Archaeological

Small Finds
and
Their Significance
Proceedings of the International Symposium
from Deva – Geoagiu Băi, 23rd – 25th of March 2017

Editors:
Oana Tutilă
Cătălin Cristescu
Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa
Antoniu Tudor Marc

Editura Mega | Cluj-Napoca | 2018

 Contents

Tibor-Tamás Daróczi
Of Liquid Stones and Brilliant Suns. Notes on the Wider Networking and Appropriations of
Vitreous Materials and Amber during the Bronze Age in the Eastern Carpathian Basin 7

Paul Pupeză, Horea Pop

The (Almost) Unseen Decoration. A Dacian Iron Spur from Măgura Moigrad 41

Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

Small Finds in “Aristocratic” Context. Some Bronze Objects from the Orăștie Mountains 53

Gabriel Andreica, Horia Furcovici, Marius Mîndruţău, Ștefan Vasilache

Small Finds Discovered at Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Sector “Below the Southern Gate” 61

Morgane Andrieu
Roman Voices from the “Military School” of Augustodunum (Autun, France):
The Rediscovery of a Site Via the Study of Graffiti on Pottery 77

Dan Aparaschivei, Costel Chiriac

Some Roman Engraved Gemstones of Ibida Fortress (Tulcea County) 91

Silvia Mustaţă, Dorottya Nyulas

A New Iron Shackle from the Military Fort at Călugăreni (Mureș County, Romania) 111

Dorottya Nyulas
An Unusual Iron Lamp from the Eastern Limes of Dacia 119

Gabriela Filip
Some Tesserae from Southern Dacia 135

Abbreviations 143
 Small Finds in “Aristocratic” Context.
Some Bronze Objects from the Orăștie Mountains

Alin Henţ Gabriela Gheorghiu

“Babeș-Bolyai” University, National Museum of Transylvanian History,
Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA
alinhnz@gmail.com gabrielagheorghiu@yahoo.com

Keywords: small finds, Orăștie Mountains, bronze objects,
agency, imports.
Abstract: The aim of this study is to present some Roman
furniture objects discovered in the area of the Orăștie
Mountains, the focal point of the Dacian World. With one
exception, the artefacts were discovered in the Dacian fortress
from Costești – Cetăţuie (Hunedoara County). Even if some of
them were already published in the archaeological literature
we consider that their re-discussion is necessary because they
are part of a rare category among the discoveries from Late
Iron Age Dacia. Moreover, we have tried to indicate the exact
place of discovery and to provide suitable analogies, as well as
other information about these objects.
Given the uniqueness and their find spot, we presume
that a link could be made between these objects and a social
segment of the Dacian world, the aristocracy. Until further
researches, this paper will resume itself at raising the question
if the objects were used or put to use in the same way they had
been used in the Roman world.

Introduction Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

Present day archaeology has shown disapproval towards archaeologies that focus on larger
social entities or long-term processes. One possible explanation is that these archaeologies offer
a reconstruction of the past without people, whereas when people are taken into account, they
are represented rather passive and mindless, reacting only to external factors1. In contrast, post-
processual archaeology sought to change this point of view by arguing that individuals are more than
“passive dupes who blindly follow social rules”2.
This shift in interpretation consists in the realisation that no matter how ingenious the
architectural monuments are or how impressive the barrows appear to us, like nowadays most people
in the past were involved for much of their lives in the routine of mundane tasks. These “mundane”
contexts should be able to tell us more about life in the past, offering us a clearer picture than political
or ritual contexts can.
More recently, archaeology turned its attention towards individuals, small scale social formations
and matters of domestic and daily life. At a more detailed level, the attention to the individual could
be linked to the recent popularity of social theories in archaeology, especially Bourdieu's theory of
practice3 and Giddens' structuration theory4. Unlike the passive role of humans in other archaeologies
1
GERRITSEN 2003, p. 11.
2
JOHNSON 2010, p. 108. For a summary of Post-Processual and Interpretative Archaeology see JOHNSON 2010,
p.  102 – 110.
3
BOURDIEU 1977.
4
GIDDENS 1984.

Archaeological Small Finds and Their Significance, 2018 / p. 53–60

54 / Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

and due to the influence of social sciences, individuals are seen now as knowledgeable beings that
act independently and make their own free choices based on individual reading of the material
conditions. The term used to denote this capability is agency, a term that in the last three decades has
become for sure a hot topic in archaeological literature.
The shift towards a “peopled” past and an accent on agency have led to the development of
interesting fields of research. But the most important fact is that archaeology has returned to its
traditional strength, the material culture. This led archaeologists to develop new approaches in
interpreting the material record. Starting with Hodder`s call5, the material culture is not seen merely
as an adaption to the external environmental conditions, but rather actively used and manipulated by
people in their social strategies. In the same line of inquiry, some archaeologists agree that objects are
imbued with agency. Others evoke some sort of change or response in individual humans or in the
entire society, made by the very humans who create or use them6.
These new approaches towards material culture have determined archaeologists to include in
their research other marginal categories as well, the so-called “small finds”. These things of everyday
life, offer archaeologists a fascinating foray into the material lives of past people. Aspects of ethnicity,
gender, sex, age or social status can be inferred by analysing these small finds.

Description of the Pieces

With one exception, the artefacts discussed in this paper were discovered within the perimeter of
the Dacian fortress from Costeşti – Cetăţuie (Hunedoara County). This site distinguishes itself among
other Dacian sites in the Orăştie Mountains as being the earliest7, believed to be the residence of the
leader Burebista8, who would eventually become the first dynast of the Dacian Kingdom.
The emergence of an unusual mixture between the local traditional architecture and the late
Hellenistic one can be attributed to the aid of architects and artisans from the Greek cities on the
western shore of the Black Sea. Archaeologists identified two main construction phases, as well as
one of reconstruction, that can be placed, chronologically speaking, from the end of the 2nd century
BC until the beginning of the 2nd century AD9.
Nevertheless, among the Dacian fortresses, the one from Costeşti – Cetăţuie offers us the most
numerous and diverse bronze objects so far, most of them being imported from the Greek-Roman
world. In fact, more than four decades ago, in the well-cited study Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea
elenistică și romană, professor Ioan Glodariu has stated that almost 30% of the imported bronze objects
discovered in Late Iron Age Dacia come from Costești – Cetăţuie10.
Part of the National Museum of Transylvanian History’s heritage, the pieces have already been
published in the Romanian archaeological literature. Notwithstanding, their re-discussion proved to
be necessary, because as we will further see, they are part of a category rarely encountered among the
discoveries of Late Iron Age Dacia, namely Roman furniture. This raises the question whether they
can be attributed to an aristocratic context. Moreover, where it was possible, we have tried to identify
the exact place of discovery, as well as to provide more information about these objects.
5
HODDER 1982.
6
TILLEY 2001, p. 260 – 261; HODDER 2003, p. 31 – 34; HOSKINS 2006, p. 74 – 77. Of course, each scholar has a
personal interpretation of the meaning of agency, especially the agency of objects.
7
DAICOVICIU 1972a, p.  48 – 49, 52 – 53.
8
Under the culture-historical approach and the chimera of the “Dacian unitary state”, a vast debate started in the
Romanian archaeological literature regarding the capital of the Dacian Kingdom, in the times of the first ruler
mentioned by the ancient texts. On one hand, the scholars from Cluj-Napoca sustained that the hillfort from
Costești – Cetăţuie was the royal residence (see especially DAICOVICIU 1972a, p. 30 – 54), while, on the other hand,
the scholars from București envisaged the fortified settlement from Popești (Giurgiu County) as a royal residence,
as well (see VULPE 1960, p. 557 – 567; VULPE 1968, p. 33 – 54; VULPE 1976, p. 39 – 61, 69 – 79).
9
DAICOVICIU 1972b, p. 110 – 111; MATEESCU, PUPEZĂ 2016, p. 222 – 223.
10
GLODARIU 1974, p. 57.
 Small Finds in “Aristocratic” Context / 55

The first two objects (Fig. 1) were found nearby tower II and buttress 2 and have the same circular
basic form, being different only in size and other small details. Although due to their fragmentation it
was difficult to determine the exact nature of these pieces, the archaeological literature has proposed
their functionality as possible chandelier pieces11. More than a decade ago, Gabriela Gheorghiu
eliminated these suppositions, suggesting that the only acceptable hypothesis is that these objects
are in fact leg parts of Roman couches12.
Such furniture pieces have four bronze legs that cover a wooden “core”13 and have their bases
sealed by transversal bars14. At a height of approximately 50 cm, the legs were often highly decorated
with jointed or welded elements of various shapes: ogee-plinths, flattened spheres, trumpet like
and flat portions, flattened spheres, discs, and cylinders. A wooden frame was placed on top of this
complex, a rather massive structure sometimes, holding the mattress and the pillow in place with the
aid of a bronze fitting15.

Fig. 1. Bronze couch leg elements (photo after NEAMȚU ET AL 2016;

drawings after GHEORGHIU 2006).

11
GLODARIU 1974, p. 236, no. 10/19, Pl. XLVI; GHEORGHIU 2005, p. 171, Fig. 221/2.
12
GHEORGHIU 2006, p. 151 – 152.
13
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 7.
14
CAGNAT, CHAPOT 1920, p. 410.
15
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 7.
56 / Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

Although these couches with bronze legs and fittings were mentioned by Pliny under the term
lecti deliaci16, this does not infer the fact that they were made in Delos. It has been presumed that this
term appeared in Rome during the Imperial period, being chosen to designate the many couches of
the above mentioned type due to the widespread fame of the aes deliacum17. Definitely not a Roman
innovation, the couch with bronze legs and fittings seems to have been adopted from the Greeks,
together with the custom of reclining to eat18.
It is important to mention that this type of bronze items were manufactured in series and made
by casting in separated moulds, usually following the same pattern19. We also reiterate the fact that
some of these pieces were jointed and those overlapping were fastened together by a fine lead solder.
Various polished or casted pieces of bronze (with a hollow core) and massive wood, with specific
dimensions that allowed their junction, constituted the leg “elevation”, following a sequence that
permitted Christiane Boube-Piccot to identify a certain pattern20. A bronze tronconic element was
fitted immediately above the socket, in which the corresponding piece of wood was inserted; the next
element was a flat piece of wood covered with a bronze sheet; the third piece had the shape of a bronze
cylinder having a wooden core on the inside; the fourth piece was also made out of bronze, with a
corresponding piece of wood followed by a wooden one, to which the bronze element was adapted;
lastly, the sixth element was also a bronze one, in which a wooden “cylinder” was inserted, having the
diameter approximately equal to the one of the upper leg.
Returning to the pieces presented above, their shapes and sizes (the first one – max. diameter
10.6 cm, min diameter 7.5 cm, preserved height 6.6 cm; the second one – max. diameter 9.5 cm,
min. diameter 6 cm, preserved height 6.1 cm), have lead us to the conclusion that both of them can
be identified with the third element from the leg “elevation” sequence described by Boube-Picot. This
hypothesis is supported as well by strong analogies that can be found at Volubilis (Morocco)21 and
from the shipwreck known as Formingue C, discovered in the Juan Bay (France)22. However, since there
are slight size differences between them, as well as ones regarding the decoration, we cannot exclude
the possibility that they come from different couches.
The following item (Fig. 2) comes most surely from a Roman couch as well. Unfortunately, as if
has been illegally unearthed by metal detectorists, there are no additional details regarding its find
spot, except for the general reference to the Orăștie Mountains. Measuring 41 cm in length, 3.8 cm
in height and 3.6 cm in width, the piece in question is a bronze fitting fragment belonging to a couch
frame. One of its ends is open, while the other is closed, this being evidence that it was attached to one
of the bed extremities with the closed part oriented towards one of the corners of the couch. Each of
the two sides is provided with two orifices; their distance from the two extremities of the piece is not
identical: those lying near the closed end of the piece have been perforated at 6.8 cm from it, while the
others at 1.3 cm.
The front side of the frame fragment is decorated with three decorative margins (Fig. 3), out
of which the two thinner ones are framing the more marked border. Although no other decoration
elements could be identified on its surface, two small cut-outs are visible, one rectangular, the other
trapezoidal, made more likely in Antiquity.
Both on the outside, as well as on the inside, a marking representing a group of identical letters
can be easily noticed (Fig 2/b). The first one, made by puncturing has been placed on one of the outer
undecorated faces, while the other, was incised on the inside of the opposed part (Fig. 3). Most likely,

16
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 8; ANDRIANOU 2006, p. 234.
17
PLINY NH, 34. 9.
18
MOLS 1999, p. 127.
19
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 15.
20
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 16.
21
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 121 – 122, no. 112, 117.
22
BAUDOIN, LIOU, LONG 1994, p. 33, Fig. 11, i, j.
 Small Finds in “Aristocratic” Context / 57

these letters have a number value, in this case, they seemingly represent the number 1055. Letters
with numerical value can be seen frequently represented on bronze pieces in the couch leg structure23,
being also occasionally found on the metal frame fixtures. Numbers represented by letter groups
either mark the production series or the order of their assembly24. The best analogies for this bronze
frame come from the Formingue C shipwreck25 and also from Spoleto (Italy), now kept in the Royal
Ontario Museum Toronto (Canada)26.

a b

Fig 2. a. Couch frame; b. Details of the letters (photos by R. Mateescu).

Fig. 3. Couch frame (drawings by L. D. Gheorghe Șerban).

23
BAUDOIN, LIOU, LONG 1994, p. 34 – 39.
24
BAUDOIN, LIOU, LONG 1994, p. 37.
25
BAUDOIN, LIOU, LONG 1994, p. 42 – 45, Fig. 19 – 21 21.
26
STOCK, GIUMLIA-MAIR 2002, p. 559 – 561, Fig. 1, 4, 5.
58 / Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

It is possible that the fourth (Fig. 4) artefact could also belong to a couch, namely a fragment of
a bronze appliqué, most likely a piece of a figure's beard. Judging by the manner of its execution, we
suppose it might be an appliqué depicting a mythological character with the purpose of ornamenting
the elbow support (fulcra) of the Roman couch types aforementioned27. Unfortunately, the fragmentary
state of this piece does not provide much information, thus we are unable to assert this opinion with
certainty, but we consider it as a possibility.

Fig. 4. Bronze appliqué (drawing after GHEORGHIU 2005; photo by S. Odenie).

Lastly, a fragmentary leg, shaped as a feline paw (Fig. 5) was discovered in dwelling tower no.
2. Based on the object’s surviving height of 9.2 cm and its inner curvature, we are convinced it does
not come from a tripod lamp, those being commonly shorter, while having an outward curvature.
Furthermore, we do not believe it is a leg of a small table used as lamp support. We think it comes
from another table type or support, without yet being able to specify with certainty which one, as
other reconstruction elements are lacking. The closest bronze analogy available for the moment is the
small table discovered at Pompeii28, now in the collection of the Archaeological Museum of Naples.

Fig. 5. Bronze table leg (photos by M. Mîndruţău; drawing after GHEORGHIU 2006).

27
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975, p. 16 – 25; BAUDOIN, LIOU, LONG 1994, p. 45 – 60.
28
PIRZIO BAROLI STEFANELLI 1990, p. 149, no. 104.
 Small Finds in “Aristocratic” Context / 59

Similar pieces, however made of wood, come from the archaeological site at Herculaneum29. In both
cases, they can be dated during the reign of Augustus.

Conclusions and Further Questions

As we can see, all the objects discussed above are Roman imports. We know from ancient written
accounts and from iconographical representations30 the function and utility of these objects in the
Roman society, in what we could call the Roman banquet culture. Ritual consumption of food and
drink was an important social aspect among the Roman people. Known in general terms as convivium,
it was a social duty for the members of the Roman elite.
Very rare among the discoveries of pre-Roman Dacia, the presence of these artefacts during the
end of the La Téne period raises many questions regarding their interpretation. Most certainly, their
presence from one cultural space to another can be explained through various scenarios: from trades
to gift exchanges or plundering expeditions; however, it would be more interesting to see what their
significance was in the local context.
One of the aspects which contributes in affirming identity and social status is the privileged access
to resources, even if we refer to material or ideological ones. Among others, from an archaeological
point of view, this phenomenon becomes visible through the presence of imports or to influences
from another cultural spaces perceived as more sophisticated.
In this aspect, it will be interesting to see if these objects were used or put to use in the same way
that they were used in the Roman world, modifying also the social practices of the local environment,
thus having their own agency. In this sense, we are close to Tilley's view on agency of objects: “things
may be attributed agency, not in the sense they have minds and intentions, but because they produce
«effects» on persons”31.
If this proves to be the case, we could say that these Roman furniture pieces discovered in a
Dacian fortress interpreted as an aristocratic residence32 acted as “social weapons”. Through them,
the socially dominant group not only enforced their distance and distinction to other members of
society, but also imposed a hierarchy of preference and taste among those who possessed less capital.

Bibliography
ANDRIANOU 2006 Andrianou D., Chairs, Beds, and Tables. Evidence for Furnished interiors in
Hellenistic Greece, in Hesperia 75, p. 219 – 266.
BAUDOIN ET AL 1994 Baudoin C., Liou B., Long L., Une cargaison de bronzes hellénistiques. L'epave
Formingue C à Golfe-Juan, in Arheonautica 12, p. 5 – 143.
BOUBE-PICCOT 1975 Boube-Piccot C., Les Bronzes antique du Maroc, II le mobilier – textes, Rabat.
BOURDIEU 1977 Bourdieu P., Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge.
CAGNAC, CHAPOT 1920 Cagnac R., Chapot V., Manuel d'archéologie romaine, tome II, Paris.
DAICOVICIU 1972a Daicoviciu H., Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romană, Cluj.
DAICOVICIU 1972b Daicoviciu H., Sistemul defensiv al cetăţii dacice de la Costești, in Sargetia 14,
p.  103 – 114.
DUNBABIN 2013 Dunbabin K. M. D., The Roman Banquet. Images of conviviality, Cambridge.
FLOREA 2011 Florea G., Dava et oppidum. Débuts de la genèse urbaine en Europe au deuxième
âge du Fer, Cluj-Napoca.
GERRITSEN 2003 Gerritsen F., Local Identities. Landscape and Community in the Late Prehistoric
Meuse-Demer-Scheldt Region, Amsterdam.

29
MOLS 1999, p. 176 – 178, no. 18, Fig. 111 – 114.
30
DUNBABIN 2003.
31
TILLEY 2007, p. 260.
32
FLOREA 2011, p. 154.
60 / Alin Henţ, Gabriela Gheorghiu

GIDDENS 1984 Giddens A., The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration,
Cambridge.
GHEORGHIU 2005 Gheorghiu G., Dacii pe cursul mijlociu al Mureșului, Cluj-Napoca.
GHEORGHIU 2006 Gheorghiu G., Piese de mobilier romane descoperite în cetatea dacică de la
Costești-Cetăţuie, in Apulum 43, 1, p. 151 – 155.
GLODARIU 1974 Glodariu I., Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică și romană, Cluj.
HODDER 1982 Hodder I., Symbols in Action. Cambridge/New York.
HODDER 2004 Hodder I., The “Social” in Archaeological Theory: An Historical and Contemporary
Perspective, in Meskell L., Preucel R. W. (eds), A Companion to Social
Archaeology, Oxford, p. 23 – 42.
HOSKINS 2006 Hoskins J., Agency, Biography and Objects, in Tilley C., Keane W., Küchler
S., Rowlands M., Spyer P., (eds), Handbook of Material Culture, London/
Thousand Oaks/New Delhi, p. 74 – 84.
JOHNSON 2010 Johnson M., Archaeological Theory. An Introduction, 2nd edition, Oxford.
MATEESCU, PUPEZĂ 2016 Mateescu R., Pupeză P., Elemente de arhitectură militară / Aspects of the military
architecture, in Neamţu C., Florea G., Gheorghiu G., Bodó C. (eds), Când
viaţa cotidiană antică devine patrimoniu UNESCO – Incursiuni dacice în spaţiul
virtual, Cluj-Napoca, p. 221 – 249.
MOLS 1999 Mols S., Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum. Style, Technique and Function,
Amsterdam.
PIRZO BIROLI STEFANELLI 1990 Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli L., Il bronzo dei romani, Roma.
PLINY NH Pliny, Natural History, Vol. 9, Books 33-35 (Loeb Classical Library 394,
translated by H. Rackman, 1961).
STOCK, GIUMLIA-MAIR Stock S., Giumlia-Mair A., The Roman Triclinium Frames in the Royal Ontario
2002 Museum (Canada), in Giumlia-Mair A. (ed.), I Bronzi Antichi: Produzione
e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congreso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi organizatto
dall'Università di Udine, sede di Gorizia, Grado-Aquilieia, 22 – 26 maggio 2001,
Montagnac, p.  559 – 562.
TILLEY 2001 Tilley C., Ethnography and material culture, in Atkinson P., Coffey A.,
Delamont S., Lofland J., Lofland L. (eds), Handbook of ethnography, London,
p.  258 – 272.
VULPE 1960 Vulpe R., Argedava, in Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu, p.  557 – 567.
VULPE 1968 Vulpe R., Getul Burebista, conducător al întregului neam geto-dac, in StComPitești
I, p.  33 – 57.
VULPE 1976 Vulpe R, Studia Thracologica, București.