move labour)suggests firm-handed ascheap awayor work on theirproperties a considerably or, indeed, If true,theresulting towards thenatives. towards attitudeof theDacians violenttreatment their is likely to havebeen by resistance to acculturation, characterised conquerors ratherthan thewidelyheldbeliefthatclose,peaceful andwouldcontradict andfriendly receptiveness, between of thenewprovinceasthebasisof a rapid relationships wereestablished all theinhabitants process of romanisation. anddurable Cantheeffectof theRoman be appliedto thenatives andcolonisation occupation or thetreatment in theprocess Thereis no doubtthattheRomans actedaggressively of asaggressive? characterised in (possibly to than the territory other wasneeded conquering pacifyingandsecuring a greater extent in interpretation The has traditional the the to present provinces). study offered opportunity analyse thecurrentevidence moredetailandseewhether thegeneralisations mass supports concerning be interpretations movement of population andownership change, should or whether morenuanced
252

indeed, lowlands. location But focus Roman focus The the the was, settlement of of accepted. general (see in location trend the only an uplands was probably apparent aboveand pre-Romansettlement chapter4), which might well be overturnedby further researchin the lowlands. Whetherthis change cameabout through deliberaterestriction is again arguable.As shown above,the only areain the dramatic from have the pre-conquestto the postto change experienced uplandswhich seems literary Mountains Orastie is to the the seems correspond with area, which and conquestperiod forced Indeed, destruction few depiction population a and movement. with very of settlement artistic exceptions,which havebeeninsufficiently investigatedso far, in the Roman period the Orastie Mountains seemto havebeencompletelyunoccupied,even avoided,both in terms of settlementand This can easily be explainedgiven the strong opposition encountered the exploitation of resources. there during the wars, and the necessityof securingthe areato elin-dnate any finther attemptsat it is but by the unlikely that the sametreatmentwas extendedto the whole study natives, resistance area. Also of relevanceis the way the property systembecameestablishedafter the conquest.We know before Roman in Dacia the the conquest.On the one hand,the system nothing about property field systemscould suggestthat there was lesspressureto and of enclosures predominantabsence define boundariesand individual properties.But on the other, the preferencefor individual settlement forms (for evenin the more aggregated communitiesa scatteredstructure is prevalent) is a clear by someform of individuality. A certain level indication that the ownershipsystemwas characterised have is a royal monopoly could applied to gold mining activities, for possible: also of statecontrol example.In the Romanperiod private ownershipwas undoubtedlyassociatedwith villa estates, though its extentwould havebeenreducedby the presence of military zones,imperial domains, pascui et salinarum are epigraphicallyattested)or unusedmunicipal land pastures(conductores (subseciva,loca relicta). For the momentthe only indication of the possible impact of Roman is location holding land the actual of settlements within the territory. Extensiveareas occupationon lower Strei Hategului in Tara land the and valley closest to colonia Sannizegetusa and midof arable in Dacia- show only scarcetracesof pre-Roman first (and centre of property strongest) private -the settlement.If this situation is maintainedby future systematicresearch,it will indicate that the distribution of arableland to the citizens of Sarmizegetusa might have had less impact on the been This has than suggested. suggestionis further supported system previously ownership previous by the potential elementsof pre-Romancontinuity detectedin the survival of sites and industries. This demonstrates treatmentof the natives potentially affecting that the violence in the post-conquest their individual property and economicresources shouldbe regardedas limited in its extent and not necessarilygeneralised. Defining ethnicity on the basisof material culture is usually not straightforward, and it is no less difficult to differentiate betweencultural acceptance and changeor resistance.The nativesfor a long in time identified their presence through thoseelementswhich imply resistance,whetherexpressed their names,their religious beliefs and funerary customs,by the housesthey lived in or by the objects they possessed.Becausethe native elementsin RomanDacia appearrarely in an epigraphiccontext,
253

have interpreters taken this to supporttheoriesof extermination and the physical absence modem of the natives.The archaeologicalevidenceconsideredin this study provides no clear tracesof Dacian to occupationand romanisation(as clear and deliberateaction to reject the assimilationof resistance Romanmaterial culture). There is a persistence of certain elementsof native material culture, particularly pottery, in varied archaeologicalcontexts.The tall 'jar'-shaped cooking pot is still in in habits force Daco-Roman contextsand the culinary still some prc-Roman producedreflecting in forts Roman (Tentea Marcu 1997) becomes 'Dacian present even and reflecting mug' ubiquitous the adoptionof pre-Romancustoms(perhapssmoke-inhaling)by individuals in the Roman army. It is difficult to decidewhetherthe continuoususeof native traditions in pottery forms or in architecture (e.g. the useuntil later of traditional village architecture- seeabove) should be interpretedas Roman fashions, for different to the adoption of artefacts cultural response and or simply as evidence developmenL Given fact differential the that both pottery and building economic reflecting techniquesshow increasinglevels of Romaninfluence, my inclination would be to considerthem for temporarycultural reminiscences the momentas more likely to represent rather than deliberate Other (e. Roman categories of evidence g. epigraphy - the virtual absence culture. of rejectionsof lack in by be habit) lack a of resistance explained onomastic also might epigraphicrecords have influenced The that tradition the way pre-Roman might possibility resistance. manifestationsof Dacian villa housesmight have beenlived in (seediscussionin chapter5), until confirmed by future if be it this to nevertheless, were confirmed, could supporta serious supposition; a remains research, in levels the upper echelonsof provincial society. in favour of personal resistance of certain argument

4. How did the processof romanisation develop in Dacia? The context of the creationof any of the Romanprovinceswas the extensionof the Roman domination over its neighboursoutsideits borders.Simply by their physical presenceand by dictating the rules of the gamein newly acquiredterritories, the incomersshould be consideredthe initiators of To what extent they themselveswere as romanisation. the processof changewhich we categorise Romanis debatable,sincethey are often inhabitantsof neighbouring areasalready under Romanrule, from Rome Italy. But the success than rather coming or even stages of romanisation, of and at various level by depended these the acceptance of of new rules on native society. 'Roman' romanisation determined the particularitiesof eachcaseof provincial romanisationand native response action and It is crucial, therefore,to they were both the product of a particular set of historical circumstances. its in their particular evolutionary and chronological participants and case of romanisation place each context. Dacia facedthe disappearance of the 'Orastie Mountainscivilisation': the settlementsceaseto be iron do This pattern fits the destroyed Romans the the resources. extract not and occupiedor were The sourcesalso say that the population was moved into the lowlands. accountin the literary sources. Dut the very particular type of architectureseenin the OrastieMountains cannot be traced in any of the identified native-typc settlements of Romandate.On the contrary, theselook similar
254

lowland villages (with sunkenhousesand storagepits, e.g. Vintu to the pre-conquest architecturallY de Jos, Lancram). The archaeological evidencefor the period following the Roman conquestdepictsa society of colonistsand natives,which varied hierarchically and ethnically, involved in a sustained processof acculturation.Evolution in the settlementpattern indicatesthat the settlerspreferredto live in the lowlands as opposedto the uplands;otherwise,settlementtypology was more affectedby change than the settlementhierarchy.Significant evolution in social composition and attitudescan be detected. In striking contrastwith the pre-Romanlandscape,funerary and religious sites are a in associationwith settlements frequentoccurrence and reflect a variety of customs,beliefs and economicwealtIL The natureof changeunder Romanrule in Dacia as reflected in material culture is very similar to that by other Romanprovinces.However, in Dacia there are particular circumstances experienced which have led to extremeinterpretationsof the processes of colonisation and romanisation.So far, no equivalentof Fishboumehasbeenfound. This Romanpalacebuilt for a British native prince has long beena symbol of the deliberateRomanpolicy of admitting - even attracting - the leadersof conquered societiesinto a unified ruling elite of the Empire through political and cultural assimilation formalisedby Romancitizenship (Woolf 1998,18). Moreover, through generatingemulation among Fishboume is status, similar a symbol of the importanceof such a social of neighbouringnative sites attitude in the creationof the imperial culture. The lack of a Dacian equivalent suggests at first sight that the native elite was not involved in provincial administration (which might be taken to explain its in to take the Imperial ruling classand, not encouraged the absence was place system), of a civitas therefore,reflects a very different attitude on the part of the Romanstowards the conquestand organisationof Dacia as comparedto Britain or Gaul, for example.Modem interpretershave gone from explaining it either in a brutal colonialist way (that Romanscoming as a ruling class in its own kept to, the more recently, suggestingthe physical as servants) who were natives, right and exploiting 2004). Diaconescu (e. disappearance the g. elite of The major differencebetweenDacia and the Celtic world, for example,lies in its politicoits it the conquest: was a unified state,under the rule of one king of moment administrativestatusat be tribal could easily convertedto the Roman civitas systemof which structure and not a regional dead by king Since the end of the wars of conquest,there was no needto the was administration. build a Romanpalacefor him. The Dacian elite itself was more 'specialised' than elsewhere;by the end of the Dacian state,a division betweenwarrior and economicelite was in operation. It is very have followed king's the that the elite would exampleand taken their own social a part of possible lives; but, evenif the warrior elite had disappeared, the economicelite would have beena valuable identified far have been So for they the not epigraphically. Even if the new administration. asset adoption of epigraphicpractice is a personaldecision,it is still one of the markersof romanisation. Nevertheless, the clear indications that native lifestyles and influenceswere presentalso in the upper echelonsof the settlementhierarchy leave this possibility openand it shouldbe investigatedfurther. Trajan was not Agricola and had his own administrativeand political philosophy. Indeed,the Roman
255

approachto conquestand administrationat a collective level would have evolved to someextentby the beginningof the 2"dcenturyAD, and also the political context of the Empire was different when Dacia was conquered. Whetheror not this justifies the rarity of Daciansrecordedon inscriptions remainsto be seen.Similarly unexplainableis the fact that no Dacian god creepsinto the Roman pantheon.Moreover,the main Dacian sacredsite was destroyedduring the wars and the place was doomed.But placesof religious significancelike Germisara,where the pre-Romanuseof the site is in in the cult and worshipping activities nuances period with particular combined post-conqucst (including the epigraphicevidenceof a DecebalusLuci -see abovechapter5), show that some had survived, despitethe Roman namesapplied to local elementsof the Dacian supernatural divinities. Nevertheless, the level of political encouragement and the apparentlack of resistance are the likely explanationsfor the fact that Dacia was more rapidly integratedin comparisonto other provinces,for it had alreadyachievedfiffl developmentat the moment of its abandonment.

256

Hillfort / fortified site

Hillfort with a; sociated settlement

Tower house

Tower house with associated settlement

Individual homestead

Village -compact, unenclosed -scattered,unenclosed

Individualsettlement

Nucleatedsettlement

Villa

'Small town'

-military vici -specialised settlements

Individual homestead

Village -traditional type -Romantype

Figure 6.1: Comparative diagram showing the settlementtype and hierarchy in the late Iron Age and the Roman periods. 257

.ZE
*M

.Ec:

z0

LL,

0.

C4

td)

42

E C
Pl

258

0 -.

e4
>.

.-

ei

;i f 14

Q2 rA cm

259

rt M
r3

r6,0

k.

13 e im
-Z

r3

.0

260

Bibliograph-, -

Alicu, D. 1994

Allcu, D. 1998 Alicu, D. and Boegh, H. (eds.) 1993 Apolzan, L. 1987 Ardevan, R. 1995 Ardevan, R. 1998 Anno-Gil et al. 1994

Cercetari arheologice la Cluj-Napoca: villa rustica din Valea Chintaului. Campanille 1990-1992, Acta Musei Napocensis 31,539-554 Les villae rusticae dans le basin du Somes Rece (la villa rustica de Chinteni 1), in Baumann 1998,127-160 Politique edilitaire dans les provinces de 1'Empire Romain, H me - IV me sijcles aprs J C. Actes de colloque roumanoCluj Napoca, 1991, 21-26 Deva, octobre suisse, Carpatii - tezaur de istorie. Perenitatea asezarilor risipite pe Civitas et vicus dans la Dacie Romaine, in Baumann 1998, 45-56 Viata municipala in Dacia Romana, Timisoara Les cadastres romains d'Hispanie: &tat actuel de la recherche, in Doukelis, P.N and Mendom, L. G. (cds) Structures rurales et socit6s antiques, Paris A rchaeologies of landscape. Contemporary perspectives, Oxford Interpreting the landscape: landscape archaeology and local history, London, New York Political geography and productive geography between the valleys of the Albegna and the Fiora in northern Etruria, in G. Barker and J. Lloyd (eds), Roman landscapes. Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region (Archaeological monographs of the British School at Rome, 2), London, 142-152. Spatii si functionalitati in constructifle dacice clasicc. 0

inaltimi, Editura.stiintifica si enciclopedica, Bucharest

Ashmore, W and Knapp, A. B. (eds.), 1999 Aston, M 1997 Attolini, G., F. Cambi, M. Castagna, M. -G. Celuzza, E. Fentress, P. Perkins and E. Regoli 1991

Balos, A. 2000

perspectivaetno-arheologica,Acta Musei Porolissensis 24,

Barrett, J. 1997 289-97 Romanization: a critical comment, in Mattingly, D (ed) Dialogues in Roman imperialism : power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth, Rhode Island 51-64 La politique dilitaire dans les provinces de 1'Empire romain

Baumann, V. H. (ed. ) 1998

Bnabou, M. 1976 Bender, H. and Wolff, H. (eds)

Benea,D. 2000

Bennett, J. 1997 Bewley R.H. and Raczkowski, W. (eds) 2002a Bewley R.H. and Raczkowski, W. 2002b Bewley, B 2002

IMme-Xime sicles aprs J.-C., Actes du lIfe Colloque Roumano-Suisse"La vie rurale dans les provinces romaines: vici et villae, Tulcea, 8-15 octobre 1995, Tulcea La Nsistance africaine la romanisation, Paris Lndliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in den RheinDonau Provinzen des RmischenReiches. Vortrage eines Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 16-21 April 1991 in UniversitAtsschriften zur Archdologic, Passau,Passauer Band 2, Espelkamp Die innere organisierung der Militdrvici aus Dakien (1) (Die Vohnungen) in Clugudean,H. and Moga, V. (eds) Army and Danubian development in the provinces of the Roman urban Empire, 33-61 Trajan, optimusprinceps: a life and times, London Aerial archaeology - developingfuture practice, Nato ScienceSeries,Amsterdam Pastachievementsand prospectsfor the future development of aerial archaeology:an introduction, in Bewley and Raczkowski 2002a, 1-8 Aerial survey: learning from a hundred years of experience? 261

in Bewley and Raczkowski 2002a, 11-18 Bintliff, J. 1997 Catastrophe,chaosand complexity. the death, decay and rebirth of towns from antiquity to today, Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 5/2,67-90 Bogdan-Cataniciu,I. O.M. 1981 Evolution of the systemof defenceworks in Roman Dacia, BAR International Series 116, Oxford Goodbye Cold War! Goodbye Bureaucracy? Opening the Braasch,0.2002 skies to Aerial Archaeology in Europe, in Bewley and Raczkowski 2002a, 19-22 Ancient landscapes:studies infield archaeology, Bath Bradford, J. 1957 Bumham, B. C. and Wacher, I 1990 Chouquer,G. and Favory, F. 1991 CIL= Mommsen, T. 1863Ciongradi, C. 2004 a Ciongradi, C. 2004 b Ciugudean,H. and Moga, V. (eds) 2000 The 'small townsofRoman Britain, London Lespaysages de Pantiquiti. Terres et cadastres de VOccident romain (IVe s.avant J CIIIIe s. apr6s J C, Paris Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, Berlin Burial monuments in Roman Dacia and their implications, in Hanson and Haynes 2004,165-78 Grabmonumentund Sozialer status in Oberdakien, (PhD thesis,University of Cologne) Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire -Proceedings of the International SymposiumAlba 1ulia 8h-10 October 1999, Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XV, Alba Iulia A century of Air-Photography, Antiquity 28,206-2 10 Society and Settlementin Iron Age Europe LHabitat et POccupationdu Sol en Europe, A ctes du XVIIIe Colloque do lAFEAF, Winchester- April 1994, Sheffield Romania, London Histoire de la Roumanie des origines a nosjours, Editions Horvath Spiritualitatea geto-dacilor.- repere istorice, Bucharest Yhe Oxford illustratedprehistory of Europe, Oxford Zalmoxis. An Addenda to FVD, Thraco-Dacica 22 223-244 , Orasetarguri si satein Dacia romana, Acta Musei Napocensis VI, 537-544 Lafonnationdupeupleroumaincidesalanguetditionsdo I'Academie de la R6publique Populaire Rournainc, Bucharest TheLandscapeofRoman Britain, Stroud Brick and Tile Production in Roman Britain: Models of Economic Organisation, World Archaeology 1513,239-261 Where was the 'wilderness' in Roman times? in Shipley and Salmon 1996,154-179 Dacia under Trajan. Some observations on Roman tactics and strategy,.4cta Musei Napocensis34.1,13 -52 The towns of Roman Dacia: recent research,in Hanson and Haynes 2004,87-142 Apulum, in Alicu. and Boegli 1993,67-82 TheRoman Land Surveyors.An Introduction to the Agrimensores,Newton Abbot Cultural changeand imperial administration: the Middle Danubeprovinces of the Roman Empire, American University Studies IX, 99, P. Lang, New York, 'Bcm, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, London Integrated archaeological interpretation of combined in data, Zwingendorf, Austria prospection -a casestudy Bewley and Raczkowski 2002a, 149-165 262

Crawford, O.G.S. 1954 Collis, J. (ed) 2001

Condurachi, E. and Daicoviciu, C. 1971 Constantincscu,M. Daicoviciu C. and Pascu,St. 1970 Crisan, 1.H. 1986 Cunliffe, B. 1994 Dana, D. and Ruscu, L. 2001 Daicoviciu, C. 1969 Daicoviciu, C. Petrovici, E. and Stefan, Gh. 1963 Dark, K and Dark, P. 1997 Darvill, T and McWhirr, A, 1984 Delano-Smith, C. 1996 Diaconescu,A. 1997 Diaconescu,A. 2004 Diaconescu,A. and Piso, I. 1993 Dilke, O.A. W. 1971 Dise, R.L. 1991

Doncus, M. Doneus, N. and Neubauer, W. 2002

EI Susi, G. 1996

Eliadc, M. 1991 Fcrencz, I. V and Fcrencz,D. 2001 Ferenczi 1.1988

Floca, 0.1953 Floca, 0. and Valea, M. 1965 Florea, G. 1998 Florea, G. and Suciu, L. 1995 Fox, C. 1933

Foxhall, L. 1996

Frcre, S.S. 1971 Garnscy, P.D.A. and Whittaker, ) 1978 C.R. (eds.

Yanatori,pescari si crescatori de animale in Banatul milenii1or 6 i. Ch -Id. Ch, Bibliotheca Historica ct ArchaeologicaBanatica, III nd (2 Istoria credintelor si ideilor religioase edition), Bucharest Catevaconsideratii generateprivind asezariledatatc in secoleleIII-II i. Chr. de pe cursul mijlociu at Muresului, RevistaBistritei 15,39-53 Contributii Ia problema formarii asezarilor cu caracter protourbanIa daci (cu specialaprivire Ia SARMIZEGETUSA TO BASILEION), Apulum 25,127-159 Ferma (villa rustica) din epocasclavagistaromana,Materiale arheologice,1,743-754 Villa rustica si necropola daco-romanade Ia Cincis, Acta Musei Napocensis11,163-192 Ceramicapictata dacica: Arta, mestesugsi societate in Dacia preromana (sec.Ia. Chr. - Ip. Chr.), Cluj-Napoca Observatii cu privire Ia scutul de Ia Piatra Rosic, Ephemeris Napocensis5,48-61 Thepersonality ofBritain: its influence on inhabitant and invaders in prehistoric and early historic times (2nd edition), Cardiff Feeling the earth move: cultivation techniqueson steep slopesin classical antiquity, in Shipley, G. and Salmon J. 1996,44-67 Ferulamium excavations,vol. 1, Oxford Imperialism in theAncient World, Cambridge

Gaudefroy, S. Malrain,F. and

Pinard, E. 2001 Ghcorghiu, G.L. 2001

Le d6partemcnt de I'Oisede La T6ne IA La T6ncIII:

approchemicro-r6gionaic, in Collis, J. (cd) 2001,269-291 Asezari sifortificatii dacice in zona cursului mylociu al
Muresuluiseaffi. e.n-Ie. n. (PhD thesis at theBabcs-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca) Monografla geografica a Republicii Populare Romine. Vol I-

Gherasimov, IT (ed.) 1960

2. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romane,

Glodariu1.1981 Glodariu1.1983 Glodariu1.1993 Glodariu1.andIaroslavschi, E. 1979

Glodariu, 1. laroslavschi, E. Rusu-Pcscan4A. Stancscu,F.

Bucharest, Ia Slimnic,Bucharest Asezaridacicesi daco-romane Arhitecturadacilor -civila si militara, Cluj Napoca daces in Leshabitats et Ia politique romained'urbanisation, Alicu.andBoegli 1993,15-16. Civilizatiafierului Ia daci, Cluj-Napoca
Regia capitala Dacieipreromane, Acta Musci Sarmizegetusa Devensis,Deva

Romewithoutromanization: cultural changein the pre-dcscrt AD), Oxford Journalof of Tripolitania(first-third centuries 17(l), 93-111 Archaeology Grumazescu, C., 1975 Hategului.Studiuge0morfologic,Bucharest Depresiunea fauneidomestice Ia daci inaintcde Gudca, A. 1.andGudcaN, 1999 ContributiiIa cunoastcrca 36,145-173 Apulum cucerirea romana, de Gudea, A. 1.andGudea N, 2000 Despre zootehnie cunostinte si crestcrea animalelor, dacice (106-275). 0 in veterinara provinciile medicina incercare pcntrustadiulactualat ccrcctarilor, mctodologica Apulum37,241-78
Gudea,N. and Motu, 1.1994 Gudca,N. 1997 Die Landliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft im Rdmischcn Dakien, in Bender and Wolff 1994,511-516 Der Dakische Limes: Materialen zu seincr Gcschichtc,

1996 Grahame, M. 1998

263

Hanson,NV. S. 1994 Hanson,W. S. forthcoming Hanson,NV. S. and Haynes,I. P. (cds) 2004 Hanson,NV. S. and Oltean, I.A. 2000

Zentralmuseums Jahrbuch desR6misch-Germanischen Mainz 44,1-113 Dealing with Barbarians: the Romanization of Britain in Vyner, B. (ed) Building on the Past, London, 149-163 Civilians on frontiers, in Visy forthcoming RomanDacia: the making of a provincial society, JRA SupplementarySeries 56, Portsmouth, Rhode Island A multi-pcriod site on Uroi Hill, Hunedoara:an aerial perspective,Acta Musei Napocensis37/1,43-49

Hanson, IV.S andOltcan,I.A. 2002 Hanson, W.S. andOltean,I.A. 2003. HamiltonS. andManley,J. 2001 Hanley,R. 2000 Haselgrove, C. 1999 Hasclgrove, C. 2001 Haynes, I.P. andHanson, W.S. 2004 Hinglcy, R. 1996 Husar,A. andMan,N. 1998 E. 1997 Iaroslavschi,
Ilicscu, V. Popcscu,V. C. and Stefan, G. 1964 Isac, D. forthcoming Jones,G.D.B. and Mattingly, D. 1990 Knapp, A. B. 1990 Knapp A. B. 1997 Knapp, A. B. and Ashmore, W. 1999 Kolendo, J. 1994

Transylvania:problemsand Recent aerialsurveyin Western 109-115 2002a, in Bewley Raczkowski and and potential, 353-5 The identificationof Romanbuildingsfrom the air: recent discoveries Archaeological in Western Transylvania, Prospection10,101-17 Hillforts, monumentality and andplace:a chronological topographic a chronological andtopographic review of first European England, millenniumBC hillforts of south-cast Journal ofArchaeology4/1,7-42 Villagesin RomanBritain (2nd ), ShireArchaeology ed. The Iron Age, in Hunter,J. andRalston,I.B.M. (eds. ) The Archaeology of Britain -An Introductionfrom the Upper Palaeolithicto theIndustrial Revolution,London, 113-34 Iron Age Britain and its European setting,in Collis 2001,3772 An introductionto RomanDacia,in HansonandHaynes 2004,11-31 The"legacy" of Rome:the rise, declineand fall of the theory in Webster,J. andCooper, of Romanization, N. (cds)Roman imPelialism: Leicester, 35-48 Post-colonialperspectives, Therural settlement at Cristcsti,in Baumann1998,57-77 Tehnica la daci, Cluj Napoca
Jzvoareprivind istoria Romin iei, I: De la Hesiod la Itinerarul luiAntoninus, Bucharest Vicus Samum on the Northem frontier of Dacia in Visy forthcoming Atlas ofRoman Britain, London

Upper and Frcre 1988 Lica, V. 2000 Lockyear, K. 2004 Macrea, Nt 1969 Macrca, M. and Glodariu, 1. 1976 MacKcndrick, P. 1975 Marghitan, L 1970a

Production, Location, and Integration in Bronze Age Cyprus, Current Anthropology, 31/2.147-176 Yhearchaeology of late bronze age Cypriot society..the study ofsettlement, survey and landscape, Glasgow Archaeological landscapes:constructed, conceptualized, ideational in Ashmore and Knapp 1999,1-3 0 La relation ville/campagne dans les provinces danubiennes. R6alit6 et son reflct dans la mentalit6, in Bender and Wolff 1994,87-99 Trajan's Column: a new edition of the Cichorius plates introduction, commentaryand notes, Gloucester The Coming ofRome in the Dacian World, Konstanz The iron agebackground to Roman Dacia, in Hanson and Haynes2004,33-74 Editura Bucharest, Romana, stiintifica Dacia in Fiata Asezareadacica de la Arpasu de Sus,Bucharest Hill Chapel YheDacian stonesspeak, in in romane? timpul tot stapanirii Micia a fost un "pagus" 2114,579Arheologie Veche Istorie de si Cercelari Sjudii si
264

Marghitan, L. 1970b Marghitan, L. 1998 Martian, J. 1910

Marza, 1.1997.

Mattingly, D.J. 1995 Maxfield, V. A. and Dobson, M. (eds) 1989 Millett, M. 1990 Millett, M. 2001 Mitrofan, 1.1973 Nfitrofan, 1.1974 Mitrofan, 1.1976 Mitrofan, 1.1998 Mitrofan, 1.1999 Mocsy, A. 1974 Moga, V. 1995 Moga, V. and Ciugudean,H. (eds) 1995 Morariu, T. Cucu, V. and Velcea, 1.1966 Mulvin, L. 2002 Nandris, J. G. 1976 Nandris, J.G. 1981

594 Vcstigii dacice dc pc cursul mijlociu al Murcsului, Sargetia 7,11-19 Reflectii asupraromanizarii Daciei. Sapaturile arheologice de la Deva, Sargetia XXVII/l, 1997-1998,303-352 Archdologisch-prdhistorishcesRcpertorium flir SiebenbUrgen, Mitteilungen der Antropologischen Geselischaft3940,1909-1910,321-358 Andezitul utilizat de daci in constructfile sacrede la Regia - pctrografia si provcnienta, Acta Musel Sannizegetusa Napocensis34/1,819-23 Tripolitania, London Romanfrontier studies 1989, Exeter YheRomanization ofBritain. An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation, Cambridge Roman interaction in north-western Iberia, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20(2), 157-170 Villae Rusticae in Dacia Superioara1,Acta Musel NapocensisX, 127-150 Villae Rusticae in Dacia SuperioaraII, Acta Musei Napocensis XI, 41-59 Villae rusticae pc tcritoriul Sannizegctusei,Sargetia A711, 291-297 Les villae rusticae dans la Dacie Romaine, in Baumann 1998, 169-172 Marele centru de ceramica de la Micasasa,in Napoca - 1880 de ani de la inceputul vietii urbane, 166-173 Pannonia and Upper Moesia :a history of the middle Danubeprovinces of the Roman Empire, London Rccherchessur 1'epoqueromaine A Ghirbom, in Baumann 1995,161-168 Repertoriul arheologic aljudetului Alba, Alba lulia Thegeography of Romania, Bucharest Late Roman Villas in the Danube-Balkan Region BAR International Series 1064, Oxford The Dacian Iron Age. A comment in a Europeancontext, in Festschriftjur Richard Pittioni, Vienna, 723-36 Aspects of Dacian economy and highland zone exploitation, Dacia, (Nouvelle Series)XAY, 231-54

Oexle,J (cd) 1997

Oltcan, 1.A. 2002

Ausder Luft - Bilder unsererGeschichte: f& Luftbildarchdologie in Zentraleuropa,Landesamt

Archdologie mit Landesmuseurnfdr Vorgeschichtc. Dresden The use of satellite imagery for the transcription of oblique in aerial photographs, Bewley and Raczkowski 2002a, 224232 Rural settlementin Roman Dacia: some considerations, in Hanson and Haynes 2004,143 -164 Military vici in Dacia: an aerial perspective,Acta Musei 38.1,123-34 Napocensensis New discoveries in the military vicus of the auxiliary fort at Micia, in Visy forthcoming Relationship of Forts to Town Origins in Roman Dacia, in Ciugudeanand Moga 2000,79-89 Danebury: an Iron age hilrort in Hampshire. An aerial photographic interpretation of its environs, London
265

Oltean, 1.A. 2004 Oltean, LA and Hanson,W. S. 2001 Oltean I. A., Radeanu,V. and Hanson W. S. forthcoming Oprean,C. 2000 Palmer, R. 1984

Palmer, R. 1995

Palmer, R. 1996 Parker PearsonM., Mulville J., SharplesN. and Smith H. 2001

What an opportunity! in Luflbildarchaologic in Ost- und Mitteleuropa-A erial Archaeology in Eastern and Central Europe, Sonderdruckaus Forschungenzus Archaologie im Land Brandenburg3,23-32 Air photo interpretation and the Lincolnshire Fenland, LandscapeHistory 18,5-16 Decoding dirt and deposition: the Iron Age broch settlement in Collis 2001,125Scotland Hebrides, Dun Vulan, Outer of 135

Piso,1.1991 Piso,I. 1993a

Piso, 1.1993b

Die Inschriftenvon Pfaffenberg und derBereichder Canabae legionis,Tyche 6,131-169 FastipovinciaeDaciae,Antiquitas 1,Bonn
der Die Soziale und Ethnische Zusammensetzung Bev6lkerung in Sarmizegetusaund in Apulum, in Eck, W. (ed.) Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte.Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnism6glichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie. Kolloquium KOM 24-26 November 1991, B6hlau, K61n 315-337 Lc territoire de la Colonia SannizegetusaEphemeris Napocensis5,63-82 Fillae. vici, Pagi. Asezarile rurale din Dacia romana intracarpatica, Bibliotheca Septemcastrensia II, Bucharest Sapaturi intr-o villa rustica de langa Hateg, Acta Musei NapocensisIX, 439-447 Contributii la repertoriul arheologic al Judetului Hunedoara Hategului. Lucrare Metodico-stiintifica in vederea -Yara obtinerii gradului I Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Cluj Napoca Cateva probleme ale epocii Lat6nc in lumina descoperirilor recente de la Lancram.(or. Sebes)-"Glod" (Jud. Alba), in Gaiu, C. and Rustoiu, A. (eds) Les celtes et lesThraco-Daces de "est du bassin des CaTates du actes colloque -Les national qui a eu lieu a Bistrita le 16-17 octobre 1998, Cluj Napoca Sapaturile arheologice din Republica Socialista Romania in anul. 1969,Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Feche21/3,1970, 493-522 Observatii in legatura cu asczarile rurale din Dacia Romana, Acta Musei Napocensis,V, 505-512 Autohtonii in Dacia, 1, Dacia Romana, Bucharest Un village daco-romain de Ile-lVe si6cles A Obreja en Transylvanie, in Baumann 1998,79-99 Identificari arbeologice cu ajutorul fotografiilor aeriene, in Thraco-Dacica, X 1-2,203-204

Piso, 1.1995 Popa,D. 2002 Popa,R. 1972 Popa,0.1987

Popa,C.I. and Totoianu, R. 2000

Popescu,D. 1970

Protase,D. 1968 Protase,D. 1980 Protase,D. 1998 Rada,M. Cochina N. and Manea, D 1989

N. * M. andCochina, Rada,
Rada, CochinaandCorcodel**

in Localizarea anticeprin aerofotointerpretare, a douaasezari Fotogrammetrie, AnaleleInstitutului de Geodezie,

Cartografie si Organizarea Teritoriului V1,67-74 VicinaisidezvaluieunnelepefotografiaaerianainAnalele

Rorison,M. 2001 Rotea,M. 1993

Ruscu, D. 1999

Cartograflesi Fotogrammetrie, Institutuluide Geodezie, Teritoriului VIlL 97-103 Organizarea Series 933,Oxford Vici in RomanGaul,BAR International Napocensis Ephemeris 3,25Asezarileculturii Wietenberg, 36
Das VerteidigungssystemDakiens in friihantoninischer Zeit

Ruscu,D. 2003

Proceedings frontier studies. ) Roman in Gudea N. (ed. of the Frontier InternationalCongress XV11th of theRoman Studies, Zalau,477-484 Provinciadacia in istoriografiaantica,Cluj Napoca 266

Ruscu,D. 2004 Ruscu,L 2002 Russu,1.1.1975 Russii, I. I., Floca, 0. and Wollmann, V. 1984 Rusu,A. and Pescaru,E. 1993 A. and Alicu, D, Rusu-Pescaru, 2000 Salway, P. 1967 Sanie,S. 1995. Sarbu,V. 1993 Scurtu, E.F. 1997

The supposedextermination of the Dacians: the literary tradition, in Hanson and Haynes 2004,75-85 Relatide externe ale oraselor grecesti de pe litoralul Napoca Negre, Cluj Marii al romanesc Inscriptide Daciei Romane vol. 1, Introducere istorica si Bucharest Tablitele Militare. Diplomele cerate, epigrafica. Dacia Superior.- zona Inscriptide Daciei Romane11113, centrala, Bucharest Germisara daco-romaine,in Alicu and Boegli 1993,201-213 Templeleromane din Dacia, I, Deva Yhefrontierpeople ofRoman Britain, Cambridge Din istoria culturii si religiei geto-dacice, Iasi Credinte sipracticifunerare religioase si magice in lumea geto-dacilor, Galati Radiografia geofizica a unei pard a orasului roman

Arheologie 48/4 (octombrie-decembrie),361-372 Ancient history and landscapehistories, in Shipley and Shipley, G. 1096 Salmon 1996,1-15 Shipley, G. and Salmon, J. 1996 Human landscapesin classical Antiquity. Environment and (eds) culture, London, New York Roman Villas. A study in social structure, London Smith, J.T. 1997 in frontier, British Roman 1989 the E. M. Snapc, and native; vici on north Maxfield and Dobson 1989,468-71 Kastellvicus und Kastell. Untersuchungenzurn Zugmantel im Sommer,C.S. 1988 Taunus und zu den Kastclivici in Obergcnnanienund RAticn, Fundberichle aus Baden- Warttenberg 13,457-707 Life beyond the ditches: housing and planning of the military Sommer, C.S. 1989 vici in Upper Germany and Raetia, in Maxfield and Dobson 1989,472-76 The Roman army in SW Germany as an instrument of Sommer, C.S. 1999 colonisation: the relationship of forts to military and civilian vici, in Goldsworthy, A. and Haynes, I. (cds) TheRoman army as a community, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 81-93 Canabacund Kastellvici in Obergermanicn in Redd6,M. Sommer, C.S. forthcoming (ed) Manuel d'arcHologieprihistorique, celtique et gallo) (2nd edn. romaine Domitian: tragic tyrant, London Southern,P. 1997 Household, village and village confederation in southeastern Stahl, P.H. 1986 Europe, East EuropeanMonographs 200, New York Introducere, in Iliescu et al. 1964 Stefan,G. 1964 Ancient landscapesof the Yorkshire Wolds:aerial Stoertz, C. 1997 photographic transcription and analysis, Swindon Dacii. Despre complexitatea marin-fflor etnice, politice si Strobel, K 1998 de (11), Dunarii istoriei Jos Studii spatiului ale si culturale Cercetari de Istorie Vechesi Arheologie 42/2,207-227 Cu privire la urbanizareaMiciei, Sargetia 18-19 (1984Teposu-Marinescu,L. 1985 1985), 125-28 Tabula Imperii Romani. Aquincum-Sannizegetusa-Sinnium. T. I. R. L-34,1968 L-34 Budapest, Amsterdam Tabula Imperii Romani. Drobeta, Romula, Sucidava. L-35 T. I. R. L-35,1965 Bucharest, Bucharest Talbert R.J.A, et al. (eds) 2000 Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world, Princeton Tatu, H. Popa,0. and Kalmar, Contributii la rcpertoriul arlicologic al Tarii Hategului Z. 1991 (Judetul Hunedoara),Sargetia, W-AWV, 1988-1991,93106 Tamba, D. 1997 Das R6mergrenzkastellvon Romanasi-Largiana. Castrul
267

in Studiisi CercetarideIstorie Veche Porolissum, si

roman de la Romanasi-Largiana, Zalau Tentea,0, and Marci4 F, 199-7 Die handgearbeiteKeramik aus dem Rmerkastell von Gilau, . in Gudea,N. (ed.), Romer und Barbaren an den Grenzendes R6mischesDaciens Acta Musei PorolissensisXXI, Zalau, 221-233 Trogmayer,0.1980 PannoniaWore the Roman conquest,in Lengyel, A. and Radan,G.T. B. (eds) The archaeology ofRoman Pannonia, Budapest,65-82 Trohani G. 1994 Asezari geto-dacice aparatenatural si fortificate din Muntenia, Sargetia XXV, 1992-1994,397400 Nuraghi as social history: a casestudy from Bonu Ighinu, Trump, D. 1991 Mara (SS), in B. Santillo Frizell (ed.), Arte militare e Nuragic in its military, architecture nuragica. architettura territorial and socio-economic context. Proceedingsof the first international colloquiurn on Nuragic architecture at the Swedish institute in Rome, 7-9 December, 1989, Rome, 163168. Orase, targuri si sate in Dacia romana, Bucharest Tudor, D. 1068 La ville et le village en Dacie Romaine, Dacia (Nouvelle Tudor, 'DA969 Series)XI11,319-328 Exploring everyday places and cosmologies,in Ashmore and van Dommelen,P 1999 Knapp 1999,277-284 Fortifications de rifuge et itablissementsfortiflies de Vasiliev, V. 1995 primier age defer en Transylvanie, Bucharest. Civilizatia dacica timpurie in aria intracarpatica a RomanieL Vasiliev V., Aldea, 1. Al. and Contributii arheologice: asezareafortificata de la Teleac, Ciugudean,H. 1991 Cluj Napoca. Dacians-Romans-Romanians, Matthias Corvinus Publishing V6kony, G. 2000 Proceedings of theYlXth International Congressof Roman Visy, 7- (cd.) forthcoming Frontiers Studies held in Pecs, Hungary (September2003) TheBarbarians speak. WClls, P.S. 1999 - how the conqueredpeoplesshaped Roman Europe, Princeton Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians.Archaeology and Wells, P.S. 2001 Identity in Iron Age Europe, London The consumercity revisited: the vicus and the city, Journal of Whittaker, C.R. 1990 Roman Studies3,110-118 Roman Trier and the Treveri, London Wightman, E.M. 1970 Gallia Belgica, London Wightman, E.M. 1985 nd Archaeologists, Interpretationfor 2 Photo Air Wilson, D.R. 2000 edition, Stroud The agricultural cycle as metaphor in the later prehistoric Williams, M. 2003 period of Britain and North-Western Europe, Journal of social archaeology 3/2,223-255 Cohors I Aelia Daconim: a Dacian unit on Hadrian's wall, Wilmott T. 2001 ActaMuseiNapocensis3811 103-122

Winkler, 1.Vasiliev,V. Chitu,I.

and Borda, A. 1968 Wollmann, V. 1996

rusticae din Dacia Superior Sargetia V, 59-85 Mineritul metalifer, extragerea sarii si carierele depiatra in Dacia Romana (Der Erzbergbau, die Salzgewinnungund die

Villa rusticade la Aiud. Cateva observatiiprivind villac-le

Woolf, G 1995 Woolf, G 1998 Zanoci,A, 1998

Dakien)Bibliotheca: Steinbrache im R6mischen Musci XII / Vcr6ffentlichungen Napocensis ausdcrnDeutschcn BochumNr. 63, Cluj-Napoca Bergbau-Museurn BeyondRomans 28/3,339andnatives,WorldArchaeology 350 Becoming Roman.TheOriginsofProvincial Civilizationin Gaul,Cambridge Fortificaffile geto-dacice din spatiul extracarpatic in secolele VI-Xa. Ch.,Bucharest.
268