08=(8/%5,/(,CAROL I

,67526
;;,
,1+2125(0352)(6625,6
9$/(5,,65%8

08=(8/%5,/(,
CAROL I

(',785$,67526

%5,/$


&2/(*,8/'(212$5(+21285%2$5'
3URI'U9,&72563,1(,Al. I. Cuza University of Iai and
Institute of Archaeology Iai, member of Romanian Academy (Romania),
KRQRXUSUHVLGHQW
3URI'U-$1%(00$11,QVWLWXWIU9RUXQG)UKJHVFKLFKWOLFKH
Archologie, Rheinische FriedrichWilhelms 8QLYHUVLWlW%RQQ
*HUPDQ\KRQRXUPHPEHU
3URI'U-$1%28=(.Charles University Prague (Czech
5HSXEOLFKRQRXUPHPEHU
3URI'U)$/.2'$,05|PLVFK*HUPDQLVFKHV=HQWUDOPXVHXP
0DLQ]*HUPDQ\KRQRXUPHPEHU
3URI'U',$1$*(5*29$7KH1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHRI$UFKDHRORJ\
DQG0XVHXP6RILD%XOJDULDKRQRXUPHPEHU
3URI'UION NICULI The State University, Chiinu (Rep. of
0ROGRYDKRQRXUPHPEHU
'U$1721.(513UDKLVWRULVFKH$EWHLOXQJGHV1DWXUKLVWRULVFKHV0XVHXP
:LHQ$XVWULD
3URI'U7,9$'$59,'$,QVWLWXWHRI$UFKDHRORJ\%XGDSHVW8QJDULD
&2/(*,8/'(5('$&IE (;(&87,9(%2$5'
3URI'U,21(/&1'($Lower Danube University of Galai and
Museum of BrilaCarol I5RPDQLDHGLWRULQFKLHI 
'U9$/(5,865%8Museum of Brila Carol I DQG,QVWLWXWHRI
$UFKDHRORJ\V. Prvan Bucharest (Romania), VFLHQWLILFVHFUHWDU\
'U&5,67,$1/8&$Lower Danube University of Galai 5RPDQLD
PHPEHU
'USTNIC PANDREAMuseum of Brila Carol I5RPDQLDPHPEHU
'U&267,1&52,7258Museum of Brila Carol I5RPDQLDPHPEHU
&RPSXWHUSURFHVVLQJ(9'2&+,$60$=129
2ULFHFRrespondenUHIHULWRDUHOD
UHYLVWD,67526VHYDDGUHVD
Muzeul BrLOHLCarol I,
Piaa TraianQU
BR,/$
HPDLOVHGLX#PX]HXOEUDLOHLUR
,661

$Q\UHPDUNFRQFHUQLQJ,67526
PXVWEHDGUHVVHGWR
Muzeul BrLOHLCarol I,
Piaa TraianQR
BR,/$
HPDLOVHGLX#PX]HXOEUDLOHLUR

&217(176
3UHLVWRULH3URWRLVWRULH$QWLFKLWDWH
3UHKLVWRU\3URWRKLVWRU\$QWLTXLW\
.$7$5,1$'MITROVIDou faete ale vieii: aezri LQHFURSROH
GLQHSRFDEURQ]XOXLWLPSXULXvQED]LQXOGHYHVWDO0RUDYHL7ZR
IDFHVRI OLIHWKH(DUO\%URQ]H$JH1HFURSROLVHVDQG6HWWOHPHQWV
LQWKH:HVWHUQ0RUDYD%DVLQ



$/(;$1'58 6=(170,./26, Primele menionri cartografice ale

fortificaiei de epoca bronzului de la Corneti,DUFXUL, jud. Timi
)LUVW 0DS'UDZLQJ 0HQWLRQV RI WKH %URQ]H $JH )RUWLILFDWLRQ
from Corneti,DUFXULTimi County



0$5,-$ /JUTINA Dunrea conecteaz Dezrile din epoca de

PLMORF D EURQ]XOXL GH OD 2PROMLFDZlatica i Panevo1DMHYD
Ciglana vs. vecinii lor de la Vina%HOR%UGRQRUGXO6HUELHL7KH
'DQXEH &RQQHFWV 0LGGOH %URQ]H $JH 6HWWOHPHQWV DW 2PROMLFD
=ODtica and Panevo1DMHYD &LJODQD YV WKHLU 1HLJKERXUV IURP
Vina%HOR%UGR1RUWK6HUELD



'$9,'( '(/),12 $UKHRORJLD FRQWDFWXOXL GLQWUH SRSRDUHOH GLQ

zona Mediteranei i a Atlanticului n prima jumtate a mileniului
, D &KU vQ 3RUWXJDOLD UROXO FXUVXOXL PLMORFLX DO UkXOXL 7DMR
7DJXV  $UFKDHRORJ\ RI FRQWDFW EHWZHHQ 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ DQG
$WODQWLFSHRSOHVLQILUVWKDOIRI,PLOOHQQLXP%&LQ3RUWXJDOWKH
UROHRI3RUWXJXHVH0LGGOH7DJXV



,ON NICULI, AUREL ZANOCI, MIHAIL B, Noi situri din epoca

fierului descoperite n preajma satului Stohnaia, raionul Rezina,
Republica Moldova / Newly Discovered Iron Age Sites Near the
Village of Stohnaia, Rezina District, Republic of Moldova ............



',$1$ ',0,7529$ 0RUPkQWXO UHJHOXL 6HXWKHV DO ,,,OHD GLQ

WXPXOXO*RO\DPD.RVPDWNDFazele de construcie i de utilizare
7KH7RPERI.LQJ6HXWKHV,,,LQ*RO\DPD.RVPDWND7XPXOXV
6WDJHVRI&RQVWUXFWLRQDQG8VH



-$1 %28=(. O zei mam n Tracia  $  *RGGHVV 0RWKHU LQ

7KUDFH



(/(1$ ),$/.2 Se luptau amazoanele scitice cu adevrat? / 'LG

WKH6F\WKLDQ$PD]RQV5HDOO\)LJKW



2/(1$ '=1(/$'=( '(1,6 6,.2=$ 2/(.6$1'5 6<021(1.2

0RUPkQWXODULVWRFUDWLFGLQFLPLWLUXOVFLWLFWkU]LXGHOD&KHUYRQ\
0D\DN ]RQD 1LSUXOXL ,QIHULRU  7KH $ULVWRFUDWLF 7RPE RQ WKH
/DWH 6F\WKLDQ &HPHWHU\ &KHUYRQ\ 0D\DN LQ /RZHU 'QLHSHU
5HJLRQ 
'5AGO 0NDESCU n legtur cu cele mai vechi importuri
rhodiene la Ceteni / Regarding the Earliest Rhodian Imports to
Ceteni
720$6= %2&+1$. &KLKOLPEDUul, dar i ce altceva pe drumul
chihlimbarului? Mrfurile cutate de celi n nordul Carpailor /
Lambre, mais quoi dautre sur la route de lambre? /HV
PDUFKDQGLVHVUHFKHUFKpHVSDUOHV&HOWHVDXQRUGGHV&DUSDWHV





9$/(5,8 6,5%8 &5,67,$1 520$1&RPSOH[XOGDFLFQUGHOD

+XQHGRDUDGrdina Castelului-XG+XQHGRDUD5HFRQVLGHUDW
 &RPSOH[H GDFH QR  GH +XQHGRDUDGrdina Castelului GpS
GH+XQHGRDUD5HFRQVLGpUDWLRQ 
&$7$/,1 %25$1*,&&XSOHWHOHvQYkQWSHYUHPHGHSORDLH$YHDX
sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal? / With the hair in the wind
GXULQJWKHUDLQ'LG'HFHEDO
VZDUULRUVZHDUKHOPHWV"



&5,67,1$ %2' Lucrri ale arhitecilor greci n zona capitalei

5HJDWXOXL'DF*UHHN$UFKLWHFWV
:RUNVLQWKH$UHDRIWKH'DFLDQ
Kingdoms Capital



0$*'$/(1$ 7()$1 '$1 7()$1 '$1 %8=($ 8Q QRX SXQFW

IRUWLILFDWvQSHLVDMXODUKHRORJLFDOVHFROHORU,D&KU,S&KUvQ
]RQD-LJRGLQ+DUJKLWDvQHVWXO7UDQVLOYDQLHL$1HZ)RUWLILHG
6LWHLQWKH$UFKDHRORJLFDO/DQGVFDSHRIWKHVWF%&VWF$'
LQWKH$UHDRI-LJRGLQ+DUJKLWDLQ(DVWHUQ7UDQV\OYDQLD



/,$1$ 2A 6,/9,8 2ATezaurul de la Buzu/ The treasure

of Buzu



Evul Mediu romnesc i european /

5RPDQLDQDQG(XURSHDQ0LGGOH$JHV
'80,758(,&82SLQLLSULYLQGQHFURSRODGLQMXUXOURWRQGHLGHOD
,OLGLD ntregiri la arheologia funerar medieval / 2SLQLRQV
FRQFHUQLQJ WKH QHFURSROLV DURXQG WKH URWXQGD IURP ,OLGLD
&RPSOHWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHIXQHUDOPHGLHYDODUFKDHRORJ\



$/,1 $1721 (OHPHQWH GH FURQRORJLH DOH WkUJXOXL PHGLHYDO

Trgor  &KURQRORJLFDO HOHPHQWV RI WKH PHGLHYDO WRZQ RI
Trgor



52',&$ *$%5,(/$ +(5%(/%LVHULFDGHOHPQdin satul Amrti,

comuna Amrti, judeul Vlcea  7KH :RRGHQ &KXUFK RI
Amrsti, Commune of Amrsti, Vlcea County



0,+$, 625,1 5DULESCU &DQWDFX]LQLL GLQ %DYDULD vQ VHFROXO

;,;'LH%D\HULVFKHQ&DQWDFX]HQHLP;,;-+



Prezentri / Recenzii
9,&725 63,1(, Mongolii i romnii n sinteza de istorie
ecleziastic a lui 7KRORPHXV GLQ /XFFD  /HV 0RQJROV HW OHV
Roumains dans la synthse dKLVWRLUHHFFOHVLDVWLTXHGH7KRORPHXV
GH/XFFD&RVPLQ=DPILUDFKH



CU PLETELE N VNT PE VREME DE PLOAIE.

AVEAU SAU NU COIFURI RZBOINICII LUI DECEBAL?
CTLIN BORANGIC (BUCURETI - ROMNIA)

Cuvinte cheie: coifuri, geto-daci, reconstituiri istorice, elite rzboinice.

Rezumat. Prezentul excurs are ca pretext lipsa sau mai bine zis folosirea
sporadic a coifurilor n cadrul activitilor de reenactment care au ca subiect
epoca regatului dac. Reenactorii opteaz de cele mai multe ori s-i
reconstituie personajele de epoc dacic fr coifuri, pe fondul penuriei de
descoperiri arheologice a unor astfel de piese de echipament militar. Dei rmn
unele dintre cele mai puin cunoscute arme ale epocii n discuie, este improbabil
ca acestea s fi lipsit din dotarea rzboinicilor daci, mai ales din perioada de
final a regatului.
Principala surs de documentare asupra diverselor tipuri de echipamente
militare o reprezint inventarele funerare ale aristocraiei, singurul etaj social al
crui arsenal militar a putut fi cercetat mulumitor. Mormintele acestor nobili,
prin riturile i ritualurile practicate, arunc o lumin parial asupra modului lor
de via. ntre armele rzboinicilor coifurile aveau o importan aparte, dat de
utilitatea practic i de funcia identitar pe care le cumulau. n ciuda acestor
considerente, coifurile, n strns relaie cu discreia funerar a elitelor din
perioada dacic, sunt apariii excepionale n cadrul inventarelor funerare. Ceva
mai multe lmuriri aduc reprezentrile de arme dacice de pe Columna lui Traian,
n piatra creia sunt reliefate numeroase coifuri dacice folosite att de ctre
nobilimea rzboinic, ct i de structurile militare inferioare lor, acei enigmatici
comati.
i totui, dosarul istoric al acestor echipamente este nc relativ
solidificat, astfel c n aproape un deceniu de activiti de reenactment am avut
ocazia i, am putea spune obligaia, de a fabrica i purta coifuri pentru a le testa
utilitatea n cadrul luptelor simulate ntre diferite grupuri de rzboinici antici
reconstituii. Se poate spune c un coif era o pies indispensabil de armament
indiferent de momentul btliei, extrem de folositor att pentru protecia fa de
toate tipurile de proiectile, ct i mpotriva armelor ofensive ale oponenilor.
Coifurile nu puteau lipsi din dotarea rzboinicilor profesioniti, aa cum
se contureaz imaginea armatei lui Decebal. Astfel, ele nu au nici un motiv s
lipseasc din echipamentul amatorilor de living history nu doar din dorina de a
ISTROS, XXI, 2015, Brila, p. 417-463

418

Ctlin Borangic

respecta adevrul istoric, ci i din considerente practice, legate de frecvena

accidentrilor n cadrul acestor reconstituiri.

Mai bine de 100 de ani de istoriografie au consolidat n imaginarul

colectiv ideea c dacii, la modul general, nu au utilizat coifuri, cel puin
nu n mod sistematic, n ciuda caracterului lor rzboinic. Dacul, vzut ca
personaj colectiv, avea barb, o cma preferabil alb, cuma specific i
evident legendara sabia ncovoiat, iar n lupt se avnta fr frica de
moarte, cu pletele n vnt.
Privind datele problemei, la o prim lectur aproape nu exist
argument care s contrazic imaginea aceasta. Dosarul arheologic al
descoperirilor de coifuri pe toat perioada regatului dac este dezamgitor
de subire, iar sursele antice puine i interpretabile. Nu e de mirare c pe
acest fond slab documentat lucrurile au stagnat suficient de mult ca
imaginea de care vorbeam s depeasc zona istoriografic i s inunde
peisajul cotidian. i pentru c vorbim de acest peisaj prezentele idei
expuse au fost inspirate de invazia de spectacole populare cu subiecte i
teme ce se doresc reflecii din realitile Antichitii spaiului norddunrean. Majoritatea actanilor care reconstituie personaje din galeria
dacic consider c dac au caracteristicile enumerate mai sus pot evolua
fr nici o problem n tot felul de spectacole tematice. Situaia este cu
att mai delicat cu ct rareori aceste manifestri nu se ncheie sau mcar
nu au ca punct culminant o simulare, mai mult sau mai puin realist, a
unei btlii generalizate ntre dou tabere, de regul constituite din
grupuri de daci i romani, fiecare cu aliaii si. Nu este nici o surpriz c
n aceste ciocniri, care uneori implic zeci sau sute de participani,
brbai, femei, adolesceni, accidentrile sunt frecvente, cu diferite
niveluri de gravitate, multe dintre acestea n zona capului. n ciuda
faptului c astfel de simulri sunt departe de ferocitatea luptelor reale,
situaia ridic unele semne de ntrebare privind echipamentul necesar i
corect al unui astfel de protagonist.
Manifestrile descrise sumar reprezint o direcie distinct de
experimente istorice cu implicaii sociale din ce n ce mai puternice,
avnd o evoluie recent i, mai ales rapid. Nu exist nc un termen
convenabil i consacrat n limba romn care s denumeasc fenomenul

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

419

sau persoanele care fac reconstituire istoric, aa cum exist n alte limbi1.
Activitatea de reenactment/reconstitution este de fapt o pasiune n care
participanii caut s reproduc, ct mai veridic, mbrcminte, armament,
obiecte, meteuguri, comportament sau relaii specifice unei anumite
secvene istorice. Terminologic, n ultimii ani s-a impus varianta renactor,
acceptat sau tolerat ca atare n toate mediile, inclusiv cele academice,
atunci cnd sporadic fenomenul a intrat n atenia specialitilor. Dei a
debutat ca activitate recreativ a unor amatori de istorie, tot mai des
reenactment-ul folosete arheologia experimental, iar n rndurile sale
activeaz uneori i istorici2. Aceste spectacole sau experimente, depinde
cum i de unde sunt privite, nu sunt subiectul acestui excurs, ci pretextul.
Avnd aproape un deceniu de experien n acest tip de activitate am putut
observa i consemna evoluia i, mai ales, impactul produs de astfel de
reprezentri care, cum am spus, sunt din ce n ce mai populare. i,
plecnd de la aceast realitate, i pericolul unor derapaje sau stagnarea n
zona clieelor, cu efecte nocive sau cel puin neplcute asupra socialului.
ntrebarea fundamental care rezid din aceast introducere este
dac spectacolele de reconstituire istoric pot prezenta o lecie de istorie
autentic, evident dependent de nivelul de competen i profesionalism
ale renactorilor ori a grupurilor din care ei fac parte sau ele merg, pur i
simplu, n siajul stereotipurilor create de istoriografie ori, mai ru, de
cinematografia secolului trecut?
Spaiul nu permite analiza ntregului echipament i nici a tuturor
tipurilor de personaje recreate, cu toate c acestea trebuie la un moment
dat discutate n ansamblu i n detaliu. Executarea de replici ale
echipamentelor de calitate, ntre care i coifuri, i purtarea lor n cadrul
acestor spectacole, ar trebui s fie o regul, nu o excepie. Desigur c
exist momente istorice asupra crora, cel puin la nivel de detaliu, nu
avem suficiente date, dar n ce privete armamentul, n special al
structurilor militare superioare dacice, acesta este relativ bine cunoscut.
1

Reenactor (englez), reconstituteur (francez), rekonstructor (rus) etc. Gruia 2012, p.

5. Sintagma living history, folosit de mediul academic romnesc, se suprapune doar
parial peste ceea ce nseamn reenactment, iar neutilizarea ei de ctre pasionaii care
pun n scen reconstituirile istorice a izolat denumirea n zona pretenioas a discurului.
Probabil c la un moment dat, la fel ca n cazul altor termeni recent intrai n vocabularul
cotidian, denumirea autohtonizat a fenomenului, aceea de renactment, utilizat n
limbajul popular, va intra n dicionarele de specialiate.
2
Din pcate, nu ntotdeauna specializai pe perioada recreat, fapt ce are efecte negative
asupra calitii reconstituirilor.

420

Ctlin Borangic

Cum n alte articole i studii am prezentat aspecte legate de armele

ncovoiate, scuturi sau armurile din panoplia rzboinicilor daci, este
potrivit discuia i despre coifuri, echipamente mai puin consacrate i,
mai ales, mai puin folosite n cadrul evenimentelor de reconstituire
istoric amintite. Mai ales c, pe fondul apariiei n aceste grupuri de
reconstituire a unor personaje n spaiul public, mai degrab inspirate din
povestirile de tip heroic-fantasy dect din documentaia istoric, este
necesar o actualizare a imaginii rzboinicului dac, fie i la nivel
preliminar, deocamdat.
Cele dou aspecte, respectiv renactmentul i discursul tiinific, nu
ar trebui n nici un fel s evolueze separat, atta vreme ct se dorete ca
respectivele manifestri, din ce n ce mai prezente n spaiul public, s fie
lecii de istorie de calitate. Ori, nu de puine ori, lipsa unor informaii
accesibile i coerente despre perioada dacic, uneori dublat de interese
mercantile i dezinteres, a dus la apariia unor superficialiti
impardonabile i, mai grav, la proliferarea unor inexactiti exploatate
ideologic de curente cu profund caracter pseudo-istoric. n toate aceste
cazuri, refuzul sau neimplicarea istoricilor nu pot fi dect regretabile.
*
Provenite majoritar din descoperiri arheologice cu caracter
funerar, coifurile au fost asociate constant cu aristocraia, unica
beneficiar de servicii funerare complexe, dei aceast pies de
echipament a fost ntotdeauna o component defensiv extrem de util
tuturor categoriilor de rzboinici. n ciuda acestui fapt numrul de
descoperiri este redus (situaie identic n toat Europa, de altfel, cu
explicaii diverse3), comparativ cu funcia defensiv important. Problema
utilizrii coifurilor de ctre rzboinicii Antichitii nu poate fi soluionat
ntotdeauna pe cale arheologic. De pild, armatele parilor i sassanizilor
utilizau frecvent coifuri, dup cum o dovedesc att izvoarele scrise, ct i
ilustrrile din art, situaie ce nu este reflectat de ctre descoperirile
arheologice. Acest fapt poate fi datorat mai multor factori: armele de toate
tipurile reprezentau bunuri de valoare i de prestigiu ce se recuperau de pe
cmpul de lupt, indiferent de rezultatul acesteia, unele se transmiteau din
generaie n generaie4, costurile unui exemplar, restricii socio3

Pentru vecinii dacilor situaia pare cel puin identic n lumea germanic, celtic (Rustoiu
1996, p. 146) i sarmat (Brc 2006, p. 205-206).
4
Borangic 2014, p. 47.

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

421

economice, practici funerare care exclud depunerea lor etc. Nici n Gallia,
Iberia, Germania, Armenia sau Gruzia antic lucrurile nu stau foarte
diferit, descoperirile de coifuri n fiecare din aceste zone n parte sunt
rarisime.
Pentru mediul dacic explicaiile penuriei de astfel de piese au fost
cantonate, parial, n sfera concepiilor de ordin religios ale dacilor5.
Valeriu Srbu sintetizeaz acest impas, pe care l pune pe seama
metodologiei ineficiente6. Modificrile practicilor funerare, vizibile n
discreia mormintelor aristocratice ncepnd din sec. I p.Chr., trebuie i
ea pus n relaie cu raritatea coifurilor n spaiul i epoca discutate7.
Puinele coifuri pstrate ale rzboinicilor geto-daci8, precum i
datele extrase din iconografie, relev c acestea se subsumau unor tipuri
diverse cu diferite grade de dificultate de execuie. Evoluia morfologice
este ns vizibil, cci plecnd de la modele mai simple spre exemplu
cele asemntoare cu modelele de tip Port, coifuri care fac legtura ntre
tipurile de coifuri celtice i cele romane timpurii9, cum este cel descoperit
la Cugir10 se ajunge la tipuri elaborate, decorate, cu o morfologie
specific, unele derivate probabil din modele sud-tracice, vizibile ntre
trofeele capturate de romani, ilustrate pe Columna Traian. Opinia
specialitilor este c majoritatea, chiar dac se inspir din modele sud-

Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 132.

Srbu 1993, p. 129130.
7
Gum 1991, p.102, nota 118; Srbu 1993, p. 38-40, 126-128; Rustoiu 1996, p. 147-148.
8
Asupra amprentei etnice a a populaiilor nord-dunrene se poart o serie de discuii i
dispute tiinifice, pe fondul reorientrilor teoriilor istorice la nivel european.
Identificarea etnic a inventarelor funerare i, n subsidiar a defuncilor, este
problematic n sensul imposibilitii determinrii exacte a acesteia (sau mai exact a
imposibilitii stabilirii cu ce grup etnic se identifica personajul). Ce putem spune este c
rzboinicul sigur nu-i spunea geto-dac, aceast denumire fiind o convenie modern
aflat n uz i care are rolul de a determina, cel mult, grupul etno-cultural dominant n
spaiul geografic i cultural discutat aici. Clasificarea unor coifuri ca fiind sarmatice sau
dacice nu urmrete dect gradul de utilizare i posibilitatea fabricrii acestor
echipamente n armatele dacice i nu alte considerente.
9
Rustoiu 1996, p. 150.
10
Popa 2011, p. 326- 327, Pl. 150/4 (cu bibliografie piesei). Obrzarele coifului de la
Cugir, din care numai unul mai este ntreg (Pl. III/4), au fost observate cu ocazia
documentrii asupra subiectului, piesele aflndu-se n colecia Muzeului Naional al
Unirii, Alba Iulia (inv. 4648).
6

422

Ctlin Borangic

europene, par a fi creaii sau adaptri locale, devenind specifice arealului

nord-dunrean11.
Cum spuneam, dosarul arheologic este rarefiat, dar ctile de lupt
nu lipsesc totui. Resturile recuperate, adesea fragmentate pn la limita
incertitudinii recunoaterii lor ca atare, i morfologia suficient de atipic,
au permis unele ncercri de clasificare12. Coifuri sau resturi interpretate
ca provenind din acestea s-au descoperit la Popeti (jud. Giurgiu),
Chirnogi (jud. Clrai), Piscul Crsani (com. Crsanii de Jos, jud.
Ialomia), Poiana-Rovinari (jud. Gorj), Zimnicea (jud. Teleorman), Cugir
(jud. Alba) i Hunedoara (Pl. I).
Exemplarul cel mai complet a fost gsit n tumulul IV de la
Popeti (Pl. II), din care s-au recuperat pri ale calotei, aprtoarea de
ceaf, fragmente ale obrzarelor i o component de bronz, care pare s fi
fcut parte din sistemul de susinere a panaului13. Coiful a fost realizat
din tabl de bronz, prelucrat prin ciocnire, i pare a avea la baz modele
sudice, dar n acelai timp el este, prin forma i tehnica de execuie, un
produs local. Caracteristicile morfologice atipice au fcut dificil
reconstituirea exact a formei originale, astfel c variantele de
reconstituire propuse n literatura de specialitate sunt doar ipoteze de
lucru (Pl. II/1; 2; 3). Inventarul mormntului era compus dintr-un cuit, un
vrf de sgeat, fragmente de la o zbal de tip tracic, un inel de fier, o
moned dacic de argint, o cma de zale ntreag, o spad de fier
ndoit, un pumnal de tip sica, umbo-ul unui scut, piese de harnaament i
numeroase resturi ceramice. n sud-vestul tumulului, ntr-o groap
rotund au fost depuse coiful, ce coninea oasele arse ale defunctului.
ntregul complex a fost datat n secolul I a.Chr.
Dintr-un alt mormnt plan de incineraie, aflat n componena unei
necropole descoperite Chirnogi, punctul Terasa Rudarilor, datat
ncepnd cu a doua jumtate a sec. II a.Chr. pn n a doua jumtate a
sec. I a.Chr., provine o plac de bronz fragmentat (Pl. III/1). Pe baza
decorului, care are analogii cu cel de pe coiful de la Popeti, s-a prespus
c reprezint resturile unui coif similar. Fragmentele plcii de bronz au

11

Vulpe 1976, p. 212; Gum 1991, p. 102.

Rustoiu 1996, p. 147-150. Clasificare bazat pe metalul utilizat pentru fabricare, bronz
sau fier.
13
Vulpe, 1976, p. 201, Fig. 12/1-2.
12

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

423

fost prinse ntre ele cu mici bare de fier, casca suferind probabil reparaii
n Antichitate14.
Tot unui coif pare s-i fi aparinut i o bordur de bronz, rest al
unui posibil obrzar, descoperit ntr-un mormnt tumular de la Piscul
Crsani15. Fragmentul este ornamentat cu protuberane, iar pe margini cu
cercuri incizate, similare cu cele de pe coiful de la Popeti. Pe baza
inventarului funerar, complexul a fost datat n secolul I a.Chr. Din pcate
alte detalii sau imagini ale fragmentului nu au mai fost publicate.
La fel de incert este i cazul unui fragment dintr-o plac de bronz
descoperit ntr-un mic tumul de incineraie, acum nalt doar de 1,30 m,
de la Poiana-Rovinari16. Inventarul acestui mormnt coninea, pe lng
oasele calcinate ale defunctului, resturile unei cmi de zale i o bucat
de tabl de bronz, posibil parte a unui obrzar.
Un element de bronz asemntor, a fost descoperit ntr-un
mormnt (C10M.21) din necropola de la Zimnicea, punct Cmpul
Morilor, datat ctre sfritul sec. I a.Chr. Fragmentul de tabl poate s fi
fcut parte din obrzarul unui coif, fiind decorat, n tehnica au rpouss,
cu protuberane, iar pe margini cu cerculee i linii n zig-zag incizate17
(Pl. III/2).
Morfologia exact a acestor cti de lupt nu poate fi reconstituit
la un nivel indubitabil, n lipsa unui exemplar ntreg. Uneori chiar
apartenena fragmentelor la coifuri este discutabil, singura constant
fiind materialul de baz i, mai ales, decorurile identificate. Plecnd de la
modelul Popeti, pe care s-a fondat gruparea celorlalte piese de la sud de
Carpai, s-a conturat posibilitatea ca toate aceste fragmente s fi fost
componente (majoritar obrzare pars pro toto?) ale unor coifuri
aparinnd aceluiai tip, specific zonei dunrene, corupte din modele
elenistice mai timpurii18.
Nici n cazul coifului descoperit la Cugir (jud. Alba), realizat din
fier de aceast dat, originea piesei nu este una bine determinat. Dup
cum observa A. Rustoiu, caracteristicile ctii o calific drept un produs

14

erbnescu 2006, 169-170, Fig. 4/1.

Vulpe 1976, p. 207-208
16
Berciu 1934, p. 25; Vulpe 1976, p. 208; Calotoiu et alii 1987, p. 80.
17
Alexandrescu 1980, p. 26, p. 55, Fig. 66/3, Fig. 76/15.
18
Rustoiu 1996, p. 150.
15

424

Ctlin Borangic

local, fabricat n decursul sec. I a.Chr. 19, chiar dac pare influenat de
modele nord-italice20 (Pl. III/3). Inventarul funerar asociat era compus, pe
lng coif, din trei zbale de tip tracic, pinteni, elemente de la roile unui
car ceremonial, o situla de bronz, un vas ceramic de tip fructier, o
cma de zale, o spad lung de tip celtic, mpreun cu teaca sa, un scut,
de la care s-au pstrat marginile, niturile i umbo-ul de fier, un posibil
pumnal curb sica i o lance cu vrful puternic alungit i clciul acesteia,
ambele de fier, precum i diverse piese de port i elemente de
harnaament.
O alt component din fier, fragmentar, descoperit la
Hunedoara, a fost interpretat pe baza unei balamale, drept un posibil
element de legtur dintre calota i obrzarul unui coif21.
Este de remarcat diferena dintre tehnologia coifurilor descoperite
ntre Dunre i Carpaii meridionali, care sunt toate, invariabil, din bronz
i au un decor specific i cele din spaiul intra-carpatic, ce sunt realizate
din fier. Tabla de bronz este i mai subire i mai puin rezistent dect
cea de fier, ceea ce sugereaz o modificare a tehnologiei de fabricaie, n
direct legtur cu cerinele proprietarului. O alt ipotez ar fi c cele de
bronz erau coifuri de parad, iar cele de fier erau de lupt propriu-zis.
Trebuie remarcat, ns, c nu avem documentat echipament militar de
parad n epoca dacic, spre deosebire de epocile anterioare, unde astfel
de piese erau folosite n ceremonii sau, posibil, doar pentru nmormntri.
Este vizibil discrepana descoperirilor datate ncepnd cu secolul
II a.Chr. i cele din perioada anterioar, cnd sunt documentate peste 25
de diverse cti de lupt22 sau parad i cele apte puncte de descoperiri
de epoc dacic (Pl. IV/1). Desigur, efervescena militar a arealului,
ncepnd cu secolele V-IV a.Chr. explic aceast abunden, asigurnd nu
doar modele comportamentale, ci i surse de import. Proveniena pieselor
este fie mediteranean (coifuri de tip atic, chalcidic, greco-ilir), fie celtic,
zone unde astfel de echipamente erau intens folosite i mai bine
documentate, arat direciile de interes i aprovizionare ale liderilor
19

Popa 2011, p. 336 (cu bibliografia piesei, a analogiilor i a posibilelor direcii de

import).
20
Tipurile Port i Novo mesto de care l apropie obrzarele mari, mobile i decorate,
diferena fundamental fiind rigiditatea aprtorii de ceaf, care la exemplarul de la
Cugir face corp comun cu calota.
21
Srbu et alii 2007, p. 159.
22
Inclusiv cele de pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, respectiv Olneti sau Bubueci.

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

425

militari nord-dunreni. n ciuda acestor tradiii, putem spune, numrul

coifurilor scade, cel puin n ceea ce privete depunerea lor n morminte.
Sursele productoare23, fie c vorbim de meteri sau ateliere sudice ori
celtice, fie c vorbim de diverse modaliti de import, se modificaser i
situaia este vizibil n ce privete producia sau posesia de coifuri n
interiorul aristocraiei geto-dacice. Raritatea depunerilor trebuie articulat
cu valoarea economic a unui astfel de echipament care, atunci cnd nu
era pur i simplu obinut prin jaf, implica o serie de costuri substaniale,
dar mai ales cerea abiliti tehnice de fabricare specifice, greu de atins.
Modificrile politico-militare i schimbrile polilor de putere din zona
Balcanilor de nord se pot observa i n acest domeniu. Complicaiile
procurrii unui coif din zonele tradiionale au determinat cutarea unor
soluii complementare, n acest caz s-a recurs la fabricarea lor pe plan
local. Aa se poate explica amprenta autohton asupra coifurilor din
epoca dacic, n special cele de la Cugir i Popeti, unde aceste influene
sunt bine documentate.
Privind evolutiv situaia coifurilor din spaiul nord-dunrean se
pot observa modificri substaniale. Dac n ce privete secolele V-III
a.Chr. modelele existente nu sunt dect importuri sudice, ulterior, pe
fondul situaiei descrise, apar unele tipuri locale, cel puin ca morfologie.
Columna lui Traian arat, prin piesele redate, coifuri foarte diferite de
epocile anterioare, mai ales ca form, care acum devine una specific.
Decorurile sunt i ele deosebite, att ct permite iconografia24, cu motive
geometrice, vegetale, animale fabuloase, personaje mitologice, sugernd
puternice legturi i influene din partea bestiarelor elenistice i orientale.

23

O situaie atipic, n tabloul general, o constituie aa-zisele coifuri princiare getice, a

cror producie, determinat de o serie de analize metalografice i tehnologice, pare s fi
aparinut unor ateliere greceti sau unui/unor meteri locali cu bune legturi cu acestea,
chiar dac morfologia (inclusiv decorurile) este particular fondului getic
(Constantinescu, Stan 2014, p. 659; Constantinescu et alii 2014, p. 652-656). Circulaia
restrns n timp face plauzibil ipoateza unei tehnologii de prelucrare a calotelor relativ
limitate la un numr extrem de restrns de meteri.
24
Calitatea detaliilor sculpturale ale Columnei nu mai este cea mai bun, dat fiind gradul
mare de deteriorare a monumentului. Parial, i cu foarte mari rezerve privind exactitatea
acestor date, detaliile ornamentale au fost desenate n timpul Renaterii de gravorul
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, fr a elimina posibilitatea ca acesta, atunci cnd
recunoaterea unor detalii deteriorate era imposibil, nu a completat unele amnunte
dup propria imaginaie.

426

Ctlin Borangic

Simbol al statutului social, costisitoare, ctile de lupt nu erau,

totui, la ndemna oricrui rzboinic, confecionarea unui coif metalic
relativ simplu, neincluznd aici elemente de ornamentaie sau decor
complicate, cumuleaz n mod obinuit eforturile a trei oameni, pe durata
a cca. 20 de zile, respectiv 5-600 ore/munc25. Renunarea voluntar la o
pies scump26 trebuie s fi fost o excepie, iar includerea coifului n
mobilierul funerar o maxim dovad de poten economic i un marker
de prestigiu aparte27. Despre soarta celor nesacrificate n acest mod nu se
pot face dect speculaii n jurul ideii c ele se moteneau n cadrul
comunitii sau familiei. Un argument n acest sens ar fi prezena unor
coifuri mediteraneene, nu doar la mare distan de centrele lor de
producie, justificabile prin relaia centru-periferie a bazinului Dunrii
fa de sudul elenistic, ci i prin faptul c aceste coifuri sunt utilizate i la
distan mare de timp fa de perioada n care au fost utilizate n zonele de
origine. Nu lipsit de importan este faptul c unele piese poart urme de
reparaii, ceea ce arat o ndelungat refolosire.
Modificrile practicilor funerare oglindesc schimbri la nivelul
spiritualitii comunitilor n ansamblu. Moartea unui individ nu-i
asigura acestuia neaprat un mormnt, iar ceremonial funerar cu att mai
puin. Locul lui n ierarhia politic, social, economic i militar
reglementa tratamentul defunctului dup deces, iar numrul indivizilor
care aparineau elitei era redus, comparativ cu demografia general a
comunitilor. Asta nu exclude faptul c ceilali rzboinici ar fi avut
carene serioase n ce privete echipamentul militar. Cel puin nu cei din
structurile imediat inferioare, baza de putere a seniorului, de care de fapt
depindea fora liderului. Scenariul n care doar un individ proeminent
avea coif, iar masa rzboinicilor nu foloseau protecii ale capului este prea
simplist, raportat la evenimentele militare n care triburile la nceput, apoi
autoritatea regal dacic au fost implicate.

25

Borangic 2014, p. 47-48.

n ce privete coifurile, valoarea lor nu este dat neaprat de cantitatea de ore/munc
necesare fabricrii, ci tehnologiei de producie, mult mai specific, fa de alte tipuri de
echipament.
27
Nu exist nici certitudinea c defuncii aparineau n totalitate aristocraiei, ei putnd
s fi fost doar rzboinici de seam, dar fie sraci, fie fr acces la straturile sociale
superioare. Cel puin aa putem explica diferenele dintre unele morminte cu mobilier
funerar remarcabil i altele care, dei conin arme, unele care atest apartenena
decedatului la anumite categorii militare, sunt totui srccioase n ansamblu.
26

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

427

Peisajul militar al spaiului nord-dunrean acumulase suficiente

experiene mariale, nsi funcia rzboinic a unor indivizi pare c se
instituionalizase28, iar fenomenul militar local avea o vizibil tendin
spre uniformizare i profesionalizare. Armamentul acestor rzboinici, att
ct ne spun sursele arheologice era numeros29, diversificat (devoalnd
existena unor categorii specifice de rzboinici) i specificizat30.
Campaniile militare dese i majoritar duse mpotriva armatelor romane, a
cror pregtire i logistic impunea respect, trebuie c ntriser
experiena militar a contingentelor dacice. Nu lipsit de importan, n ce
privete instrucia militar la standardele romane, a fost influena pe care
au avut-o militarii romani ajuni n taberele dacice, fie ca dezertori sau
prizonieri, fie ca instructori primii ca urmare a tratatelor ncheiate cu
imperiul31. Toate aceste date, chiar privite cu suspiciune, contureaz un
tablou general din care coifurile nu puteau lipsi.
Rzboaiele daco-romane i sfritul regatului dac pun la dispoziie
un alt set de documente istorice din care rezult o folosire mai intens a
acestor echipamente dect o sugerau sursele arheologice. Dosarul istoric
este completat de iconografia rzboinicilor daci ilustrai pe Column. La o
privire atent, din nou n contrast cu imaginarul creat chiar de monument,
pe acesta apar un numr considerabil de coifuri, att n dotarea unor
rzboinici, ct, mai ales, n cadrul expunerii ostentative a trofeelor
capturate.
Primul coif ilustrat, n ordinea naraiei redate, este aruncat la
picioarele lui Traian de ctre solia dacilor (scena LXXV) trimis s cear
pace n 102 p.Chr., eveniment confirmat i de ctre Dio Cassius (LXVIII,
9, 2). Din varii motive, ce par a ine de tipul de mesaj afiat, armele
dacilor aruncate la picioarele mpratului sunt doar defensive: mai multe
scuturi i un coif. Acesta, att ct permite starea de conservare a scenei,
are calota conic i dou obrzare, aparent fixe. Sculptorul a decis s l
28

Criton, Geticele, 5, 2, - Lexiconul Suidas, s.v Boutiais.

[] acolo, la ei, puteai s vezi peste tot sbii, platoe, lnci, toate locurile fiind pline
de cai, arme i oameni narmai [], Dion Chrysostomos, Discursuri, XII, 16, 20.
30
Dac, cel puin iniial, sursele de armament din sud fuseser tiate, noua configuraie
politico-militar nu ar fi putut opri ermetic astfel de importuri. Totui, lipsa unor
descoperiri de arme provenite din spaiul egeean arat c profesionalizarea fenomenului
militar (incluznd aici tactici, strategii, armament) era condiionat de ali factori dect
cei tradiionali. Putem bnui cu mare probabilitate c armatele romane erau cea mai
important astfel de condiie, observnd de exemplu evoluiia sbiilor ncovoiate dacice.
31
Dio Cassius, LXVII, 7, 4; LXVIII, 9, 3;
29

428

Ctlin Borangic

redea vzut din fa, culcat lateral, astfel c forma lui n ansamblu poate fi
doar bnuit ca fiind alungit i aplecat spre fa, la fel ca unele coifuri
de pe baza monumentului (Pl. V/4a-b).
Doi rzboinici poart coifuri, daci n mod cert, de vreme ce unul
dintre ei mnuiete o falx dacica, n scena CLI, tot de o form conic, dar
nu au obrzare, ctile fiind legate simplu sub brbie doar cu o curelu
(Pl. V/3). Momentul este important pentru c ilustreaz un aspect care
vizeaz nu aristocraia rzboinic, ci acei comati, etaj social32 constituit
ntr-o clas specializat de rzboinici, subordonat aristocraiei militare i
autoritii regale, n special33. Putem interpreta scena ca o dovad a
democratizrii portului/posesiei unor anumite elemente de echipament
militar. Dac alte arme (pumnale curbe, spade, cmi de zale) rmn n
uzul exclusiv al aristocraei, cele defensive scut, coif, anumite tipuri de
armuri se regsesc i la alte categorii socio-militare34. Pragmatismul
militar a surclasat orice opreliti socio-religioase sau economice. Prezena
acestor coifuri pe Column ar trebui s modifice atribuirea exclusiv a
acestor echipamente aliailor sarmai, care chiar dac au participat la
prima parte a conflictului, nu apar n documentele oficiale ca nvini35,
caz n care prezentarea unor arme sarmatice n condiiile n care dacii erau
dumanul nfrnt, este cel puin atipic. Cu att mai mult cu ct coifurile
folosite de cavaleria sarmat, ilustrat n scenele de lupt (XXXI;

32

Identificarea acestor kometai cu rnimea dacic a pornit de la interpretarea forat a

unei informaii oferite de ctre Dio Cassius (LXVIII, 9, 1. Cf. Petros Patricius, 5), reluat
apoi de ctre Iordanes (Getica, 71). n fapt aceast imagine a structurii duale a societii
dacice a fost o proiectare n trecut a imaginii ranului romn (participant la diverse
conflicte militare, n special n cadrul mobilizrii generale), utilizat ca informaie
subliminal pentru a crea o mai puternic legtur ntre daci i romni, dar i pentru a
nivela convenabil stratificarea claselor sociale dacice, rezumate de istoriografia de
dinainte de 1989 la antonimia nobili-rani.
33
Petre 2004, p. 256-260.
34
Fenomenul este vizibil i n arta local, care nu mai este un apanaj al aristocraiei.
35
Spre exemplu, dei sarmaii au participat la contraatacul din Moesia (conform
evoluiei evenimentelor de pe Column), unde coaliia barbar a fost nfrnt, armele lor
nu apar pe trofeul de la Adamclisi i nici ntre barbari nu se pot identifica sarmai, ci
doar germanici i daci. Fie sarmaii n-au participat la aceast campanie, fie, mai sigur,
romanii s-au ferit s sensibilizeze orgoliile cpeteniilor roxolane care reprezentau o for
nc prea departe pentru a fi nvins, lucru i mai evident dup 117 p.Chr. i domnia lui
Hadrian.

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

429

XXXVII), sunt diferite de cele dacice36. Astfel, pe baza Columnei, spre

deosebire de restul monumentului, sunt figurate armuri diverse, coifuri,
spade. Nu este lipsit de importan i faptul c pe cele patru fee al
soclului abund armele dacice, spre exemplu aici sunt cca. 100 de scuturi
din cele aproximativ 400 redate pe tot monumentul, sunt redate
numeroase spade, n vreme ce pe fus este redat doar una n mod cert i
aceasta destul de grosolan reprezentat, sunt redate multe lnci i topoare,
n vreme ce acestea lipsesc din scenele de lupt. Nici un dac nu este
echipat cu armuri n scenele de lupt, dar toate tipurile de armur
(hamata, squamata, segmentata, lipsind ns orice tip de armuri
combinate din solzi i zale, care pot fi atribuite mediului sau mcar
influenei sarmatice) figureaz printre trofee.
Faptul c aceste arme erau dacice i nu sarmatice, aa cum nu de
puine ori se susine, este confirmat de analogiile arheologice descoperite
n mediul dacic37. Prezentarea unor trofee sarmatice ar fi fost discutabil
prin prisma faptului c roxolanii, aliai a dacilor, n-au mai participat la al
doilea rzboi (Traian nsui nu i-a luat titlul de Sarmaticus), ceea ce face
improbabil prezena przilor de rzboi care le-ar fi aparinut. Afiarea
unor falsuri, cnd memoria unui episod similar, deranjant pentru
prestigiul i orgoliul imperial, din vremea lui Domiian, era proaspt n
memoria colectiv i, n consecin, era de neacceptat pentru propaganda
imperial a momentului. Momentul, personalitatea mpratului i
rezultatele rzboaielor nu aveau nevoie de astfel de denaturri sau
subterfugii pentru sublinierea unei victorii care avea ca int principal
oricum regatul dac.
ncheierea primului rzboi daco-roman este marcat pe Column
n scena LXXVIII, unde sunt expuse armele nvinilor. ntre acestea se
disting nu mai puin de apte coifuri, dou pe trofee i alte patru aruncate
n grmada de arme, evident dacice, dac judecm dup draconi i sbiile
36

Vorbind despre coifurile sarmailor, Strabon spune c erau fcute din piele de bou
crud (Geografia, VII, 3, 17), cu referire la masa lupttorilor, unele cpetenii avnd ns
acces la coifuri de metal, niciodat ns de producie proprie ori n numr prea mare. O
analiz recent a coifurilor metalice din mediul sarmatic (sec. III a.Chr.-sec. IV p.Chr.)
la Symonenko 2014. Analiza relev majoritar piese de import, singurele astfel de piese
ce pot fi asociate cu ilustraia Columnei Traiane, fiind cele de realizate din cadre (p. 274275) ce puteau fi i produse pe plan local.
37
i care n mediul sarmatic sunt mai rare spre deosebire de cel dacic. Cf. Brc,
Symonenko 2009, p. 205-206.

430

Ctlin Borangic

curbe specifice alturate. Zeia Victoria calc pe un alt coif, n timp ce

noteaz rezultatul luptei pe un scut (Pl. V/2).
Cucerirea Daciei a nsemnat i terminarea tuturor ostilitilor cel
puin pentru moment astfel c romanii au putut savura victoria, etalnd
armele capturate ale dacilor. Baza Columnei abund de przi de soi, ntre
acestea nu mai puin de 29 de coifuri ridicnd la un total de 39 de piese
doar cele atribuibile dacilor (Pl. V/1; Pl. VI). Este mai puin important
pentru economia acestui studiu morfologia i decorurile fiecrei piese
aspect ce merit o cercetare separat ci este reinut numrul mare de
coifuri redate i, cu titlu aparte, faptul c majoritatea sunt, morfologic
vorbind, de factur dacic. Fr a intra acum n detalii stufoase dar
necesare la un moment dat coifurile redate pot fi grupate n cteva tipuri
principale. Rein atenia coifurile ce par o evoluie local a modelelor
tracice de tip Phrygian38, care pstreaz sugestia unui pileus schematizat,
bogat ornamentat. Coifurile de acest fel sunt interesante prin forma lor,
cci au calota nalt i tendine de conicitate uor aplecat n fa (Pl.
VII/1-3). Fr a fi neaprat mai eficiente dect alte tipuri, fabricarea lor
necesita un volum mai mare de munc i cunotine tehnologice specifice.
Adugnd i decorurile pretenioase, reies echipamente scumpe, a cror
caracteristic principal pare a fi vizibilitatea cpeteniei cci erau
indubitabil ale efilor militari n masa de rzboinici.
Spre deosebire de acest tip, alte coifuri sunt asemntoare ca
structur i morfologie cu coifurile de tip Spangenhelme, care, datorit
modului de fabricare mai accesibil, au avut o rspndire semnificativ n
spaiu i timp39. i acestea sunt reprezentate avnd decoruri care le
individualizeaz (Pl. V/2). O alt posibil categorie o reprezint coifurile
conice, aparent de tip Pilos sau mcar apropiate de acesea. Desigur,
acordul final va fi dat de descoperirea, n teritoriul dac sau oriunde
altundeva, a unuia sau mai multe astfel de coifuri, descoperiri n lipsa
crora fondul discuiei rmne parial nesigur.
Coifurile ilustrate pe Column au rmas aproape neexploatate de
literatura de specialitate, care s-a mulumit s considere aproape invariabil
c piesele reliefate sunt mai degrab sarmatice, chiar n lipsa unor
argumente istorice i tehnice care s justifice atribuirea. n cellalt plan, al
apartenenei lor la logistica dacilor, ele fac legtura ntre piesele de
38

Waurick 1988, p. 163-168. Numele i implicit forma fac trimitere la celebra bonet
frigian.
39
Vogt 2006, passim.

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

431

echipament defensiv provenite din descoperiri arheologice i tabloul

general al nzestrrii armatei dacice n timpul lui Decebal, cnd este
posibil s putem vorbi de o abunden a acestui tip de echipament, cel
puin n rndul rzboinicilor permaneni40. Diferenele morfologice i
ornamentale pot fi puse pe seama unei evoluii locale a coifurilor, situaie
ce sugereaz o tradiie privind folosirea acestor echipamente.
Analiza datelor modific imaginea general asupra subiectului. n
primul rnd evidenele arheologice relev utilizarea coifurilor n special
de ctre elite, n mormintele crora apar. Numrul redus are o palet de
posibile explicaii, de la reguli economico-sociale i spirituale pn la
stadiul cercetrilor. Oricare dintre aceste posibiliti, dac este invocat ca
argument pentru restricia folosirii coifurilor, prezint ns unele aspecte
extrem de discutabile.
n primul rnd, chiar lund n calcul gradul mare de originalitate al
civilizaiei geto-dacice, este greu de admis o atare restricie, cu att mai
mult cu ct toate neamurile din jur foloseau astfel de echipamente, desigur
n funcie de posibilitile grupului sau ale liderilor respectivi. Nu se
cunosc, la nici unul dintre vecinii ori dumanii dacilor, consemnri
privitoare la vreo oprelite de orice fel n purtarea coifurilor. Acceptnd
totui c astfel de reguli sau practici ar fi existat41 ele au venit n
contradicie flagrant cu realitile de pe teatrele de lupt. Pragmatismul
militar ar fi refuzat o astfel de interdicie, constrns de efecte. Nu avem
nici un motiv s admitem o atare constrngere de ordin religios, singura
piedic real putnd fi incapacitatea economic a unui individ de a-i
achiziiona, ntr-un fel sau altul, un coif.

40

Pe lng acetia, gloata, rzboinici de ocazie sau de nevoie, ar fi putut folosi

numeroasele arme romane, ntre care i coifuri, capturate de-a lungul timpului, urme ale
acestora fiind descoperite n mediul dacic, sau protecii ale capului realizate din
materiale perisabile (psl?, piele). Spre exemplu, la Racoul de Jos s-au descoperit mai
multe arme romane n interiorul unei locuine incendiate. Piesa cea mai spectaculoas
este o aprtoare de ceaf a unui coif din bronz, considerat parte dintr-o prad de rzboi
obinut ntr-una dintre campaniile militare dacice din sudul Dunrii, de la sfritul sec. I
p.Chr. (Costea et alii 2008, p. 156-157, Fig. 2/a-b).
41
Este avut n vedere n principal teoria nuditii rzboinice la celi (Polybios, II/2829). Aceast practic, a crei existen real este discutabil putnd fi de fapt un
stereotip perpetuat n timp, avnd ca surs afirmaiile lui Polybios nu presupune n nici
un caz renunarea la arme, ci doar la vestimentaie. O analiz succint a acestui subiect,
cu exemplu unei statui celtice n care este figurat un rzboinic nud, dar care are spad i
coif, la Rustoiu 2008, p. 30-36, cu bibliografia extins.

432

Ctlin Borangic

Analiznd evidenele arheologice, aparent, numrul de coifuri

descoperite, pe un spaiu geografic i cronologic larg, nu corespunde
tabloului general al perioadei. ncepnd cu secolul IV a.Chr., nordul
Peninsulei Balcanice a fost scena unor numeroase modificri politicomilitare cu efecte pe termen lung. Cele care mai importante au fost
disoluia autoritii macedonene, migraia celtic i instalarea puterii
romane n regiune. Pentru nordul Dunrii primul i principalul efect a fost
epuizarea capacitilor militare i nu numai a principilor gei, lipsii acum
de sursele tradiionale de venituri, ocupate sau tiate de noile populaii
sosite ori de structurile politico-militare aprute n locul celor vechi n
sudul Dunrii.
Btlia de la Kynoscephalea (197 a.Chr.) a nsemnat nu doar
sosirea unui nou pretendent la dominaia zonei, att n dauna oraelor-stat
greceti, regatelor elenistice, ct i a barbarilor rezideni. Modificarea
rzboiului a devenit evident. Att resturile celtice, dezorientate dup
distrugerea regatului de la Tylis al regelui Kavaros, ct i triburile tracice,
dacice ori ilire, toate au simit fora noului juctor, dat de disciplina
militar, armele, dar mai ales de determinarea lui. Pe aceste considerente,
foarte probabil, dumniile iniiale dintre barbari au fost relativ rapid
nlocuite cu amestecate aliane, militare i nu numai, ntre diversele
clanuri i neamuri, cele mai importante fiind cele dintre comunitile
celtice i tracice. Pe acest fond mozaicul de rzboinici, identiti, credine,
arme, tehnici i strategii a sfrit prin a se uniformiza, cel puin la nivelul
elitelor, transformri sedimentate i finalizate n manifestri identitare
specifice42.
Armamentul comun adoptat de ctre aceti rzboinici reflecta
noile moduri n care trebuia dus lupta. Rzboinicii de elit foloseau
spada lung celtic n locul diverselor tipuri de mahaire anterioare, i
protejau corpul cu armuri i coifuri, iar scutul oval permitea detaarea din
grup n timpul luptei, care devenise acum prioritar o iniiativ personal,
cu accente eroice. Deineau cai temperamentali, dresai, pe care i
42

Aceste manifestri, asupra crora nu voi insista, sunt condensate n literatura de

specialitate sub numele de grup/facies/orizont Padea Panaghiurski Kolonii, dup
numele a dou situri arheologice reprezentative din Romnia i Bulgaria, denumire
convenional prin care se identific, n acest areal, anumite asocieri de artefacte i
practici funerare specifice acestei zone. Dei aceast denumire nu explic suficient
implicaiile etno-culturale, istorice i de civilizaie ale fenomenului, ea a rmas n uz,
fiind folosit pentru evitarea unor confuzii terminologice.

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

433

controlau cu o zbal special i cu pinteni, ceea ce le permitea modificri

brute de direcie i deplasri lungi i rapide. Foloseau pumnale curbe, cu
lama gravat, arm care i nsoea pretutindeni, att n expediiile militare,
ct i n morminte. Eterogenele elite militare, care aveau propria lor
istorie, propriul fond cultural, propriile tehnologii i aspiraii, au reuit si absoarb reciproc caracteristicile i s le valorifice att n direcia
consecinelor imediate, ct, mai ales, n perspectiv. Rezultatul a fost un
tip de rzboinic nou, al crui echipament l recomanda drept un cavalerist
greu, bine pregtit i clar determinat psihologic. Secondat de oamenii si
de arme, la fel de bine narmai i hotrt, acest tip de rzboinic a devent
rapid un prototip de succes ntr-o lume dominat de aspiraii i valori
mariale.
Aprut n nord-vestul Bulgariei i estul Serbiei, acest model
cultural este vizibil, ncepnd cu secolul II. a.Chr., n Oltenia, sud-vestul
Transilvaniei, Muntenia, iar ulterior, sporadic, descoperiri asimilabile
acestui fenomen au mai aprut i n alte zone ale Romniei i mai departe
pn n Ucraina Transcarpatic). Este vorba de morminte de incineraie n
care au fost depui decedaii, cu armele lor, ntre care, e adevrat, cu titlu
excepional, se regsesc i coifuri.
Este dificil de admis c puinele coifuri descoperite reflect
situaia din teren n ce privete numrul lor real aflat n uz. Spre exemplu,
armurile de zale, echipamente mult mai scumpe, sunt prezente ntr-un
numr mult mai mare43 dect coifurile. La fel i spadele, a cror producie
era dependent, cel puin iniial, de atelierele celtice, unde sunt
descoperiri frecvente n zon. De ce lipsesc coifurile din depunerile
funerare sau de alt fel, n ciuda modelului identitar din care fceau parte,
n ciuda realitilor tactice evidente, care le reclamau i mai ales pe fondul
ncrcturii spirituale deinute, este nc o ntrebare dificil.
Vorbind de realiti tactice, prsim zona confortabil a
explicaiilor arheologice, lrgind puin paleta de posibiliti de interogare
istorice. Conceptul de renactment (living history) este, dincolo de
delectarea publicului spectator, o modalitate verificare practic a aproape
tuturor teoriilor propuse de istorici, n aproape toate domeniile cu care
opereaz acetia. Fie c vorbim de arheologie experimental sau pur i
simplu de reconstituiri istorice, cu diferite grade de autenticitate. Dintre
variatele domenii n care poate opera renactmentul, cele cu aplicaii
43

Borangic 2011, p. 172-193, plana XXXII. Probabil acestea avnd o mai puternic
amprent apotropaic.

434

Ctlin Borangic

militare sunt de departe nu doar cele mai populare publicul modern

manifest aproape aceeai apeten spre violen ca i strmoii invocai
ci i cele mai potrivite pentru testarea diferitelor echipamente. Participnd
la astfel de reconstituiri istorice ale secvenei dacice de aproape un
deceniu am putut observa o evoluie personal obligatorie, a
echipamentului propriu. Astfel, dac la nceput, participam la simulri
echipat simplu, n timp numeroasele ciocniri, aproape toate de semicontact, au dus la modificarea obligatorie a acestuia. A fost necesar un
scut mai rezistent, o armur de calitate i desigur, dup cteva accidentri,
un coif metalic, toate reproduceri dup piese arheologice, dublate de
ilustrri din art. Efectele au fost notabile, frecvena accidentrilor
scznd semnificativ.
n ce msur putem proiecta n trecut astfel de experimente e greu
de apreciat cu exactitate. Ce se poate spune cert este c duritatea luptelor
depea cu mult orice ncercare de reconstituire, orict de realist ar putea
fi. Lund ca studiu de caz perioada rzboaielor daco-romane, un rzboinic
barbar trebuia nu doar s fac fa, ci s i supravieuiasc diferitelor
tipuri de proiectile. Trupele auxiliare, special recrutate pentru acest gen de
lupt, lansau asupra inamicilor o ploaie de pietre, proiectile de pratie
i/sau sgei de la distan. Toi aceti auxiliari figureaz pe reliefurile
Columnei, semn c au avut un rol important n rzboiul cu dacii. Chiar
dac barbarii erau protejai de scuturi, lipsa proteciei capului se putea
dovedi fatal.
Spre exemplu, un prtia mediu antrenat poate arunca un proiectil
de 50-100 g la 200 m fr mari probleme. Muniiile de plumb (25-40 g)
ajung la distane mai mari, cu viteze superioare. Astfel de distane au fost
atinse n cadrul experimentelor amintite, chiar fr perioade lungi de
antrenament. Lansarea unui proiectil de 100-200g poate dezvolta o
energie cinetic situat ntre 250 i 350J (variaia este dat de viteza de
lansare, care depinde de fora i experiena lansatorului, de tipul de pratie
etc.)44. La astfel de valori de impact, lipsa echipamentelor defensive
decima efectivele inamice cu mult nainte de lupta propriu-zis (un
prtier bun putea lansa uor 10-12 proiectile pe minut, iar un arca ntre
10-15 sgei n acelai interval)45.
44

www.paperlined.org/dev/oss/high_energy_slings (03.08.2015).
Pe lng experiena i rezultatele personale, obinute cu ocazia a numeroase exerciii
de arheologie experimental i activiti de reconstituire istoric, am operat cu estimrile
rezultate din experienele practice obinute prin aceleai metode de Dumitru Rotariu,
45

Aveau sau nu coifuri rzboinicii lui Decebal?

435

Sigur, scuturile preluau mare parte din efectele acestor salve de

oc, cu condiia disciplinei i instruciei aplicate, dar lipsa coifurilor
devenea cu adevrat critic n momentul luptelor corp la corp. Scutul
suport loviturile armelor ofensive, dar pentru contra-lovituri lupttorul
trebuie s ias din zona de protecie oferit de acesta. n timpul atacului,
lipsa armurii i a coifului punea rzboinicul ntr-o situaie extrem de
periculoas, fiind vulnerabil la lovituri n corp, bra, dar mai ales la cap.
Rnile n aceast parte anatomic, chiar minore, modific rapid
capacitatea de lupt a rzboinicului. n poziie de gard, zona aprat de
un scut oval acoper corpul de la maxilar i pn deasupra genunchiului,
respectiv protejeaz toate organele vitale, cu excepia capului. Un element
important n dinamica momentului era obrzarul coifului. Dat fiind faptul
c antebraul se transforma ntr-un ax orizontal al scutului, atunci cnd
acesta era plasat pe lng corp, loviturile puternice n jumtatea lui
superioar basculeaz scutul, care poate pivota spre interior, tendin
foarte puin atenuat de fora cu care era inut de mner i aproape anulat
dac mnerul nu era de lemn sau metal. Testnd de nenumrate ori scutul
n lupte simulate s-a remarcat faptul c doar sprijinirea scutului bine n
umr i, mai ales, poziionarea obrzarului pe direcia marginii superioare
a scutului feresc loviturile cu propriul scut n maxilar sau oasele feei46.
Enumernd vulnerabilitile scoase n eviden de lipsa unor
protecii adecvate ale capului i admind gradul de experien i instruire
militar a rzboinicilor daci, numrul de coifuri capturate i sculptate pe
Column nu mai pare neverosimil. Dimpotriv, sculptorii romani au redat
doar parial ceea ce legiunile ntlniser n Dacia, pentru a nu modifica
prea mult totui mesajul de for a Imperiului. Faptul c pe Column apar
armuri, coifuri, maini de asediu i artilerie arat suma de concesii fcut
de propaganda imperial, interesat de minimalizarea calitilor
inamicului.
Cel puin rzboinicii din preajma regelui erau militari cu
experien, bine narmai i disciplinai. Durata conflictelor, efectivele
implicate, rezultatele pariale i documentele istorice nu reconstruiesc
imaginea unor conflicte ntre legiuni i cete de barbari dezorganizai i
neechipai corespunztor. n dotarea cel puin a rzboinicilor profesioniti,
tarabostes i comati, coifurile erau o prezen necesar i vizibil. Putem
arca profesionist i renactor (Asociaia Arcaii Liberi, Trgu Mure) i Mateffy Tamas,
renactor prtier (Asociaia Hasta Sarmatorum, Miercurea Ciuc).
46
Borangic et alii 2015.

436

Ctlin Borangic

spune, la modul general, c rzboinicii lui Decebal purtau coifuri i c

acestea aveau forme specifice, ndeosebit cele nobiliare.
Notnd aceste observaii, dar revenind n modernitate, putem
accepta reconstituirea unor rzboinici daci fr s inem cont de aspectele
enumerate? Dac sursele istorice i experimentele de living history
demonstreaz utilizarea i eficacitatea coifurilor, putem admite c
rzboinici lui Decebal luptau i, prin reflecie, renactorii moderni pot
lupta cu capetele descoperite i pletele n vnt? Probabil c nu, i ar trebui
ca reconstituirile istorice s se distaneze de imaginea barbarului simplu
aflat n antitez cu evoluatul soldat roman. Documentele istorice arat c
rzboinicii daci erau la fel de bine narmai, uneori chiar mai bine, dect
omologii lor romani. Reconstituirea istoric trebuie s fie exact ce spune
definiia, chiar dac acest lucru o distaneaz de imaginea romantic i
popular pe care tot ea a cultivat-o i o ntreine. Acum nu mai are scuza
c nu se cunoasc detaliile! Fr coifuri n lupte, fie ele i simulate,
personajele militare reconstituite seamn perfect cu alergatul cu pletele
n vnt pe vreme de ploaie. Caz n care renactorul nu e dect un romantic
ntrziat, iar pneumonia nu e altceva dect o sfietoare poezie. Adevrul
istoric poate rmne, ca ntotdeauna, doar un moft.
Ctlin Borangic
Muzeul Naional al Unirii, Alba Iulia,
e-mail: dada@enciclopedia-dacica.ro.

WITH THE HAIR IN THE WIND DURING THE RAIN.

DID DECEBAL'S WARRIORS WEAR HELMETS?
CTLIN BORANGIC (BUCHAREST - ROMANIA)

Keywords: helmets, Geto-Dacians, historical reconstructions, warrior

elites.
Abstract. The present endeavour originates in the lack or the sporadic
use of the helmet during the activities of re-enactment, that have as a subject the
epoch of the Dacian Kingdom. Originated in a lack of archaeological findings of
such pieces of military equipment, the helmets are almost totally absent from the
panoply of Dacian epoch's re-enacted characters. Although some of the least
known weapons of those times, it is unlikely that the helmets would miss from
the Dacian warriors' equipment, especially during the final period of the
Kingdom.
The main documentation source is represented by the funerary
inventories of the aristocracy, the only social class, whose military arsenal was
satisfyingly studied. Their tombs, through practiced rites and rituals partially
shed a light over their lifestyle. In a way, in the funerary space, the community
has reconstructed, as much as possible, what the deceased was during his life,
whether we are talking about function, position or wealth. Among the weapons
of these warriors, the helmets had a special importance, given by practical utility
and by the identity function that they accumulated. Despite these considerations,
the helmets, in close relationship with the funerary discretion of the elites from
the Dacian period, are exceptional findings in the elite's tombs, rare themselves.
Even if they were expensive, hard to reproduce, they should be visible in the
funerary inventory, mirror of a panoply from during the life of a warrior. About
this situation, the Romanian historiography did not arrive at a consensus yet.
Several more clarifications bring the images of Trajan's Column, where
numerous Dacian helmets were revealed, used by both the warrior aristocracy
and by the inferior military structures, the enigmatic comati.
And yet, the historical file of these pieces of equipment is still relatively
solidified, so that in almost a decade of activities of re-enactment I had the
opportunity and, we might say, the obligation to produce and wear helmets, to
test their utility during the simulated fights between different groups of reenacted warriors. They might say that a helmet was an indispensable piece of
weaponry, in any moment of the battle, being extremely useful for both the

438

Ctlin Borangic

protection against all types of projectile, and against the offensive weapons of
the opponents.
The helmets could not have missed from the endowment of professional
warriors, as it is the sketched image of Decebal's Army. Therefore, there is no
reason for which they might have missed from the amateur's equipment of living
history, not only from the desire to respect the historical reality, but also from
practical considerations, based on the frequency of accidents during these
events. Therefore, the historians and archaeologists are those who are left to
offer morphological and ornamental details for these pieces of equipment.

More than 100 years of historiography have consolidated in the

collective imaginary the idea that the Dacians, as a general term, did not
use helmets, at least not systematically, despite their warrior-like nature.
The Dacian, seen as a collective character, had beard, a shirt which was
preferably white, their specific fur cap and obviously their legendary
curved sword, and in battle they would soar bravely with the hair in the
wind.
Looking at the facts of the problem, at a first glance, there is
almost no argument to contradict this image. The archaeological file of
the helmet discoveries all along the period of the Dacian Kingdom is
disappointingly thin, and the antique sources few and interpretable. One
shouldn't wonder that on this weakly documented background, things
have stagnated long enough that this image we were talking about could
leave the historiographical zone and flood the daily landscape. And
because we are talking about this landscape, the present exposed ideas
have been inspired by the invasion of popular shows with subjects and
themes that should reflect the realities of the Antiquity of the NorthDanube territory. The majority of the players that reproduce characters
from the Dacian gallery consider that if they have the characteristics
listed above they can evolve without problems in all sorts of thematic
shows. The situation is so more delicate, the rarer these manifestations,
that do not close or at least don't have as a tipping point a simulation,
more or less realistic of a generalised battle between two sides, generally
constituted from groups of Dacians and Romans, each with their allies.
There is no surprise that in these clashes, that sometimes involve tens or
hundreds of participants, men, women or adolescents, the accidents are
frequent with different levels of severity, many of them around the head

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

439

area, despite the fact that these simulations are far from the fierceness of
real battles.
The manifestations sketched above represent a distinct direction of
historical experiments with more and more powerful social implications,
having a recent and fast evolution. There is no convenient and
consecrated term yet, in Romanian language to call the phenomenon or
the persons that re-enact history, like there is in other languages1. The reenactment/reconstitution activity is actually a passion in which the
participants seek to reproduce, as closely as possible, clothes, weapons,
objects, craftsmanship, behaviours or relations of a specific historical
sequence. Terminologically, in the last years, raised the alternative reenactor, accepted at all levels, including the academic ones, when
sporadically the phenomenon reached the attention of the specialists.
Even if it started as a recreational activity of some history amateurs, more
and more often, the re-enactment uses experimental archaeology, and
among them, sometimes joined historians2. These shows or experiments,
depend on how and from what angle they are looked upon, are not the
subject of this trip but its pretext. Having almost 10 years of experience in
this type of activity, I could observe and record the evolution and impact
produced by such representations that, as I said, are more and more
popular. And leaving from this reality, the danger of some slippages or
stagnation in the area of clichs is imminent, with adverse or at least
unpleasant effects over the social.
The fundamental question that resides in this introduction is if the
shows of historical reconstructions can represent a lesson of authentic
history, obviously depending on the level of competence and
professionalism of the re-enactor or the groups they belong to or they
simply go in the wake of stereotypes created by historiography or, worse,
by cinematography of the past century.
The space does not allow the analysis of the entire equipment, of
all types of recreated characters, even if they should sometime be
discussed as a hole and in detail. The recreation of quality equipment
1

Reenactor (English), reconstituteur (french), rekonstructor (Russian) etc. Gruia 2012,

p. 5. The living history syntagma, used mimetically by the Romanian academic
environment, overlaps only partially over what re-enactment means, and the passionates
that act, not using it, isolated the word in the pretentious zone of the phenomenon.
2
Unfortunately, not always specialized on the recreated period, a fact that has effects
over the quality of the reconstitutions.

440

Ctlin Borangic

replicas, among them the helmets, and wearing them in these shows
should be a rule. Of course there are historical moments on which, at least
on a detailed level, we don't have enough data, but concerning the
weaponry, especially of the superior Dacian military structures, this is
relatively well-known. As in other articles and studies I presented aspects
related to the curved weapons, shields or armours from the panoply of
Dacian warriors, it is suitable to talk about helmets, category of weapons
less known and especially less used in the mentioned events of historical
reconstructions. Especially because, based on the apparition in these
groups of re-enactment of characters from public space, that draw their
inspiration more from the heroic-fantasy stories then from historical
documentation, it is necessary to renew the image of the Dacian warrior,
even at a preliminary level, for now.
The two aspects, the re-enactment and the scientific discourse,
shouldn't evolve separately, as long as a better historical quality of these
manifestations is wanted more and more in the public space. Or, no less
frequent, the lack of accessible and coherent information about the Dacian
period, doubled by mercantile interests, led to the apparition of superficial
and inexcusable problems and, worse, to the proliferation of inexactities
ideologically exploited by currents with profound pseudo-historical
character. In all these cases, the refuse or univolvement of historians can
only be regrettable.
*
Most of them originating in archaeological discoveries with
funerary character, the helmets have been constantly associated with the
aristocracy, the only beneficiary of complex funerary services, even this
piece of equipment has always been a defensive component extremely
useful to all categories of warriors. Despite this fact, the number of
discoveries is very small (but an identical situation all over Europe, with
various explanations3), compared to its important defensive function.
Surely, this situation must be related with the funerary discretion of the
elites, with the fact that they were appreciated trophies and probably,
some of them hereditarily transmitted, which modifies the perception over

Situation seems identical at least in the Germanic, Celtic (Rustoiu 1996, p. 146) and
Sarmatian world (Brc 2006, p. 205-206).

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

441

their density4. For the Dacian medium the explanations of these pieces'
penury have been stuck in the conceptions of religious order of the
Dacians5. Valeriu Srbu synthesizes this dilemma, which originates in the
inefficient methodology6. The modifications of the funerary practices,
visible in the reduction of the tombs' number of aristocracy in 1st c.BC,
must also be related to the rarity of helmets in the discussed region and
period7.
The few helmets that the Geto-Dacian warriors left for us and also
the data extracted from iconography show that they belonged to diverse
types, with different degrees of difficulty in execution, starting with
simpler models - like the ones resembling the Port type, helmets that
bridge between Celtic helmets and the early Roman types 8, like the one
discovered at Cugir9, in Alba county, all the way to the complex models,
with rich ornamentation, with specific morphology, derived probably
from south-Thracian models, visible among the trophies captured by the
Romans and illustrated on the Trajan's Column.
Even the number of discovered helmets is small, the identified
remains, often fragmented to the limit of uncertainty of their identification
as they are and morphology atypical enough, permitted some
classification attempts10, so the specialists`opinion is that the majority,
even they are inspired from south-European models, seem to be creations
or local adaptations, specific to the north-Danube area11.
As I said, the archaeological file is thin, but the war helmets are
not missing. Helmets and remains interpreted as coming from helmets
were discovered at Popeti (Giurgiu County), Chirnogi (Clrai County),
Piscul Crsani (Crsanii de Jos commune, Ialomia County), Poiana-

Borangic 2014, p. 47.

Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 132.
6
Srbu 1993, p. 129130.
7
Gum 1991, p.102, note 118; Rustoiu 1996, p. 147-148.
8
Rustoiu 1996, p. 150.
9
Popa 2011, p. 326- 327, Pl. 150/4 (with pieces bibliography). Cheek protections from
Cugir helmet, from which only one is complete (Pl.III/4), there have been observed
during documentation for the subject, the pieces being now at the National History
Museum of Union from Alba Iulia (inv. 4648).
10
Rustoiu 1996, p. 147-150. Classification based on the metal used for creation, bronze
or iron.
11
Vulpe 1976, p. 212; Gum 1991, p. 102.
5

442

Ctlin Borangic

Rovinari (Gorj County), Zimnicea (Teleorman County), Cugir (Alba

County) and Hunedoara (Hunedoara County) (Pl. I).
The most complete piece has been found in tumulus IV from
Popeti, from which have been recovered parts of the top, neck protection,
fragments from cheek protections and a component of bronze that seem to
have been part of the system that supported the panache12. The helmet has
been made from hammered bronze sheet, and seems to be based on
southern models, but at the same time, it is, by form and execution
technique, a local product. The atypical morphological characteristics
made very difficult the exact reconstruction of its original form, so the
reconstruction options proposed in dedicated literature are only
hypotheses (Pl. II/1-3). The inventory of the tomb was composed from a
knife, an arrow tip, fragments of a Thracian snaffle, an iron ring, a Dacian
silver coin, the full folded armour, a bent iron sword, a sica dagger, the
umbo of a shield, harness pieces and numerous ceramic pieces. In the
South-West of tumulus, in a round pit, were laid the helmet with the
departed's remains. The entire complex was dated in 1st c. BC.
From a plane incineration tomb, from a necropolis discovered at
Chirnogi, the Terasa Rudarilor point, dated between the second half of
the 2nd c.BC and the second half of the 1st c. AD, comes a fragmented
bronze plate. Based on the ornamentation, that has analogies with the one
from Popeti helmet, it was supposed that the remaining pieces represent
a similar helmet. The fragments of the bronze plate have been attached
together with small iron bars, the ensemble suffering repairs in
Antiquity13 (Pl. III/1).
Also to a helmet, seems to have belonged a bronze edge, rest of a
possible cheek protection, discovered in a tumulus from Piscul Crsani14.
The fragment has ornamentation with protuberances and on the edges,
incised circles, similar to the ones on Popeti helmet. Based on the
funerary inventory, the complex was dated in the 1st c.BC. Unfortunately
other details or images of the fragment have not been published.
As uncertain as the ones before, a fragment from a bronze plate
discovered in a small incineration tumulus from Poiana-Rovinari, now 1.3
m tall15. This inventory of the tomb contained, next to calcinated bones of
12

Vulpe, 1976, p. 201, Fig. 12/1-2.

erbnescu 2006, 169-170, Fig. 4/1.
14
Vulpe 1976, p. 207-208
15
Berciu 1934, p. 25; Vulpe 1976, p. 208; Calotoiu et alii 1987, p. 80.
13

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

443

the departed, the rests of a mail chain shirt and a piece of bronze sheet,
possibly part of a cheek protection.
A resembling bronze element was discovered in a tomb
(C10M.21) from Zimnicea necropolis, Cmpul Morilor point, dated
towards the end of the 1st c. BC (Pl. III/2). The sheet fragment may have
been part of a cheek protection, being decorated in au repousse, with
protuberances and on the edges with incised circles and zigzag lines16.
The exact morphology of these war helmets cannot be
reconstructed at an indubitable level, without an entire piece. Sometimes,
even the fragments' appurtenance to the helmets is questionable, the only
constant being the base material and, especially, the identified ornaments.
Starting with Popeti model, on which was based the others' group of
pieces from south of Carpathians, it was born the possibility that all these
fragments may be components (most of them cheek protections pars
pro toto?) of some helmets belonging to the same type, specific to the
Danube zone, corrupted from early Greek models17.
Also, not in the case of the helmet discovered at Cugir (Alba
county), made of iron this time, the origin of the piece is not a well
determined one. As A. Rustoiu noted, the characteristics of this helmet,
qualifies it as a local product, made during the 1st c. BC18, even if it
seems to be influenced by north-Italic models19. The associated funerary
inventory was composed, besides the helmet, from three Thracian horse
bits, spurs, elements from a ceremonial cart, o bronze situla, a fruit
bowl type ceramic bowl, a chainmail shirt, a Celtic long sword, together
with its sheath, a shield from which the edges were preserved, the rivets
and the iron umbo and a spear with a strong tip and its heel, both from
iron, and also various costume pieces and harness elements.
Another fragmentary iron component, discovered at Hunedoara,
was interpreted based on a hinge, as a possible connecting element
between the top and the cheek protection20.

16

Alexandrescu 1980, p. 26, p. 55, Fig. 66/3, Fig. 76/15.

Rustoiu 1996, p. 150.
18
Popa 2011, p. 336 (with piece bibliography and analogies and possibilities of import
directions).
19
Port and Novo mesto types of which the big decorated cheek protection bring it
closer to, the fundamental difference being the rigidity of neck protection, which at the
Cugir example, makes a single structure with the top.
20
Srbu et alii 2007, p. 159.
17

444

Ctlin Borangic

It should be noted that the difference between the technology of

the helmets discovered between Danube and Southern Carpathians, that
are all from bronze and have a specific ornamentation and the ones from
inside the Carpathians, that are made from iron. The bronze sheet is
thinner and less resistant than the iron one, which suggests a modification
of fabrication technology, in direct relation with the owner's requests.
Another hypothesis could be that the ones made out of bronze were
parade helmets, and the ones made out of iron were war helmets. It must
be emphasised that we do not have documented military parade
equipment from the Dacian period, unlike the previous times, where such
pieces were used in ceremonies or, possibly, only in funerals.
It is visible the difference of the discoveries starting with the 2nd
c.BC and the ones from previous period, which are documented more
than 25 different war21 or parade helmets and the seven points with
discoveries from Dacian period. Of course, the military effervescence of
the area, starting with the 5th-4th c.BC explains this abundance (Pl. IV),
ensuring not only the behavioural models, but also import sources. The
piece's origin, whether Mediterranean (Attic type helmets, Chalcidic,
Illirian-Greek), or Celtic, zones where such equipments were intensively
used and better documented, shows the directions of interest of the northdanubian military leaders. Despite these, we can say, that the number of
helmets gets smaller, at least in what concerns their deposition in tombs.
Production sources, whether we are talking about smiths or workshops,
southern or Celtic, whether we are talking about different import methods,
got modified and the situation is visible in what concerns their production
and possession of helmets inside the Geto-Dacian aristocracy. The scarce
depositions must be articulated with their economical value of such an
equipment, which, when was not just robbed, implied a series of
substantial costs, but especially, was asking for technical abilities of
specific fabrication, hard to achieve. The politico-military modifications
and power poles change around Northern Balkans' area can be noted in
this case too. The complications of acquiring a helmet from traditional
zones determined the search of some complementary solutions, in this
case it led to their fabrication locally. This is how it can be explained the
autochthonous print over the helmets from Dacian epoch, especially the
ones from Cugir and Popeti, where these influences are documented.
21

Including the ones from Republic Moldova, from Olneti and Bubueci.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

445

Symbol of social status, expensive, the war helmets were not,

though, at hand to every warrior, the fabrication of a relatively simple
helmet, not including here elements of complicated ornamentation or
decoration, cumulates normally the efforts of three people, along almost
20 days, that means 5-600 man-hours22. The voluntary renouncement to
an expensive piece must be an exception, and including the helmet in the
funerary furniture is a maximum proof of economical potency and a
special prestige marker. About the faith of the ones that were sacrificed
this way, one can only suppose around the idea that they were inherited in
the community23. Modifications of funerary practices mirror changes at
spirituality level of the communities as a whole. The death of an
individual did not necessarily ensure a tomb, and the funerary ceremonial
even less. His place in the political, social, economical and military
hierarchy regulated the treatment of the departed after his death, and the
number of individuals that belonged to the elite was small, compared with
the general demography of the communities. This does not exclude the
fact that the other warriors could have had serious deficiencies concerning
the military equipment. At least not the ones in the next lower structures,
the power base of a senior, of which, actually depended the power of the
leader. The scenario in which only a prominent individual had helmet,
and the mass of warriors did not use protections for head is way too
simplistic, reported to the military events in which the tribes, in the
beginning, and then the Dacian royal authority were involved in.
The military landscape of the north-danubian space accumulated
sufficient martial experiences, the very warrior function of individuals
seems to be institutionalised24, and the local military phenomenon had a
visible tendency towards professionalization. These warriors' equipment,
as much as the archaeological sources reveal, is numerous25, diverse and
of quality. The military campaigns, frequent and most of them against the
Roman military forces, whose logistics and training requested respect,
must have hardened the military experience of Dacian contingents. Not
22

Borangic 2014, p. 47-48.

A proof would be the presence of some Mediterranean helmets, not only at great
distance from their centres of production, justified by the relation centre-periphery of
Danube's basin towards the Hellenistic South, but also because these helmets were used
also at great distance in time and space from their period.
24
Criton, Getics, 5, 2, - Suidas Lexicon, s.v Boutiais.
25
[] there, you could see all over swords, plates, lances, all places being filled with
horses, weapons and armed men [], Dion Chrysostomos, Discourses, XII, 16, 20.
23

446

Ctlin Borangic

without importance, in what concerns the military instruction at Roman

standards, was the influence that the Roman militaries who arrived in the
Dacian camps must have had, whether they were deserters, prisoners or
instructors received after treaties with the Empire. All these dates, even
looked suspiciously over, sketches a general scene from which the
helmets cannot miss.
The Daco-Roman wars and the end or the Dacian Kingdom show
another set of historical documents from which results a more intense use
of these equipments then the archaeological sources suggested. The
historical file is completed by the iconography of the Dacian warriors
illustrated on the Column. At a closer look, again in contrast with the
imaginary created by the very monument, on it, appear a considerable
number of helmets, both in the endowment of some warriors, and
especially, in the ostentatious exposition of the captured trophies.
The first illustrated helmet, in the order of narrated events, is
thrown at Trajan's feet by the Dacian ambassador (scene LXXV; Pl. V/4),
sent to ask for peace in 102 AD, moment confirmed also by Dio Cassius
(LXVIII, 9, 2). From various reasons, that seem to belong to the type of
displayed message (or of the entire economy), the weapons thrown at the
Emperor's feet are only defensive: several shields and a helmet. This one,
as much as the state of conservation of the scene allows, are the conical
top and two cheek protections, apparently fixed (Pl. V/4-b).
Two warriors wear helmets, Dacians for sure, since one of them
handles a falx dacica, in scene CLI, also of conical shape, but apparently
without cheek protections, the helmets being tied under the chin with a
strap (Pl. V/3). The moment is important because it illustrates an aspect
that regards not the warrior aristocracy, but those so called comati, a
social group26 constituted in a specialised warrior class, subordinated to
the military aristocracy and especially to the royal authority27. The
presence of these helmets should modify the exclusive attribution of these
26

Identification of these kometai with the Dacian peasantry started from the forced
interpretation offered by Dio Cassius (LXVIII, 9, 1. Cf. Petros Patricius, 5), reused later
by Iordanes (Getica, 71). In fact, this image of dual structure of Dacian society was a
projection in the past of the Romanian peasant's image (participant to different military
conflicts, especially during the general mobilisation), used as subliminal information to
create a stronger bond between Dacians and Romanians, but also to conveniently level
the stratification of Dacian social classes, summarized by the historiography from before
1989 to the antonymy nobles-peasants.
27
Petre 2004, p. 256-260.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

447

pieces of equipment to the Sarmatian allies, which, even they participated

to the first part of the conflict they do not appear in the official documents
as defeated, case in which the presentation of some Sarmatic weapons in
the conditions in which the Dacians were the defeated enemy is at least
atypical. Even more the helmets used by the Sarmatian cavalry, illustrated
in the war scenes are different from the Dacian ones28. So, on the base of
the Column, in contrast to the rest of the monument, different armours,
helmets and swords are represented. Not without importance is the fact
that on the four facets of the pedestal, the Dacian weapons are in
abundance, for example, here are around 100 shields from approximately
400 represented on the entire monument, there are several swords
represented, while on the cylinder there is only one for sure and this one
pretty coarsely, there are also represented many lances and axes, while on
the cylinder they are missing from war scenes. No Dacian is equipped
with armours in the war scenes, but all types of armour (hamata,
squamata, segmentata, but missing any type of scales and rings compund
armour that can be attributed at least to the influence of the Sarmatic
world) are present among trophies.
The fact that these weapons were Dacian and not Sarmatic, as
often is advocated, is confirmed by the archaeological analogies
discovered in the Dacian space. The display of Sarmatic trophies would
be questionable if we look at the fact that the Roxolans, Dacians' allies,
did not participate at the second war (Trajan himself did not take the
Sarmaticus title), which makes improbable the presence of war spoils that
would have belonged to them. The display of fakes, when the memory of
a similar episode, disturbing to the prestige and imperial pride, from
Domitian's time, was fresh in the collective memory and, in consequence,
unacceptable to the imperial propaganda of the monument. The moment,
the personality of the Emperor and the results of wars did not need such
distortions of subterfuges to underline a victory that had as main purpose
the Dacian Kingdom anyway.
The end of the first Daco-Roman War is marked on the Column in
scene LXXVIII, where are displayed the weapons of the defeated. Among
them there no less than seven helmets, two others on the trophies and
other four among the pile of weapons, obviously Dacians, if we judge by
28

Concerning the Sarmatic helmets, Strabon tells us that they were made from raw ox
leather (Geography, VII, 3, 17), in reference to the warriors' mass, some chieftains
having access to metal helmets, but never of own production or in a too great number.

448

Ctlin Borangic

the dracons and the specific curved swords next to them. The goddess
Victoria steps on another helmet, while she records the result of the
conflict on a shield (Pl. V/2).
The conquest of Dacia also meant the end of all hostilities - at
least for the moment - therefore the Romans could savour the victory,
displaying the captured weapons from the Dacians. The base of the
Column is plentiful with important spoils, among them no less than 29
helmets - rising the number to a total of 39 pieces, talking only about the
Dacian ones (Pl. V/1; Pl. VI). It is less important for the economy of this
study the morphology and ornaments of each piece - aspect that deserves
a separate research - but is noted the big number of displayed helmets
and, as a separate title, the fact that most of them are, morphologically
speaking, Dacian. Without discussing pretentious details now - but
necessary at some point - the displayed helmets can be grouped in a few
main types. Our attention is retained by the helmets that seem to have a
local evolution of Thracian models of Phrygian29 type, that keep the
suggestion of a schematic pileus, richly ornamented, with high top and
tendencies of taper slightly bent forward (Pl. VII). Differently from this
type, without a doubt specific to Dacian aristocracy, other types are
resembling in structure and morphology with the Spangenhelme type
helmets, which, thanks to their more accessible creation manner, had a
significant spread over space and time30. And these are also represented
having ornaments that makes them individual.
The helmets displayed on the Column remained almost
unexplored by the speciality literature, which was satisfied to consider
almost invariably that the pieces are Sarmatic, even with the lack of
historical and technical arguments that should justify this attribution. On
the other plane, of their affiliation to the Dacian logistics, they bridge
between the defensive pieces of equipment from archaeological
discoveries and the general scene of army supply during Decebal's reign,
when it is possible we can talk about an abundance of this type of
equipment, at least among the professional warriors31. The morphological
29

Waurick 1988, p. 163-168.

Vogt 2006, passim.
31
Besides these, the mob, warriors by opportunity of necessity, could have used the
numerous Roman weapons, among which the helmets, captured throughout time, their
trails being discovered in Dacian medium, or head protection made of perishable
materials (felt, leather). For example at Racoul de Jos were discovered several roman
30

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

449

and ornamental differences can be attributed to a local evolution of the

helmets, situation that suggests a tradition regarding the use of these
equipments.
The data analysis modifies the general image over the subject.
First, the obvious archaeological facts disclose the use of helmets,
especially by the elites, in the tombs they appear in. Their small number
has a few explanations, from socio-economical and spiritual rules to the
stage of research. Any of these possibilities, if invoked as an argument for
helmets use restriction, presents some aspects extremely questionable.
First, even taking into account the high degree of originality of
Geto-Dacian civilisation, it is hard to admit such a characteristic, even
more that all the surrounding ethnicities used such equipments, of course
depending on the possibilities of the group or of the leaders. There are not
known, at any of the neighbours or enemies of the Dacians, notes
regarding any reason for not wearing them. Accepting, yet, that such rules
or practices could have existed32, they came in strict contradiction with
realities from the battlefields. The military pragmatism would have
refused such an interdiction, constrained by war losses. We have no
reason to admit such a constrain of religious order, the only real
obstruction may have been of economical order of an individual to
acquire a helmet.
Analysing the archaeological evidence, apparently, the number of
discovered helmets, over a large geographical and chronological space,
does not correspond to the general picture. Starting with the 4th c.BC, the
north of the Balcanic Peninsula was the scene of numerous politicomilitary modifications with long term effects. The most important were
the dissolution of the Macedonian authority, the Celtic migration and the
weapons inside an incinerated house. The most spectacular piece is a neck protection of
a bronze helmet, that had printed on it, by incising, the name of the century and of the
owner. The helmet was considered part of a war spoil obtained in one of the Dacian
military campaigns from the south of the Danube, at the end of 1 st c.AD. (Costea et alii
2008, p. 156-157, Fig. 2/a-b).
32
It is taken into account, mainly, the war nudity theory at Celts (Polybios, II/28-29).
this practice, whose real existence is questionable - could actually be a stereotype
perpetuated over time, having as a source the statements of Polybios - does not mean in
any case the rendering of the weapons, but only of clothes. A short analysis of this
subject, with an example of a Celtic statue in which is shown a nud warrior, but which
has sword and helmet, at Rustoiu 2008, p. 30-36, with extended bibliography.

450

Ctlin Borangic

installation of Roman power in the area. For the northern parts of Danube,
the first and main effect was the exhaustion of military capacities, and not
only, of Getic royalty, left now without traditional sources of income,
occupied or cut by the new populations arrived or by the politico-military
structures created at the south of the Danube.
The battle from Kynoscephalea (197 BC) meant not only the
arrival of a new pretender for the domination in the area, both in the
detriment of the Greek state-cities, the Hellenistic kingdoms, and also of
resident barbarians. The modification of war became obvious. Whether
the Celtic remains, disoriented after the destruction of Tylis kingdom of
king Kavaros, or the Thracian tribes, Dacian or Illyrian, they all felt the
power of the new player, given by the military discipline, the weapons but
more than this, its determination. On this considerations, very probable,
the initial hatred among barbarians have been quickly replaced with
mixed alliances, military but not only, between diverse clans, tribes and
ethnicities, the most important being the ones among Celtic and Thracian
communities. The mosaic of warriors, identities, beliefs, weapons,
techniques, strategies ended up by being levelled, at least at the level of
the elite and the transformations sedimented and finalized in specific
identity manifestation33.
The common weaponry adopted by these warriors reflect the new
ways in which the war must be carried. The elite warriors used a long
Celtic sword replacing the former various types of mahairas, protected
their bodies with armours and helmets and the oval shield permitted the
detachment from the group during the fight, which now became a
personal initiative, with heroic accents. They had temperamental horses,
trained, who they controlled with a special horse bit and spurs, pieces of
equipment that made sudden direction turns and long, fast rides possible.
They used curved daggers, with engraved blade, weapon that
accompanied them everywhere, in military expeditions as in graves.
33

These manifestations, over which I will not insist, are condensed in speciality
literature under the name of group/facies/horizon Padea-Panaghiurski Kolonii, after the
name of two representative archaeological sites from Romania and Bulgaria,
conventional name by which is identified, in this area, several associations of artefacts
and funerary practices from this area. Even this name does not explain sufficiently the
ethno-cultural implications, historical and of civilisation of the phenomenon, it remained
in use, being utilised to avoid some terminology confusions.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

451

The heterogeneous military elites, which had their own history,

their own cultural background, their own technologies and aspirations,
they could absorb each other's characteristics and fructify them in the
direction of immediate consequences, as especially in perspective. The
result was a type of a new warrior, whose equipment recommended him
as heavy cavalry, well trained and clearly psychologically determined, a
success model in a world dominated by aspirations and martial values.
Appeared in the north-western Bulgaria and eastern Serbia, this
cultural model is visible, starting with the 2nd c.BC, in Oltenia, southwestern Transylvania, Muntenia and later, sporadically, discoveries
assimilated to this phenomenon appeared in other areas of Romania and
up to Transcarpathic Ukraine. Were dealing with incineration tombs in
which the departed have been placed, with their weapons, among which,
it's true, with exceptional title, there are also helmets.
It is difficult to admit that the few discovered helmets reflect the
field situation regarding their real number. For example, the chainmail
armours, much more expensive equipments and more difficult to produce
are present in a much greater number than the helmets. The swords also,
whose production depended, at least initially, by the Celtic workshops,
are frequent discoveries in the area. Why are the helmets missing from the
funerary deposits, or in another way, despite the identity model they were
part of, despite the obvious tactical realities they are asking for, it still is a
difficult question.
Talking about tactic realities, we leave the comfort zone of
archaeological explanations, enlarging a little bit the possibilities variety
of historical interrogation. The re-enactment concept (living history) is,
beyond the public delight, a practical way of verifying almost all the
theories proposed by historians, in almost all the fields they operate with.
Whether we are talking about experimental archaeology or pure and
simple historical reconstructions, with different degrees of authenticity.
From various fields in which re-enactment can operate, the ones with
military applications are by far the most popular - the modern public
manifests almost the same appetite towards violence as the invoked
ancestors - but the most suited too, for testing different equipments.
Participating to such historical reconstruction of Dacian sequence for
almost a decade, I could observe a necessary personal evolution of my
own equipment. So, if in the beginning, I was participating at simulations
with simple equipments, in time the numerous clashes, almost all of semi-

452

Ctlin Borangic

contact, led to the necessity of modifications of personal equipment. A

stronger shield was necessary, a higher quality armour and, of course,
after several accidents a metallic helmet, all reproductions after
archaeological pieces, doubled by illustrations from art. The effects were
notable, the frequency of accidents drop in a significant manner.
How much we can project in the past such experiments is hard to
appreciate exactly. What can be said with certainty is that the fierceness
of the battles was way beyond any attempt of reconstruction, no matter
how realistic it would be. Taking into account as a study case the period
of Daco-Roman Wars, a barbarian warrior must not only face, but also
survive different types of projectiles. Auxiliary troupes, specially
recruited for this type of warfare, were launching towards enemies a rain
of stones, sling projectiles, arrows from a distance. All this auxiliaries
appear in the images on the Column, a sure sign they had an important
role in the war with the Dacians. Even the barbarians were protected by
shields, the lack for head protection could prove fatal.
For example a medium trained slinger could throw a 50-100 g
projectile at 200 m without problems. The lead munition (25-40 g)
reached much greater distances, with superior speeds. Such distances
were reached inside the mentioned experiments, without long training
periods. Launching a 100 g projectile can develop a kinetic energy
between 250 and 350 J (the various results from launching speed,
depending on the force and experience of the launcher and the length of
the sling)34. At such impact values the lack of defensive equipments could
decimate the enemy's effectives way ahead the actual fight (a slinger
could easily launch 10-12 projectiles, and an archer 10-15 arrows per
minute)35.
Of course, the shields could take over much of the effects of these
shock waves, with the condition of applied discipline and instruction, but
the lack of helmets became really critical in the moment of close quarter
combat. The shield takes over the blows of offensive weapons, but for
counter-attacks the warrior must get out of protection zone offered by
34

www.paperlined.org/dev/oss/high_energy_slings (03.08.2015).
Besides the experience and personal results, obtained with the occasion of different
experimental archaeology exercises and activities of historical reconstruction, we
operated with estimations resulted from practical experiences obtained from the same
methods by Dumitru Rotariu (Free archers Association, Trgu Mure) and Mateffy
Tamas, slinger re-enactor (Hasta Sarmatorum Association, Miercurea Ciuc).

35

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

453

them. The lack of armour and helmet made the warrior extremely
vulnerable.
In guard position, the protected zone by an oval shield covers the
body from maxillary to the knee, protecting all the vital organs, except for
the head. An important element was the cheek protection. Because the
forearm was turned in an horizontal axis of the shield, when it was close
to the body, the powerful hits in its superior half were swinging the
shield, which could pivot in the interior, tendency that could hardly be
attenuated especially if the handle was not made of wood of metal.
Testing many times the shield in simulated battles it was quickly observed
that only supporting the shield with the shoulder and positioning the
cheek protection on the shield's metallic edge, the injuries at face level
done by the warrior's own shield can be avoided.
Enumerating the vulnerabilities emphasised by the lack of
adequate protection for the head and admitting the degree of experience
and military instruction of Dacians warriors, the number of helmets
captured and sculpted on the Column doesn't seem improbable anymore.
Contrarily, the roman sculptors reproduced only a fraction from what the
legions encountered in Dacia, but still, not to modify too much the
Empire's force message. The fact that on the Column appear armours,
helmets, siege and artillery machines, shows the sum of concessions made
by the imperial propaganda, interested in minimizing the enemy's
qualities.
At least the warriors around the king were experienced militaries,
well trained and disciplined. The duration of conflicts, the involved
effectives, the partial results and the historical documents do not
reconstruct the image of conflicts between legions and disorganized and
under-equipped barbarian hordes. In the endowment at least of the
professional soldiers, tarabostes and comati, the helmets were a necessary
and visible presence. We could generally say, that the Decebal's warriors
were wearing helmets and that they had specific shapes, especially the
noble ones.
Noting these aspects, but returning to modern times, can we admit
the reconstruction of some of the Dacian warriors without taking into
account the listed aspects? If the historical and experimental sources of
living history proves the use and the efficiency of the helmets, we can
admit that Decebal's warriors and, subsequently, the modern re-enactors

454

Ctlin Borangic

were fighting and fight bare-headed and with hair in the wind? Probably
not and shouldn't historical reconstructions take distance from the image
of the simple barbarian in antithesis with the evolved roman soldier? The
historical reconstruction should be exactly what its definition says, even if
this thing puts it further from the romantic and popular image that itself
cultivated it. Now it no longer has the excuse that it doesn't know!
Without helmets in battles, even simulated ones, the re-enacted military
characters, look just like running with the hair in the wind during rain. In
which case the re-enactor is nothing but a romantic soul, and pneumonia
is nothing but heart-breaking poetry. The historical truth remains, as
always, nothing but a trifle.
translated by Marcu Marius and Toma Bembea
Ctlin Borangic
Muzeul Naional al Unirii, Alba Iulia
e-mail: dada@enciclopedia-dacica.ro

Bibliografie/Bibliography
Alexandrescu 1980 Alexandrina D. Alexandrescu, La ncropole gte de
Zimnicea, Dacia, N.S., XXIV, 1980, p. 19-126.
Brc 2006 Vitalie Brc, Istorie i civilizaie. Sarmaii n spatiul estcarpatic. Sec. I a.Chr.-nceputul sec. II p.Chr., 2006.
Brc, Symonenko 2009 Vitalie Brc, Olexandr Symonenko, Clreii
stepelor. Sarmaii n spaiul nord-pontic, Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca,
2009.
Berciu 1934 Dumitru Berciu, Materiale pentru preistoria Olteniei, n
Memoriile Institutului de Arheologie a Olteniei, 22, 1934.
Borangic 2011 Ctlin Borangic, Rzboinici nord-dunreni n armuri de zale
(sec. II a.Chr.-sec. II p.Chr.) partea I, Terra Sebus, 3, 2011, p. 171227.
Borangic 2014 C. Borangic, Valoarea economic teoretic a echipamentului
unui senior al rzboiului din lumea dacic, n BCS, 20, 2014, p. 39-70.
Borangic et alii 2015 C. Borangic, Marius Marcu,Marius Barbu,
Reconstrucia unui scut din epoca dacic. Consideraii de ordin istoric,
tactic i structural, AMP, XXXVII, 2015, sub tipar.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

455

Calotoiu et alii 1987 Gh. Calotoiu, L. Mocioi, V. Marinoiu, Mrturii

arheologice n Gorj, 1987.
Cichorius 1896-1900 Conrad Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssule, Berlin,
1896-1900.
Constantinescu, Stan 2014 Bogdan Constantinescu, Daniela Stan, Analiza
compoziional a unor artefacte geto-dacice de aur gsite n Muntenia
i Moldova, n: ArheoVest, II, 2014, p. 667-676.
Constantinescu et alii 2014 Bogdan Constantinescu, Daniela Stan, Mircea
Babe, Ctlin I. Nicolae, Analiza compoziional a tezaurelor de argint
geto-dacice de la Agighiol, Peretu, Craiova i Poroina, n: ArheoVest,
II, 2014, p. 645-666.
Costea et alii 2008 Florea Costea, Lucica O. Savu, V. Srbu, Radu tefnescu,
Angelica Blos, Military Gear Found in the Dacian Fortress of Racoul
de JosPiatra Detunat, Braov County, In: Omagiu lui Gavril Simion
la a 80-a aniversare, 2008, p. 154-169.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979 Ioan Glodariu, Eugen Iaroslavschi, Civilizaia
fierului la daci (sec. II .e.n.-I e.n.), 1979.
Gruia 2012 Ana Maria Gruia, Despre reenactment i nceputurile sale n
Romnia, De Antiquitate, 4, 2012, p. 5-10.
Gum 1991 Marian Gum, Cteva precizri asupra unor tipuri de coifuri de
la sfritul primei epoci a fierului i nceputul celei de a doua
descoperite n sud-vestul Romniei, Thraco-Dacica, XII, 1-2, 1991, p.
85-103.
Petre 2004 Zoe Petre, Practica nemuririi. O lectur critic a izvoarelor
greceti referitoare la gei, 2004.
Popa 2011 Cristian Ioan Popa, Valea Cugirului din preistorie pn n zorii
epocii moderne, 2011.
Rustoiu 1996 Aurel Rustoiu, Metalurgia bronzului la daci,1996.
Rustoiu 2008 A. Rustoiu, Rzboinici i societate n aria celtic
transilvnean. Studii pe marginea mormntului cu coif de la Ciumeti,
2008.
Srbu 1993 Valeriu Srbu, Credine i practici funerare, religioase i magice
n lumea geto-dacilor, Brila - Galai,1993.
Srbu et alii 2007 V. Srbu, Sabin Luca, Cristian Roman, Tombs of Dacian
Warriors (2nd1st C. BC) found in Hunedoara Grdina Castelului
(Hunedoara county), ATS, VI, 1, 2007, p. 155-177.
erbnescu 2006 Done erbnescu, Morminte geto-dacice descoperite n
judeul Clrai, Istros, XIII, 2006, p. 167-181.
Symonenko 2014 Oleksandr Symonenko, Coifurile din epoca sarmatic din
Europa de Est (
), Stratum plus, 4, 2014, p. 249-284.

456

Ctlin Borangic

Vogt 2006 Mahand Vogt, Spangenhelme. Baldenheim und verwandte Typen.

Kataloge vor- und frhgeschichtlicher Altertmer, 2006.
Vulpe 1976 Al. Vulpe, La ncropole tumulaire gte de Popeti, n ThracoDacica, 1, 1976, p. 193-215.
Waurick 1988 Gtz Waurick, Helme der hellenistischen Zeit und ihre
Vorlufer, In: Antike Helme. Sammlung Lipperheide und andere
Bestnde des Antikenmuseums Berlin, 1988, p. 151-180.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

457

Pies cert
Pies incert
Plana I. Distribuia geografic a coifurilor din sec. II-I a.Chr. / The geographical
distribution of the helmets, 2nd-1st c.BC.

458

Ctlin Borangic

1. Popeti, Giurgiu a. Propunere de reconstituire MNIR / MNIR reconstruction proposal;

b. Fragment din coif / Fragment of helmet;
2. Propunere de reconstituire Al. Vulpe / Al. Vulpe reconstruction proposal (versiune digital,
dup Vulpe 1976 / digital version after Vulpe 1976);
3. Propunere de reconstiture R. Oltean / R. Oltean reconstruction proposal (dup/after Borangic,
Bdescu 2014);
4. Fragmentele coifului (Vulpe 1976) / Fragments of the helmet (Vulpe 1976).

Plana II. Coiful de la Popeti. Fragmente i propuneri de reconstituire / The helmet from
Popeti. Archaeological fragments and reconstruction proposals.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

459

1. Popeti, Giurgiu a. Propunere de reconstituire MNIR/MNIR reconstruction proposal; b.

Fragment de coif/Fragment of the helmet;
2. Propunere de reconstituire Al. Vulpe / Al. Vulpe reconstruction proposal (versiune
digital, dup Vulpe 1976 / digital version, after Vulpe 1976);
3. Propunere de reconstituire R. Oltean (dup Borangic, Bdescu 2014) / R. Oltean
reconstruction proposal(after Borangic, Bdescu 2014);
4. Fragmentele coifului (Vulpe 1976) / Fragments of helmet (Vulpe 1976).

Plana III. Fragmente de coifuri de la Chirnogi, Zimnicea i Cugir / Fragments of

helmets from Chirnogi, Zimnicea and Cugir.

Ctlin Borangic

460

Coifuri de origine mediteranean / Helmets of Mediterranean origin

Coifuri de origine celtic / Helmets of Celtic origin

Coifuri princiare getice / Getic Royal helmets

Coifuri geto-dacice / Geto-Dacian helmets

Plana IV. Cronologia coifurilor din spaiul nord-dunrean / The chronology of the
helmets from the north-danubian area.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

461

1. Coifuri de pe soclul Columnei / Helmets on the Column pedestal. Foto / Photo R. DAmato;
2. Coifuri ale nvinilor mpodobesc trofeele romane la sfritul primului rzboi dacic / Helmets of the
defeated decorate the Roman trophies at the end of the first Dacian war (LXXVIII);
3. Rzboinici daci purtnd coifuri / Dacian warriors wearing helmets (CLI);
4. Columna lui Traian / Trajans Comumn, scena/scene LXXV. Solii Dacilor i arunc armele la
picioarele mpratului / Dacian messengers throwing their weapons at the Emperors feet (a), printre care
se afl i un coif / among them, there is also a helmet (b). Dup / After Cichorius 1896-1900.

Plana V Coifuri de pe Columna lui Traian / Helmets from Trajans Column.

462

Ctlin Borangic

Plana VI. Coifuri de la baza Columnei lui Traian / Helmets from the basis of Trajans
Column.

Did Decebal's warriors wear helmets?

463

1. Coifuri dacice reconstituite / Reconstructed Dacian helmets.

1a. Realizare / Creation T. Popa, A. Mihai. Foto / Photo D. Gugoa;
1b. Realizare i foto / Creation and photo T. Popa;
2. Coifurile model de pe soclul Columnei / The pattern helmets on the Comumn
pedestal. Foto / Photo R. DAmato;
3. Gravuri / Engravings G. Piranesi. Sursa / Source: www.europeana.eu (05.08.2015).

Plana VII. Modele de coifuri dacice i reconstituirile lor / Models of Dacian helmets
and their recomposition.