Acta Musei Napocensis, 53/I, 2016, p.

85–92

IMPLEMENTS IN “MILITARY CONTEXT”

FROM ORĂȘTIE MOUNTAINS

ALIN HENȚ

Abstract: The present paper is a short discussion of some military implements discovered
in the area of the Dacian hillforts from the Orăștie Mountains (Hunedoara County). Since the
beginning it should be mentioned that two of the implements were already published in the
specialised archaeological literature from Romania, only the third one being unpublished so
far. This paper presents the implements with all their characteristics together with a new set of
illustrations and photographs and a discussion of their place of discovery, where it was possible.
Keywords: implements; dolabra; Orăștie Mountains; military context; camps.
Rezumat: Prezenta notă este o scurtă discuție a unor unelte cu caracter militar descope‑
rite în zona cetăților dacice din Munții Orăștiei (jud. Hunedoara). Încă de la început ar trebui
menționat faptul că două dintre aceste piese au mai fost prezentate în literatura arheologică de
specialitate din România, doar cea de a treia nefiind publicată până în prezent. Această notă
prezintă piesele cu toate caracterisiticile lor, împreună cu un nou set de ilustrații și fotografii și
o discuție a locului de descoperire.
Cuvinte cheie: unelte; dolabra; Munții Orăștiei; context militar; castre.

From an archaeological point of view, the Orăștie Mountains area is for sure the
most investigated area dated to the Late Iron Age period on present day Romania.
The archaeological excavations – especially the systematic ones –, started after the
Second World War and carried out since then, have revealed a complex system of
fortifications, temples, dwellings and workshops, which represent the original and
monumental expression of the Dacian Kingdom civilization. Both in the past and in
the present, these features raised the interests of scholars or of the general public.
The archaeological material is also not negligible, whether we refer to imports from
other areas, the daily use ceramic, the painted pottery with geometric or zoomor‑
phic motifs or the quantity and quality of iron objects. Often, all of these shown
elements are meaningful for underlining a different identity for this area in com‑
parison with other areas inhabited by the Dacians. Moreover, the archaeological
excavations have led to the identification of the Roman traces – marching camps or
permanent camps, architectural elements or artefacts – which complete the general
image of this area.
In this last category of the Roman objects, we could include also the implements
under discussion. They are known under the Latin word dolabra. The dolabra1 is a
double-headed implement, having on one side a narrow axe-blade, balanced on the
other side by a rather narrow pick, which could be either straight or crooked. Precisely,
1
  DA, II, 1, 1892, s.v. dolabra, 328–329 (Caillemer); Rich 1873, 246; White 1967, 61–64.
86 Alin Henț

because of this aspect, this type of tool was mentioned in the archaeological literature
as double-headed axe, pick-axe or simply pick2.
Dolabra was one of the classical tools of the Roman army3, idea strongly
suggested both by iconographical representations and archaeological discoveries.
Frequently, the scenes on Trajan’s Column4 show the use of these tools for various
activities: construction or land works (digging trenches, land clearing, turf cutting),
demolishing some defensive works; they also appear in some battle scenes. Apart
from the piece from Mărculeni5 (Mureș County), which comes from an iron tools
deposit, the rest of the archaeological discoveries from Roman Dacia is coming
from military contexts, such as Porolissum6 (Sălaj County) and Berzovia7 (Caraș-
Severin County). The same can be said about the discoveries from the Western parts
of the Empire; the most suitable examples are coming also from military context,
the Roman camps from Saalburg8 (Germany) and Newstead9 (Scotland, United
Kingdom). This fact comes only to reinforce the scenes from the Trajan’s Column,
where the representations of dolabra are in close connection with Roman military
camps and soldiers’ activities.
Five decades ago, in a paper dedicated to the agricultural implements of the
Roman world, K. D. White made the first typology for the dolabra, based on the icono‑
graphical representations and archaeological discoveries. Judging by the presence or
the absence of curved pick blade, the British archaeologist distinguished three types of
dolabra: (1) the straight pick, (2) the down-turned pick and (3) the up-turned pick10.
Another classification was made by M.  Pietsch, who proposed a typology based on
their usage, distinguishing the military pieces from the civilian examples. In his view,
the implements from the civilian contexts present a longer and smoother curve of the
pick blade in comparison to the military examples11.
For the Orastie Mountains area three dolabra are known up to the present.
They are kept in the collections of the National History Museum of Transylvania,
Cluj-Napoca.

1. The first implement (MNIT, Inv. no. V 18546, Pl. I/1–2) was initially published12 as being
found at Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia; in fact, the piece was discovered in the
Roman fortification from Costești, in the point called “Piatra Grădiștii”. Some small trenches
were dug here in 1961 and 197513, and most probably the piece was discovered in the latter
excavations. It is a massive tool made by hot forging. The eye of the handle has two rectangular

2
  Gheorghiu 2005, 182; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, 140; Pupeză 2016, 133; Râncu 2010, 179–180.
3
  Bishop, Coulston 2006, 117.
4
  Cichorius 1896, especially scenes XIII, LII, LVI, LXVI-LXVIII, CXVI, CXVII, CXXVII.
5
  Glodariu et alii 1970, Figs. 14/5, 27/11.
6
  Gudea 1989, Pl. 139/3.
7
  Râncu 2010, 179–180, Pl. III/6.
8
  Pietsch 1983, 16–17, Taf. 3/42–48.
9
  Curle 1907, 450; Curle 1911, Pl. LVII.
10
  White 1967, 63.
11
  Pietsch 1983, 16.
12
  Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, 140, Fig. 72/12.
13
  Daicoviciu et alii 1973, 74–75; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 159, 165.
 Implements in “military context” from Orăștie Mountains 87

lugs on each side. One of the active parts resembles an axe blade and the second one, the pick,
starts with a rectangular cross-section (4.5 cm), and then a rhomboid cross-section with four
longitudinal ridges.
Dimensions: total length: 46 cm; axe-blade width: 16 cm; pick blade length: 23.5 cm; diam. oval
eye: 4.5 cm; weight: 3.082 g.
Chronology: the end of the 1st century AD – beginning of the 2nd century AD.
The best analogies for this piece are from the discoveries made in the Roman camps from
Newstead14 in United Kingdom and Saalburg15 on the Germanic limes.

2. The second piece (MNIT, Inv. no. V 41067, Pl. II/1–2), also published16, comes from Grădiștea
de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, being discovered in the first year of the systematic excava‑
tions. It is a massive iron tool made by hot forging. One of the arms has a rectangular section
and ends with a straight top, but most likely this part of the piece is damaged. The other arm
is an axe.
Dimensions: total length: 33 cm; axe-blade width: 14 cm; pick blade length: 14 cm; diam. oval
eye: 4 cm; weight: 1.452 g.
Chronology: the end of the 1st century AD – beginning of the 2nd century AD.

3. Also discovered at Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, the third piece (MNIT, Inv.
no. V 41068, Pl. III/1–2) is made by hot forging. The piece present two active parts, the first
resembles an axe. The pick blade has a rectangular section and its tapering to the top. The eye
of the handle is oval and present on each side rectangular ridges.
Dimensions: total length – 52.5 cm; axe-blade width – 15.2 cm; pick blade length – 27 cm; diam.
oval eye – 3.5 cm; weight – 2.136 g.
Chronology: the end of the 1st century AD – beginning of the 2nd century AD.

Analogies found for these last two pieces are coming also from military contexts,
the Roman auxiliary forts from Newstead17 (Britannia) and Saalburg18 (Germania
Superior), and the legionary fortress of Mogontiacum19 (Germania Superior).
Unfortunately, the lack of a clear context of discovery for the implements from
Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, perhaps the most important element in
archaeology, urges to caution in the interpretation. Despite the fact that this type of
implement belongs to the Roman army, or better said, it is part of the soldier’s tool‑
kit, we cannot exclude, that such tools were used or imported in the local context.
However, the implements from Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia should be
linked with the presence of the Roman army in this area and with the works made in
the local landscape.

14
  Curle 1907, 450; Curle 1911, Pl. LVII/2–5.
15
  Pietsch 1983, Taf. 3/42.
16
  Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, 140, Fig. 72/12.
17
  Curle 1911, Pl. LVII/1.
18
  Pietsch 1983, Taf. 3/45–48.
19
  Petrie 1917, Pl. 3/56, 60, 69.
88 Alin Henț

Bibliography
Bishop, Coulston 2006 M. C. Bishop, J. C. N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment. From
the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome2, Oxford 2006.
Cichorius 1896 C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Trajanssäule, Berlin 1896.
Curle 1907 J.  Curle, The Roman Fort of Newstead: Traces of Successive
Occupations, The Scottish Historical Review, 4, 16, 1907, 443–450.
Curle 1911 J.  Curle, A Roman Frontier Post and Its People. The fort of
Newstead in the Parish of Melrose, Glasgow 1911.
Daicoviciu et alii 1973 C. Daicoviciu, I. H. Crișan, Șt. Ferenczi, H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu,
V.  Vasiliev, Șantierul arheologic dacic din Munții Orăștiei, jud.
Hunedoara (1960-1966), MCA, 10, 1973, 61–86.
Daicoviciu et alii 1989 H. Daicoviciu, Șt. Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, Cetăţi și aşezări dacice din
sud-vestul Transilvaniei I, București 1989.
Gheorghiu 2005 G. Gheorghiu, Dacii pe cursul mijlociu al Mureşului, Cluj-Napoca
2005.
Glodariu et alii 1970 I.  Glodariu, A.  Zrinyi, P.  Gyulai, Le dépôt d’outils Romains de
Mărculeni, Dacia N. S., 14, 1970, 207–231.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, Civilizația fierului la daci, Cluj-Napoca
1979 1979.
Gudea 1989 N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un colmplex arheologic daco-roman la mar-
ginea de nord a Imperiului Roman (I), ActaMP, 13, Zalău 1989.
Petrie 1917 Sir W. M. Flinders, Tools and Weapons, London 1917.
Pietsch 1983 M. Pietsch, Die römischen Eisenwerkzeuge von Saalburg, Feldberg
und Zugmantel, SJ, 39, 1983, 5–132.
Pupeză 2016 P. Pupeză, Piese de armament/Weaponry. In C. Neamțu, G. Florea,
G. Gheorghiu, C. Bodó (eds.), Când viața cotidiană antică devine
patrimoniu UNESCO – Incursiuni dacice în spațiul virtual, Cluj-
Napoca 2016, 129–140.
Râncu 2010 D. Râncu, Unelte agricole romane din sud-vestul Daciei, Banatica,
20, 1, 2010, 171–197.
Rich 1890 A. Rich, A Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities, with nearly
2000 Engravings on Wood from Ancient Originals, Illustrative
of the Industrial Arts and Social Life in the Greeks and Romans,
London 1890.
White 1967 K.  D.  White, Agricultural Implements of the Roman World,
Cambridge 1967.

Alin Henț
Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
alinhnz@gmail.com
 Implements in “military context” from Orăștie Mountains 89

1 2

Pl. I. Dolabra. Costești. 1. Drawing (Rodica Gaciu). 2. Photo (Răzvan Mateescu).

90 Alin Henț

1 2

Pl. II. Dolabra. Grădiștea de Munte-Sarmizegetusa Regia.

1. Drawing (Rodica Gaciu). 2. Photo (Răzvan Mateescu).
 Implements in “military context” from Orăștie Mountains 91

1 2

Pl. III. Dolabra. Grădiștea de Munte-Sarmizegetusa Regia.

1. Drawing (Rodica Gaciu). 2. Photo (Răzvan Mateescu).