Cristian Dima

TRANSPORT IN DACIA
Commercial routes in the intra-Carpathian space from
the middle of the second century BC until
the Roman conquest
 MINISTRY OF CULTURE
NATIONAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF TRANSYLVANIA

BIBLIOTHECA MVSEI NAPO CENISIS

LV
 Cristian Dima

TRANSPORT
IN DACIA
Commercial routes in the
intra-Carpathian space from the middle of the
second century BC until the Roman conquest

Editura MEGA
Cluj‑Napoca
2021
 DTP and cover:
Editura Mega

Cover illustration:
Adriana Antal

Drawings:
Adriana Antal, Cristian Dima

Translated by:
Gabriela Balica

© Cristian Dima, 2021

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

DIMA, CRISTIAN
Transport in Dacia: commercial routes in the intra-Carpathian space from the middle
of the second century BC until the Roman conquest / Cristian Dima. – Cluj-Napoca:
Mega, 2021
Conţine bibliografie
Index
ISBN 978-606-020-422-0
902

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e‑mail: mega@edituramega.ro
 C ONTENTS

FOREWORD  7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  11

1. INTRODUCTION  13
Argument 13
Scope and aims of the research  15
Limits of the research  15
Methodology 17

2. GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS  21
2.1.The intra-Carpathian area 21
2.2. The space geographically delimited by the Șureanu Mountains and the Middle Mureş river
course 24

3. HISTORY OF RESEARCH  27
3.1. Dacian trading routes and communication roads in historiography  27
3.2. Dacian transport vehicles in historiography  36

4. DACIAN CONVEYANCE VEHICLES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS  39

4.1. Cart parts in the Dacian world  39
4.1.1. Terminology 39
4.1.2. Wheel parts  44
4.1.3. Cart components  54
4.1.4. Yoke fittings 56
4.2. Find contexts 64
4.2.1. Cart parts from fortresses and fortified settlements  64
4.2.2. Cart parts in civil contexts  65
4.2.3. “Chariot” burials from pre-Roman Dacia  67
4.2.4. Cart parts from unsecure find contexts  78
 4.3. Miniature chariots 79
4.4. Catalog 94

5. COMERCIAL ROUTES AND RELATION IN THE INTRA-CARPATHIAN SPACE  133

5.1. Features of the trading routes  133
5.2. Exploitation areas  134
5.2.1. Areas with ferrous and nonferrous ores’ exploitation  135
5.2.2. Exploitation areas of building materials. Stone  142
5.2.3. Salt exploitation areas  145
5.2.4. Exchange products resulted from farming, livestock husbandry, hunting and fishing 146
5.3. Local production centres  150
5.3.1. Metallurgy and precious metal working  150
5.3.2. Pottery workshops  157
5.3.3. Bone and horn/ antler objects manufacturing workshops  160
5.3.4. Glassware  162
5.4. Trading sites, outlets, customs  163
5.5. Trading routes in the intra-Carpathian area 167
5.5.1. Trading routes for the distribution of raw materials and local metallurgical products 167
5.5.2. Conveyance and trading routes for stone distribution  170
5.5.3. Salt distribution trading routes  174

6. CASE STUDY. DACIAN TRADING ROUTES IN LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY  181

6.1. Introduction 181
6.2. Methodology of spatial research and the GIS database model  182
6.2.1. Development of the GIS database model  182
6.2.2. Identification of the archaeological sites  184
6.2.3. DEM maps, topographic maps  192
6.2.4. Cost Surface Analyses  195
6.2.5. Results and validation of results  205

7. CONCLUSIONS  223

ABBREVIATIONS  229

BIBLIOGRAFY  233

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES REPERTORY  261

INDEX  309

PLATES  317
 F OREWORD

I have agreed to write the preface of this volume because on one hand, it represents the author’s
doctoral thesis, which I scientifically supervised and on the other, because I believe it is a valuable
work, a number of the topics it addresses representing also some of my concerns over the time.
The contents of the volume is elaborate and balanced, so its structure is logical and coherent,
intended to aid the author in his analyses and demonstrations.
The reasons why, together with Mr. Cristian Dima, we chose this doctoral topic are multiple. On
one hand, almost five decades have passed since the last comprehensive book on the trading rela-
tions of Dacia with the Hellenistic and Roman worlds (Glodariu 1974) and, on the other, because
there is no synthesis study referring to the relations between the Dacian communities, but only
references to zone or product categories.
Mr. Cristian Dima has clearly defined the aims of his work: a) on one hand, to develop a meth-
odology that could lead to the identification of possible trading routes and communication paths,
for which both the origin and destination of a product must be established, as well certain manda-
tory passage points, with the goal of following the merchandise route from the area of origin to its
use area and b) on the other hand, to analyse how the Dacian communities related and interacted
locally, namely the relation between the production centres and those from peripheral areas, both
consumers and producers of other goods.
Encountered difficulties were not few. One of the issues is related to the work’s structure, which
includes two different, yet complementary topics: on one hand, the trading routes from the intra-
Carpathian area, yet with many references to the extra-Carpathian area, and, on the other hand, the
chapter Case study. Dacian trading routes in Landscape Archaeology plus the Repertory of archaeo-
logical points. Then, documentation for communication paths, implicitly the trading routes as well,
from pre-Roman Dacia is deficient in both archaeological finds and, especially, written or figurative
sources.
Product exchanges between the local communities are more difficult to note as these, with few
exceptions, have a series of common features (for instance, pottery), so that metal composition anal-
yses are needed to determine production centres. Also, as well noted by the author, it is less known
how transport occurred, which were the used routes and vehicles, difficulties encounter’red etc.
In order to reach his goal, the author focused firstly on the choice of information regarding the
addressed topic, then, information was digitally filed and inserted in a personalised database.
Mr. Cristian Dima believes that if trading relations are defined by the contact between the pro-
ducer and the product beneficiary, between demand and offer, the trading routes represents the
route that the traded product followed from the area where offer exists to the area where demand
exists. Therefore, in order to identify trading routes there must be defined demand and offer areas.
8 Cristian Dima

The Geographical limits chapter includes a brief presentation of the discussed area, emphasis being
placed on both metal resource areas (ferrous and non-ferrous), salt resources or areas favourable to
agriculture as well on working centres of these riches, where, in fact also cluster most of the sites.
In the History of research are referenced both the trading routes identified by the researchers
of the Dacian civilisation, how these were in fact identified and the possible trading routes sug-
gested. It is rightfully concluded that that few specific data are known about these aspects, especially
regarding trading routes between local communities since emphasis was put on the import of goods
from the Greco-Roman world, while local exports were discussed based mainly on suppositions
and generally.
Dacian conveyance in archaeological finds is one of the most dense and well documented parts
of the work. There, Mr. Cristian Dima aimed at identifying the archaeological finds recording a
connection with the transport phenomenon, by examining the specialty literature and identifying
pieces in museal collections, especially in the intra-Carpathian space. Then, these vehicle parts were
carefully analysed morphologically, typologically and chronologically and by comparison with sim-
ilar finds from the “Barbarian” environment (Celtic and Germanic) and Greco-Roman, the author
proving good mastership of Central-European and Roman parallels.
Very useful, clear and well documented is the sequence concerning the terminology of carts
and their component parts, since identification of cart parts in archaeological finds was one of the
main hindrances in the publication of such items, some finds being either erroneously framed in
this class, while other were deemed to have fulfilled a different function, although pertained to this
category. An excellent catalogue of 118 cart parts was drafted, well documented and illustrated,
excluding in this case some artefacts, erroneously included in this class, and adding other, which the
author identified in publications or museal collections.
According to find contexts, pieces originate from citadels and fortified settlements, unfortified/
civil settlements, burials and unsecure finds; often though, find contexts are either missing or are
too vague. A distinct sub-chapter rightfully discusses miniature chariots, since their form may be
suggestive of real carts used for the transport of products. It is possible that stone blocks were also
carried by sledges, owing to the advantages that uplands offered.
Trading relations and routes in the intra-Carpathian area. If the trading relation is defined by
the connection between the producer and beneficiary, between demand and offer, then the trading
route is represented by the pathway that the product followed from the offer area to the demand
area. In this case it is hence necessary to identify areas where demand existed, namely where certain
products are missing or insufficient in order to satisfy consumer needs, and areas where offer exists,
namely those which may satisfy such demand. The author well individualises and defines the types
of trading exchanges and their practical means, according to the nature and exchange manner, in
kind (barter) or by coinage, each with their specific features.
Regarding trade via coinage much prudence is needed. Finds indicate that the vast majority
of coins come from hoards and are of precious metals, mainly in silver, mirroring, through these
specificities, trading exchanges to a small extent, the significance of this phenomenon evidencing
other sources and reasons. A coin-based economy in pre-Roman Dacia may be documented or
only supposed for certain areas and time sequences only, yet this is no general characteristic. Thus,
identifying possible trading routes or exchange locations of goods via rare bronze coins is risky, as
these could be simply lost.
Case study. Dacian trading routes in Landscape Archaeology is one of the most interesting chap-
ters, where the originality of the approach is well reflected. After presenting the criteria and the
general and specific methods of such analysis, Mr. Cristian Dima refers to the Șureanu Mountains
 Foreword 9

and the middle Mureş valley, areas suitable for discussion from both the view of resources, demand
and offer, as well as the high number of archaeological finds known for the period of the 2nd cen-
tury BC – 1st century AD – 484 repertoried points, classified in 11 categories, according to the type
of known remains. In order to identify easiest or optimal routes were considered firstly iron and
stone resource areas, then the sites where these were identified, using for analysis all available data
– archaeological finds, plans, maps and orthophotoplans, doubled by many field surveys. There,
Mr. Cristian Dima proves to be an expert of the landscape and an excellent user of most modern
information analysis methods.
For spatial analyses the author used software dealing with GIS geospatial databases (ArcMap,
Global Mapper, QGIS), able to generate three-dimensional terrain models (DT – Digital Terrain
map and DE – Digital Elevation map), very useful and suggestive for the addressed topic. The fact
that many of these predictively identified roads by Mr. Cristian Dima are also seen on Austrian
maps or the Military Plans (PDTM), may be considered a good premise for the substantiation of
the proposed results.
Thus, based on GIS and Cost Surface analyses (which take into consideration slopes, water-
courses and floodable area crossing points etc.) are suggested a series of possible routes and paths,
especially towards Sarmizegetusa Regia, depending on criteria previously specified by the author.
We believe that though this approach, the author makes a key contribution to the dynamic of the
trading relations between the communities from the discussed areas.
Worthy of note is the balanced manner in which the author presents his analyses, hypotheses
and conclusions, always emphasizing the necessity of validating archaeological finds.
Obtained results are special, exceeding the economic-trading field, as this complex study of histori-
cal geography yields interesting demographic and cultural landscape correlations. Undoubtedly, this
chapter is a special success for the archaeology of the Dacian civilisation in the intra-Carpathian area.
In Conclusions are reiterated the main results of the scientific approach, evidencing the fact that
some were limited by the current state of research, insufficient arguing of finds deemed secure or
the small number of comparative, metallographic or petrographic analyses, recording secure con-
nections between ore sources, the raw product, finished products and the consumer.
Worthy of note is also the Repertory of archaeological points, comprising 484 finds, drafted based
on well chosen criteria, georeferenced, with brief comments that include key information on sites;
it is an important basis for future research as they mirror tireless work, carried out with much sci-
entific accuracy.
The used Bibliography, with footnotes and the Bibliographical list by the end, are rich and show
that the author of the thesis has examined to a great extent the specialty literature, both Romanian
and from abroad, necessary for the study of the phenomena which he proposed to investigate.
The repertory of finds, appendices, illustration of figures, drawings, charts and maps are of good
quality and are an indication of the long term work and accuracy of Mr. Cristian Dima, so they
pertinently document the tackled topic and represent a solid base for underpinning the author’s
analyses and conclusions.
The text is articulate and elegantly phrased, while the observations, analyses and conclusions are
regularly coherent, argued and cautiously stated.
Undoubtedly, the volume is an important contribution to the research of the phenomenon of
trading routes and exchanges in the intra-Carpathian area, while certain chapter will be of future
reference for the addressed topic.

Valeriu Sîrbu
 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is the result of a long effort during my Phd research programme at the „Vasile Pârvan”
Archaeological Institute of Romanian Academy, but not only, which would not have been possible
without the help of several people to whom I want to express my gratitude. In the first place I am
very grateful to my Phd coordinator, Prof. Dr. Valeriu Sîrbu, who leaded my research with so much
constant support, useful advices and great patience. His help and amendments shaped this paper
and I am most indebted to him.
Several drawings of archaeological artefacts present in this book, but as well the cover of this
book was the result of the patience and talent of my lovely wife, Adriana Antal, to whom I am most
grateful, for her constant support, encouragements and long night discussion on this topic, espe-
cially about wheels, wagons and model-wagons.
Encouragements, great support and motivation was given from my office colleagues and friends,
Dr. Emilian Bota and Dr. Carmen Ciongradi, to whom I express my gratitude. As well, I would like
to thank to Dr. Viorica Crişan who encouraged and helped me to start this research. One special
thought goes beyond the veil of life to Prof. Dr. Alexandru Diaconescu who told me such interesting
stories and pictured in so nice words the image of Dacian Transport during our long discussions at
Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa and when we shared a small room in Heidelberg. A great help and
several information regarding GIS analyse tools came from Dr. Ioana Oltean to whom I would like
to thank as well.
For access to the material, assistance and quality photos I would like to thank to all my colleagues
and friends (Dr. Cristina Bodó, Dr. Cătălin Cristescu, Dr. Sorin Bulzan, Dr. Cătălin Borangic, Dr.
Adrian Bolog), mostly to Dr. Razvan Mateescu who helped me a lot with good advices and a lot of
cart pieces.
To Dr. Iosif Vasile Ferencz I express my gratitude for being the person who advised me several
years and has been suggesting the subject of this thesis since 2011. The long research periods spend
together at the hillfort of Ardeu (Hunedoara County) with him and with my professor Dr. Cristian
Ioan Popa, to whom I am such indebted, helped me to understand better the Dacian civilisation.
This book would not have been possible without the understanding of the manager of the
National Museum of Transylvanian History, Dr. Felix Marcu, who encouraged me to publish this
book in the series Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis, but as well he gave me some insights and new data
about roman temporary camps.

Cristian Dima
December 2021, Cluj-Napoca
 1.
INTRODUCTION

Argument
Merchants, traders, craftsmen, entrepreneurs, politicians yet also pilgrims, exiles, fugitives or
adventurers travelled in and to the Greek colonies, the Roman provinces or the Barbarian territories
for shorter or longer periods of time, travels that lasted from a few days to several weeks. For the
Greco-Roman world, such manifestations are reported by various epigraphic sources, but espe-
cially by literary sources which record the movement and mobility of the populations as well as the
cosmopolite character of large towns and trading centres, alluring various categories of individu-
als. Furthermore, feats and military campaigns were accounted and re-accounted by many of the
classical authors, emperors or their supporters, documenting not a few times the practiced routes,
the places where trading exchanges occurred, the army built roads etc. The number of itineraries,
surviving the passage of time and presenting place names and distances in-between these on a given
path, shows they were important in the Greco-Roman world indeed.
The written sources of the classical Antiquity did not record in the case of the Second Iron Age
civilisation of the intra-Carpathian area information regarding trading routes, exchanges of goods,
local products etc. These may be referenced only indirectly, through parallels with other Barbarian
civilisations or by the manner in which transport of commodities and trading relations in and with
the Greco-Roman world is mirrored. The commercial relations of the Geto-Dacian communities
with the products of the Greco-Roman civilisation were broadly discussed in a monograph aimed
to both analyse and study the products reaching the space inhabited by the Dacian civilisation as
well as the possible trading routes via which these products were distributed.
Because of the somewhat isolate character of the intra-Carpathian area, direct exchange of prod-
ucts with the Greco-Roman world is difficult to attest archaeologically. The majority of the trading
routes connecting this space crossed the sub-Carpathian area and the Curvature Carpathians, the
Geto-Dacian settlements from the extra-Carpathian area being better documented archaeologi-
cally, while their role as intermediaries for the Greco-Roman products may be inferred. The trading
routes within the intra-Carpathian area, whether commercial relations with other populaces or the
Greco-Roman world or local trading relations, are much less known. Historiographic references
abuse of the main trading route by the Mureş river, the remaining mentioning access pathways
towards the intra-Carpathian area. If the trading routes and relations with the exterior are more
discussed in the Romanian historiography, even though only concerning imports of products and
less their export, references about local exchange relations and trading routes are almost inexistent.
14 Cristian Dima

To date, the products from the Dacian area offered in exchange for certain import products or
traded from production areas towards peripheral areas were not identified archaeologically. The
scale of trade in terms of export of Dacian commodities to various areas where demand was existing
is to a larger or smaller extent evidenced in archaeology only by the find of coin hoards in the vicin-
ity of trading routes or the presence in the Dacian settlements of exchange products originating
from other cultural areas. The local trade with border areas is more difficult to highlight, short dis-
tance trade leaving little archaeological traces owing to the resembling elements of material culture.
Also poorly documented are the manner in which transport of goods was practiced on these
trading routes, the used vehicles, transport difficulties for the lack of infrastructure developments
and road building, the pathways of choice of the bearers of the Dacian civilisation etc. Similarly to
any other Barbarian civilisation, the set up of roads is recorded to a smaller extent, while transport
occurred on certain more accessible pathways and only during certain periods of the year. The set
up of roads is archaeologically recorded only in the Șureanu Mountains area, nearby the capital
of the Dacian Kingdom, for the rest being used pathways allowing carriage. Transport vehicles
are known to a small extent as well, as historiography granted only a few pages to the matter. The
difficulty to identify such metal pieces, components of certain transport vehicles, made them less
appealing. For the lack of archaeological contexts providing more information on cart parts, inter-
pretation of some could be most of the time erroneous, many being believed building materials.
Despite transport difficulties, trading activities are recorded in many of the Geto-Dacian settle-
ments through the use of resources and production of goods especially in the fortified settlements
or nearby the fortresses, possibly also because these benefited of more extensive research. In addi-
tion, exchange of commodities with the Greco-Roman world mainly, yet also with the Barbarian
world, is recorded by various import products. Evidently, some of the products, deemed of import,
were locally made by craftsmen brought from the Greco-Roman world, hence occasionally these
were no longer import products, but import artisans and technology.
The large production of farming tools in an area where agriculture was not extensively practiced
shows these were designed for trade. Similarly, agricultural by-products discovered in fortresses
and fortified settlements, areas where this occupation was not practiced, evidence local relations
with peripheral areas favourable to such activities. Nevertheless, it was noted that farming tool finds
in settlements from areas where agriculture could be practiced were few. Thus, detecting the trad-
ing route is challenging for the lack of identification of the farming tools production beneficiary on
one hand, and of the agricultural producer on the other. Local trading routes between raw material
exploitation sources and their direct beneficiary, the production workshop, are difficult to distin-
guish archaeologically. Despite the fact that in historiography exploitation areas were discussed, the
relation between these and their beneficiary was not established, the number of the comparative
chemical analyses performed for clarifying the composition of the raw materials and finished goods
being extremely low.
It is believed that the export products of the Geto-Dacians could not be those manufactured in
the local metalworking or pottery workshops, products of lower quality compared to those Greco-
Roman, the Geto-Dacian exchange products being restricted to those generally originating from
less developed areas towards the Greco-Roman world, namely products like “furs, cattle, skins,
slaves, honey”. Obviously, these cannot be excluded from certain areas with significant rural compo-
nents, however in the case of the fortified settlements and fortresses from the intra-Carpathian area,
there must have existed product exchanges which led to the economic development of the settle-
ments, whilst this cannot be explained only by the exchange of goods like the above mentioned.
Exploitation of iron resources from the Șureanu Mountains area, proved by the huge quantity of
 Introduction 15

iron blooms, must have been intended for trade exchanges, if not with the Greco-Roman world at
least with the neighbouring areas. Exchanges with this product, although recorded neither archaeo-
logically nor by lab comparative analyses, must have resulted in the growth and economic and
material development of the representatives of the Dacian aristocracy. In historiography, it was
also discussed the salt trade, a resource present in large quantities in the intra-Carpathian area, yet
the difficulty to prove such a trade existed is given by the small number of salt mines attested by
archaeological means, therefore it is rather assumed than proven.

Scope and aims of the research

Although the title of this research shows that the discussion here shall focus on analysing trad-
ing routes from the intra-Carpathian area, starting from the aforementioned premises, the scope of
the research is represented by the historical and archaeological study and analysis of trading routes,
communication paths and transport of commodities in the intra-Carpathian area once with mid
2nd century BC until the Roman conquest through the use of an existing set of information and the
development of various working tools.
One of the main aims of this investigation is to develop a work methodology that could lead
to the identification of possible trading routes, access pathways and communication paths of the
Second Iron Age period. Such methodology must identify both the origin and destination of a
product, as well as certain mandatory passage points, with the goal of following the route that the
merchandise took from its area of origin to its use area.
Once the trading routes were identified and tracked, one must also understand the difficulties
of travelling a route, its costs, time and used transport means. Thus, another proposed aim is to
develop and understand how carriage of goods and not only, occurred in the respective period, to
identify the vehicles and their carriage capacity as well as to establish the types of merchandise that
some of the vehicles could carry.
Another aim of the research is to analyse how the Dacian communities related and interacted
locally, with a special focus on the relation between production centres and those from bordering
areas, both consumers and producers of goods.
Furthermore, this research aims to analyse the archaeological landscape and spatially examine
the possibilities to identify trading routes and communication paths, travelling difficulties down
their path and the main features of a trading route from the view of the landscape of the period in
the area geographically delimited by the Șureanu Mountains and the Middle course of the Mureş
river.

Limits of the research

With respect to the Geto-Dacian civilisation, the transport phenomenon and investigation of
trading routes seems to be from the very beginning difficult to address. This is especially the result
of the poor archaeological representation of trading routes, the lack of written sources recording
such activities or mentioning the trading routes practiced in the north-Danubian area, yet also the
lack of iconographic sources depicting this phenomenon. To this adds a series of interpreting dif-
ficulties of the archaeological contexts which contain little information that could lead to a better
understanding of the trading transport phenomenon.
Thus, the research of the transport phenomenon during the period of the Second Iron Age
becomes much more difficult owing to several factors that mainly include accuracy of information,
16 Cristian Dima

how information was collected as well as a series of aspects related to the history of research. Firstly,
for several reasons, the archaeological excavations conducted in the sites of the Dacian civilisa-
tion were mainly focused on large size archaeological ensembles, namely the fortresses from the
Șureanu Mountains. Little interest was paid to the systematic research of certain civil settlements
from rural areas, the number of such investigations being rather small. Even more, a large number
of fortifications like those in the area of north-west Romania, the Hills of Silvania region, did not
benefit, with few exceptions, of consistent research, many being only listed subsequent to fieldwalks
or, rarely, small sondages. Circumstances are also similar for the south-eastern part of the intra-
Carpathian area, where few of the listed fortifications were investigated. A very low percentage of
Dacian date archaeological sites from the intra-Carpathian area benefited of systematic research,
while the remaining were only mentioned on the basis of mainly pottery material finds, stray finds
and fieldwalks. Recently, the percentage of investigations in the south-western area of Transylvania
started to increase following rescue and salvage excavations owed to large infrastructure projects
developments in the area, however, this type of research has its limitations, much information from
an archaeological site being lost to hasten works.
To this also adds, in the case of certain Dacian settlements, their damage caused by the settling
there of populaces during later periods, which partially erased Dacian remains, while in the case of
the fortifications located in mountainous areas adds the destruction occurring in the Middle Ages,
many of the pre-Roman fortifications being overlapped by medieval fortresses. In the last decades,
various projects attempted to record and map the known archaeological sites, however none of
these were actually completed.
Another limitation of the research in general of the Dacian civilisation is given by the specialty
literature of the Communist era, prejudiced by the political ideology of the period. Without further
discussing this aspect, the political ideology impacted the historical and archaeological research in
two phases. During the 50–60’ies, due to Marxism, investigation of Roman date sites was no longer
consistently funded, amounts being redirected to pre or post-Roman sites. Although highly funded,
research conclusions had to match the general idea of the Dacians’ oppression under the Roman
imperialist occupation. The second phase, of the 70–80’ies, is connected with the emergence of
nationalist ideas, the archaeological and historical research being meant to prove or rather, disprove
and produce arguments for the political affiliation of Transylvania, areas yielding archaeological
finds being often chronologically framed to the Dacian period based on inconclusive archaeological
material.
Furthermore, although a series of changes in the investigation methods have occurred in the
modern Romanian archaeological research, still few scholars use latest research and survey meth-
ods, while site documentations suffer from many shortcomings. Systemization of modern meth-
ods has been initiated for a certain while for sites outside the extra-Carpathian arch as well as for
western Romania, in the case of prehistory sites. However, even though a systematised data base
containing a national repertory of the archaeological finds mentioned in the academic literature
was drawn up, it is incomplete, while the location of the archaeological sites is inaccurate, some of
these being difficult to identify in the field. Moreover, for former research, yet also new, there is no
uniform systemized methodology for carrying out archaeological excavations, while data record,
although initiated and using modern technological methods, is not systemised, which differentiates
and makes information use and dissemination twice harder. All these aspects turn the topic of this
examination, namely a niche, less investigated matter like transport and existing trading routes even
more difficult to achieve.
 Introduction 17

Methodology
The topic proposed for investigation here is difficult to approach, a clear image on Second Iron
Age transportation being in the current state of research rather difficult to attain. This is mainly due
to the lack of information referencing such phenomenon. Also, studies from the view of landscape
archaeology, an approach practically in its pioneering years in the Romanian research, are missing
as well. The research methodology is pluridisciplinary and makes use of working and analysis tools
from various research areas, from both geography, topography as well as applied information tech-
nology systems.
In the first phase, research focused on collecting information referencing the scope and aims
suggested by the addressed topic. Information collection was made by appealing to several archaeo-
logical sources related to the topic of trading routes during the classical Antiquity, with the goal
of correlating, comparing and integrating the economic life of the Geto-Dacian civilisation in a
broader spectrum of the Second Iron Age civilisations of Europe. A series of written ancient sources
and iconographic depictions referring to how transportation occurred during the classical Antiquity
were compiled and used here. Information was digitally charted and introduced into a personalised
data base, a procedure also used for assembling sources from the academic literature on trading
routes in Antiquity. For the lack of written sources that make direct reference to how commercial
exchanges of commodities occurred with the Geto-Dacians, the areas where these were produced
or the practiced trading routes, the comparative analysis and draft of an overall image on transpor-
tation in Antiquity may provide an indirect picture of this phenomenon as well.
Trading routes, regardless the period, exhibit a series of characteristics and features which once
identified may sketch an overall image on the phenomenon of carriage and commercial exchanges.
The trading route is a basic component of the commercial relations defined by the exchanged prod-
uct, the relation between the producer and beneficiary, the trading route and means of transport.
Trading routes exhibit a series of features and specificities that define them. In order to understand
a trading route, one must refer to each of these specificities.
In simpler terms, if commercial connections are defined by the contact between the producer
and the product beneficiary, demand and offer, the trading route is the itinerary travelled by the
commercial product from the area where offer exists towards the area where demand exists. Thus,
in order to identify trading routes there must be firstly defined areas in demand and areas of offer.
Areas where demand exists are those areas where certain products are missing or where existing
products do not satisfy consumer needs, while areas where offer exists are those which produce and
may trade products to areas in demand. The distance between demand and offer varies and depends
on the quality of the product demanded on the market and its available quantity, but also on the
number of producers that provide the same product. A product found at a larger distance from the
beneficiary impacts product costs as well, owing to transport difficulties, commodities produced in
a nearby area being most often chosen to the detriment of quality. Thus, in order to identify trading
routes, the first step is to establish who the offerers/producers of goods and their beneficiaries were.
Trading routes may differ depending on the nature of the exchange, either product or coin
exchange (sale-purchase). Thus, those involved in a commercial relation based on exchange of
products, travel the trading route both ways, while the producer becomes beneficiary at its turn. As
such, one must also consider the producer’s needs to acquire products from other merchants, yet
most often such needs are incongruent. For instance, the salt need of the farming tools producer
does not correspond to the need of the salt quarrier, to whom the farming tools are useless, hence,
the trading route suffers certain changes. Under such circumstances, the trader’s role becomes very
18 Cristian Dima

important in an area relying mainly on the exchange of goods. Similarly important in this landscape
are areas where these exchanges occur, the marketplaces or trading centres.
Exchanged products are by their nature of several sorts. A first category is represented by the raw
materials which require processing and suffer changes until they become finished products. Thus
may be defined relations and trading routes between exploitation areas and production workshops,
then between production workshops and the beneficiary. For other farmed or exploited products,
the trading route may directly link the exploitation or the farming area with the beneficiary. Some
routes of the exchanged products are intermediated through travelling artisans or trading sites. The
latter play a rather important role since by their economic power, these may store several product
categories, thus easing exchange of goods.
Identification of transport routes may be made through the knowledge of product points of
origin (quarries, workshops, centres and trading sites) and destination points (outlets), so that in
the research here an important part deals with identifying raw material sources and their exploita-
tion areas, the production workshops and centres yet also markets. This was carried out by resort-
ing to historiographic sources which targeted archaeological finds recording Dacian date exploita-
tion remains in areas where important ferrous or nonferrous and salt sources lay. Similarly were
pinpointed metalworking workshops, those for processing animal hard materials or pottery work-
shops. Agricultural production was analysed from the view of the archaeological finds from field
areas and upper terraces of the Mureş river and its tributaries, an area favourable to agriculture.
This was conducted in a critical manner, while certain interpretations and chronological framings,
insufficiently argued, resulted in the exclusion of certain supposed exploitations. For the area geo-
graphically delimited by the Middle couloirs of the Mureş river and the Șureanu Mountains, these
were mapped and geo-referenced in Stereo 70 cartographic system and introduced in a data base.
(Subchapter – Repertory of archaeological points of interest).
Another component of trading routes is represented by the transport of commodities and trans-
port means. Thus, a segment of this research aimed at gathering the archaeological finds recording
connections with the transport phenomenon. We compiled information from both the academic
literature and museum collections, photographed and registered archaeological items, especially
items of vehicles used in the intra-Carpathian area and analysed them morphologically, typologi-
cally and chronologically by comparison with similar finds from the Barbarian and Greco-Roman
environment. Also, to the extent this was possible, the archaeological contexts where the discovered
items lay were analysed and interpreted from the point of view of the research topic.
The morphological and typological analysis of the items was performed by comparison with
better documented finds from other geographical areas, resulting in enhanced understanding of
how carts were built in classical Antiquity and the used haulage. Furthermore, parallels with other
spaces succeeded in certain cases to provide a chronological framing of the cart items from the
Dacian environment. The knowledge of find contexts brought new information regarding the trans-
port of commodities and we attempted to establish vehicle types present among the archaeological
finds. A large number of cart pieces were discovered in the metalworking shops area, interpreted
either as vehicles carrying iron blooms or as vehicles brought for repairs. The presence of carts in
burial contexts provided information on the parts and typology of the Dacian carts, even if these
were ceremonial carts, the construction elements were the same, as also noted in burial finds from
other geographical areas.
The last phase of the research methodologically targeted the obtaining of a case study for a
delimited area, where above methodology was applied in order to identify potential trading routes
from a relatively restricted area, yet rich in resources and pinpoint production centres, trading sites
 Introduction 19

and outlets. Thus, the case study area was established in the geographical area delimited by the
Middle Couloir of the Mureş river and the Șureanu mountains. This area broadly corresponds to
today’s administrative territories of the Alba and Hunedoara counties. Several working tools were
set up for the completion of this case study and information technology applications relying on
spatial analysis and predictability of certain routes depending on a number of factors like slope
gradients or hydrographical networks were used.
Many Dacian date archaeological sites mentioned in the academic literature were not system-
atically registered, while survey data of the archaeological sites obtained in recent years by County
Cultural Heritage Directorates are most often imprecise. In order to understand the archaeologi-
cal landscape of the area where the study case was accomplished, all information contained by the
academic literature was examined and a number of 484 archaeological finds of the Dacian period
were geo-referenced in Stereo 70 and WGS84 cartographic systems. These were completed by recent
investigations carried out in micro-areas yielding new archaeological information. Such non-inva-
sive research by LIDAR remote sensing identified several points of archaeological interest in the
Șureanu Mountains area.
All these points of archaeological interest were systematically introduced in a data base, tak-
ing into consideration the chronological framing and type of archaeological context (stray find,
coin hoard, civil settlement, fortified settlement and fortresses, burial contexts, exploitation areas,
workshops etc.). A GIS data base in which were introduced a series of historical and physical maps
as well as digital elevation models of the land were associated. Spatial and predictability analyses
were performed using models developed by the ArcMap, QGis and Global Mapper software appli-
cations. The trading routes resulted from the predictability analyses were validated by comparison
with roads mapped by previous historical Austrian surveys and certain descriptions recorded in
historiography. Some of the resulted routes were also checked in field investigations by the use of a
GPS device for recording geo-locations and gradients necessary for the analysis of slope gradients
and comparison with those produced by software applications.
 2.
GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS

The settlement of human communities and their economic development depend on a series
of geographical and topographical peculiarities. From the view of trading routes and carriage of
goods, one of the most important elements is represented by the natural resources, impacting the
establishment of a community in a certain area to a great extent. Depending on the specificities of
the community, chosen areas would best fit its necessities, however a limited geographical area is
unable to provide all necessary resources for community growth. Thus, beside the area’s potential
from the point of view of proximal resources, the relations which may be established with other
communities to which different resources are available also count, together with communication
opportunities and proximity of the trading routes.
The intra-Carpathian region investigated from the view of transport and trading routes cor-
responds to an area where the cultural and spiritual centre of the Dacian civilisation, located in
the south-west of the Carpathian Arch, developed over the course of the 2nd c. BC – 1st c. AD
and impacted the advance of other human settlements in the area. From the material culture view,
the Dacian settlements within the Carpathian Arch are uniform, evidencing relations between the
communities there and the development of a local material culture.
In the Dacian civilisation’s case, the establishment and understanding of habitat types and
space occupancy are hindered by the limits of the archaeological research, which has been focus-
ing mainly on the area of the large fortified complexes and less on rural settlements. Most Dacian
settlements known in historiography are poorly identified, sometimes based only on a number of
potshards discovered following fieldwalks, without being further completed by systematic research
or at least sondages. To this also adds the lack of mapping of these site types, most often find place
descriptions being rather brief. The general habitat typology during the Dacian period was defined
especially from surveying points of view and less from the perspective of the resources existing in
the inhabited areas, which influenced at least to an equal extent the settling of the Dacian communi-
ties in a specific area.

2.1.The intra-Carpathian area

According to the geographical denomination, the intra-Carpathian space is defined as an area
delimited by the Carpathian Mountains from all cardinal points. Through the mountainous heights,
difficult to cross, the intra-Carpathian space seems isolate, however the rich natural resources, geo-
graphical setting auspicious to different types of settlements and existing access pathways, even
22 Cristian Dima

though few in number, connected it to the Central European area or the Black Sea, fostered the
settling of human communities.
The intra-Carpathian area, geographically termed either the Transylvanian Plateau or the
Transylvanian Basin is characterised by a relatively hilly landscape, divided into several geographical
subunits which include the Someşan Plateau and the Târnave Plateau, the Plain and Transylvanian
Sub-Carpathians and the marginal depressionary couloirs1. From a landscape standpoint, these are
hilly areas, with a rich hydrographical network composed of middle and small water courses, con-
ducive for the practice of agriculture.
Inhabitancy of the intra-Carpathian space during the 2nd c. BC – 1st c. AD is prevalent in pied-
mont areas, as well as on the higher terraces and flood lands of more important water courses, espe-
cially the Mureş river. The central area of the intra-Carpathian space is notably less inhabited, for
instance, the upper course of the Mureş river lacks Dacian date settlements. The most extensively
used areas during the Dacian period from the intra-Carpathian area are the marginal depressions
which make a gradual transition to mountainous areas, offering optimal inhabitancy conditions
that ensure both the potential of animal breeding and the practice of agriculture as well as a com-
fortable climate.
The natural resources influenced to a greater extent the settling of Dacian communities in
resource rich areas of the intra-Carpathian space. One of the most important resources of the
Second Iron Age was represented by iron ore deposits. Most important areas rich in ferrous metals
cluster in the Șureanu Mountains, Poiana Ruscă Mountains and the Eastern Carpathians area, while
the state of research and archaeological repertoires evidence a major demographic differentiation
between these areas compared to the rest of the inhabited regions during the Dacian period. Beside
iron resources, other resources too played an important role in the Dacian economy, however if
there is much information on iron exploitation and working, the mining of other natural resources
is much less documented archaeologically. The processing of non-ferrous raw materials within the
few workshops of pre-Roman Dacia as well as the number of products made in bronze or silver are
nevertheless indicative of the use of these raw materials, however exploitation areas are less known,
many of the raw materials likely coming from alluvial depositions.
Another important natural resource mentioned in the academic literature is represented by
salt deposits. The intra-Carpathian space retains a significant quantity of salt massifs and saline
springs. If for instance, in the extra-Carpathian area the largest quantity of salt ores has a reserve
of 22000 million tons, those from the intra-Carpathian area are much larger, for instance Sărmăşel
and Vaidei-Ogra (Mureş county) have a 100000 mil. tons reserve, Turda (Cluj county)representing a
deposit of 66000 mil. tons reserve, while the salt reserve of Ocna Sibiului (Sibiu county) is of 61000
mil tons2.
One of the regions where settlements of various types (open civil settlements, fortified civil set-
tlements and fortresses) amass is registered in the eastern and south-eastern area of the intra-Car-
pathian region. Over 300 archaeological finds dated to the period of the 2nd c. BC – 1st c. AD have
been documented there3. The space comprised between the Mureş and Olt river valleys extends to
the Braşov Basin incorporating both the sub-Carpathian area as well as its northern and western
slopes. Owing to the cold climate and mountainous landscape of the area, the practice of agriculture
was not enough a good reason for a large number of human communities to settle there, as proven
by both the number of fortresses and fortified settlements as well as open settlements. Most likely,
1
Ferencz 2007, p. 20.
2
Drăgănescu 2006, p. 12.
3
Crişan 2000, p. 19–82; Costea 2002, p. 22; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
 Geographical limits 23

the decisive factor was represented by the natural resources of the area on which these communi-
ties relied, which most likely traded extensively with the Dacian settlements and davas across the
Carpathians like those known on the Siret river. The large number of Greek origin artefacts and the
many most often hoarded Greek coins are further arguments for such trade4.
From the resources’ point of view, the area is very rich, however it is impossible to estimate or
know with certainty which of these resources were exploited in the Dacian period and their exploi-
tation volume. One of the most important resources of the area is linked to the presence of a signifi-
cant quantity of salt ores, both salt massifs as well as numerous saline springs, salt resources being
documented in several places in the area like Praid, Odorhei, Mereşti, Lueta (Harghita county),
Sovata, Gurghiu, Sânpaul, Jabeniţa (Mureş county), Dumitra, Figa, Sărăţel (Bistriţa-Năsăud county)
etc.5 To these ferrous resources also add those non-ferrous, copper bearing, identified in the area of
the places of Bălan, Ditrău, Jolotca, Mădăraş (Harghita county)6.
The region of the Eastern Carpathians, especially that of the Ciuc Basin was believed an impor-
tant “ferrous metallurgy area” because of both ferrous ores and a relatively large number of areas
directly recording the exploitation of this ore or settlements where iron working was documented.
Thus, in the eastern part of the intra-Carpathian space, iron ore deposits were identified at Bodoc,
Covasna, Doboşeni, Herculian, Vârghiş (Covasna county), Lueta, Mădăraş, Tuşnad-Băi and Vlăhiţa
(Hargita county)7.
Another extensively inhabited area during the Second Iron Age, although not that well archaeo-
logically documented by systematic or rescue research, is represented by the north-western area
of the intra-Carpathian space. The area is geographically delimited by mountainous chains on the
either sides of the main water courses. A mainly mountainous area, it represented topographi-
cally a propitious framework for the construction of fortresses and fortified settlements. Except
for the fortresses of Șimleul Silvaniei and Măgura Moigrad (Sălaj county) these were less investi-
gated archaeologically. Also adds a number of rescue excavations performed within the range of
Maramureş, Sălaj, Arad and Bihor counties which resulted in additional information related to
certain rural settlements. From south to north, the Zărand mountains are the first geographical unit
of the area separating the valleys of the Upper Mureş river and the Crişul Alb river. To the north
of the latter, lies the Moma Codru Massif which divides the Crişul Alb river from the Crişul Negru
river. Between the Crişul Negru and Crişul Repede rivers lie the Pădurea Craiului Mountains and
the Bihor Mountains, while Barcău river is delimited by the Crişul Repede river and the Pădurea
Craiului and the Plopiş Mountains. Between the Barcău and Crasna rivers are found the Hills of
Silvania. In-between these river valleys open wide basins propitious for piedmont settlements like
the Brad, Șimleu, Holod and Beiuş Basins8. The area’s natural resources are relatively rich, especially
in the historical Maramureş, with gold, silver and copper resources in mountainous regions, iron
ores and in the Crişuri river basins, gold and silver resources. Still in the Maramureş area there is an
important saline resource like the salt massif of Solotvino (Ukraine) or Ocna Șugatag (Maramureş
county). From there salt was traded along the Tisza river valley with the Pannonia area, a series of
settlements located there pleading for such phenomenon9.

4
Crişan 1995, p. 359–367; Crişan 2000, p. 141–146.
5
Crişan 2000, p. 13; Drăgănescu 2006, p. 12.
6
Rădulescu, Dimitrescu 1966, p. 118–119; Crişan 2000, p. 13.
7
Rădulescu, Dimitrescu 1966, p. 268; Crişan 2000, p. 13; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155–157.
8
Pop 2006, p. 11.
9
Rustoiu 2003, p. 203–205.
24 Cristian Dima

2.2. The space geographically delimited by the Șureanu

Mountains and the Middle Mureş river course
For a better understanding of the phenomenon of trading routes and transport, we carried out
a case study in a micro-area of the intra-Carpathian space delimited by the Middle Couloir of the
Mureş river and the Șureanu Mountains area. In the region, archaeological finds chronologically
framed between the 2nd c. BC – 1st c. AD are significantly more numerous than in other areas of the
intra-Carpathian space. Obviously, the large number of finds and the massive clustering of settle-
ments in this area compared to others is represented by the location there of the large fortifications
which constituted the nucleus of the Dacian Kingdom. A number of 484 of archaeological points of
interest with Dacian date finds were listed in the area. The number, compared for instance with the
finds from north-western Romania where approximately 100 archaeological points of interest with
Dacian date finds were listed10, made us chose the central area of the Dacian Kingdom as the case
study area, since the information quantity influences the quality of results and the interpreting of
local trading routes. Once the work methodology and specific tools were defined by their testing in
the case study in a well represented area, these may be applied to poorly represented areas as well.
The delimiting of this geographical area generally overlaps the current administrative surfaces
of the Hunedoara and Alba counties. The geographic and geomorphologic descriptions of the land-
scape, natural resources, flora and fauna were relatively recently discussed in detail within two
major syntheses tackling the Second Iron Age civilisation11, to which also add previous geographical
descriptions from monographs and articles studying south-western Transylvania12. Thus, we shall
evidence here aspects impacting inhabitancy and use of this geographical area, without describ-
ing in detail its geographical subunits. The goal is to specify the geographical opportunities for the
development of a local network of trading routes, which linked Dacian date settlements to areas
with natural resources exploited in the Dacian period. Similarly important is also their geographical
location in relation to rural settlements or fortified settlements as well as the relief of most exten-
sively inhabited areas, from both resource rich areas and those favourable to agriculture.
Topographically, for the middle course of the Mureş river and the Șureanu Mountains areas, in
the Dacian period were utilized almost all relief forms, except for the flooding plains of the Mureş
river and its main tributaries (Pl. 1). The many tributaries of the Mureş river, from both the north
of the Metaliferi or Trascău Mountains as well as from the south, in the Șureanu Mountains, offer
favourable conditions for practicing agriculture, as evidenced by the many listed finds, even though
the number of systematic investigations is rather small. The best represented area lies south of the
Mureş river, Cugir valley being well documented archaeologically with finds. Similar is the case of
the exit of the Apa Oraşului stream and the Strei Valley from the mountains. The upper terraces were
also inhabited, however the clustering of settlements in piedmont points must be noted, where these
valleys leave the mountainous area. This is the case of the Cugir Valley where a series of archaeologi-
cal points of interest gravitate around the fortification on Cetăţii Hill (Alba county), Sibişel valley
with several archaeological points of interest as well as the many finds from the Costeşti village
(Hunedoara county), to the exit from the piedmont area of the Apa Oraşului stream.
Analysing the distribution of Dacian fortified settlements and fortresses, yet also of the civil settle-
ments in their vicinity, it may be noted they lay in mainly hilly, mountainous areas. Topographically,
this type of human settlement was related to defence opportunities of such settlement types, many
10
Matei 1979, p. 11–40; Pop 2006, p. 13–14; Luca, Gudea 2010.
11
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 11–16; Ferencz 2007, p. 22–26.
12
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 299–309; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 17–86.
 Geographical limits 25

barely accessible. Another reason influencing such habitat type seems to be given by the natu-
ral resources of the area, especially the ferrous metal resources. Settlements around precious ore
sources are rarer, however there is a series of settlements along certain valleys with golden or silver
alluvial sands.
First information regarding iron ore deposits in the Șureanu Mountains seem to come from the
reports of the Austrian tax authority, which, together with the early 19th century-finds, reported
important information concerning the natural resources of the area. Analysing these reports as well
as other geological studies of the early 20th century, I. Ferenczi draws a repertory of the main areas
with ferrous deposits from the Șureanu Mountains, mentioning that no medieval documents con-
taining additional information were examined13.
A first area with iron ore resources was identified subsequent to certain geological investiga-
tions carried out in 1831, at “Sub cununi” point located by the base of the Dosul Vârtoapelor Hill.
It was noted that the iron ore layer was around 2 meter thick, hence not lucrative industrially. From
information documented by A. Vendl and A. Liffa, I. Ferenczi selects some of the areas mentioned
with manganese and iron silica deposits which in the oxidising area produce manganese oxide and
iron ore. Among these count the south-west coast of the Bătrâna Mountain, the north-western ridge
of the Șteaua Mare Mountains, the south-western coast of Măgura Hill descending to Cugir Valley
(Râul Mare)14, a point lying south-west of Strâmbul Hill and north-west of it closer to Rudelor Hill,
on the ridge between the Mlaca and Pravăţ river valleys. In addition, I. Ferenczi mentions Negru
Hill, and beside these points, in A. Vendl are also mentioned the Runcul Cailor Hill in the Bistra
area as well as the east-north-east slope of Mijlocia Hill15, located between the Bistra and Sebeş
Valleys (Pl. 2).
Beside iron resources, for the Șureanu Mountains area are also mentioned indirectly or directly
other nonferrous sources like gold, lead (galena), zinc or copper. In what gold is concerned, not only
finished products, represented mainly by the golden coins mentioned in the Austrian’s tax authority
reports 16 were discovered in the mentioned area. Most authors dealing with the topic argued that
until the Roman period, gold was mined almost exclusively from alluvial deposits. Alluvial sands
also contained other metals like silver, copper, iron and rare or heavy metals17. The origin of the
alluvial sands lies with the golden seams and rocks carried from their provenance area by water dur-
ing rainfall seasons when gushes formed, reaching the alluvial material of valley flood lands18. Such
alluvial valleys in the Șureanu Mountains are represented by the Sebeş and Strei valleys, but also by
a few streams like Pianul, Vinerea, Apa Oraşului. The control of such alluvial exploitations must be
related to the fortresses of Căpâlna (Alba county) and Cugir (Alba county) on one side and those
of Costeşti – “Cetăţuie” (Hunedoara county), Costeşti -“Blidaru” (Hunedoara county) and Luncani
– Piatra Roşie (Hunedoara county) on the other. The find of certain golden products almost exclu-
sively at Sarmizegetusa Regia is noteworthy, which may suggest a “royal monopoly” over this metal.
With respect to the zinc and lead ore sources of which some of the artefacts discovered at
Sarmizegetusa Regia by early 19th century19 were made and not only, the most significant assem-
bly seems to be in the area of the Muncelul Mic Mountains, while in smaller quantities, the galena

13
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 299–309.
14
Vendl 1932a, p. 12; Vendl 1932b, p. 63–66; Ferenczi 1977c, p. 303.
15
Vendl 1932a, p. 12; Vendl 1932b, p. 63–66.
16
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 96–98; Ferenczi 1979c, p. 94.
17
Ferenczi 1979c, p. 94; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 16–17.
18
Ferenczi 1979c, p. 95.
19
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 96–97; Jakó 1966, p. 111; Ferenczi 1979c, p. 97–98.
26 Cristian Dima

and chalcopyrite accumulations of Veţel (Hunedoara county)20. These areas, even for the lack of
clear mining evidence of this deposit type, alike also the case of Dacian date alluvial exploita-
tions, could be related to the control that might have been exercised by the fortress of Piatra Coziei
(Hunedoara county). Still in connection with this fortress may also be related the andesitic stone
mining point from the Pietroasa Top in the Bejan area21, unless there was no Dacian fortress at Deva
as well. Here one may also add as andesitic stone resource, the Măgura Uroiului mine (Hunedoara
county)22, where a Dacian date fortification was presumed, while on the investigated hill base ter-
races were recorded traces of Dacian inhabitancy. Another stone resource for the building mate-
rial of the worked stone fortresses in the Șureanu Mountains yet also for the towers in their area
was limestone. The main source for the procurement of this stone type was identified on Măgura
Călan Hill23, however some more recent investigations indicate the existence of several sources still
unidentified in the field, one of these being presumed nearby the fortresses of Costeşti, in the point
toponymically termed “La părete”24.
Another important source of iron ore lies in the Poiana Ruscă Mountains, on the eastern and
northern edge of the crystalline massif of Poiana Ruscă, at Teliuc, Ghelari, Topliţa, Nădrag, Limpert
(Hunedoara county), area known for the many mining points starting with the Roman period.
Although only iron mining has been presumed so far in the area during the Dacian period, recent
comparative analyses25 prove a connection between the ores in the Ghelari-Teliuc area with the
finished products from the Dacian fortification on the Sânpetru Hill and the cemetery from the
Hunyadi Castle Garden. Still in this massif, the north-eastern part, are also reported galena resources
(lead and silver) which, beside presumed lead ores in the Șureanu Mountains area were connected
with the find of significant quantities of lead blooms at Sarmizegetusa Regia26. From information
reported by F. von Pribila and recorded by G. Finály, during the 1803–1804 research is mentioned
that in the ruins of a building were discovered between 1400–1700 lead kg, one bloom weighing
between 42 and 45 kg (75–80 pounds), in some being also found certain amounts of silver. The
author notes that the galena from the Transylvanian area commonly contains a quantity of 30–60 g
silver to 100 kg of ore (a percentage of 0.03-0.06%), while the blooms discovered in Sarmizegetusa
Regia contain a percentage of 0.22 % silver and 67% lead27. The galena separating operation was
assumed to have been carried out in the workshops of Sarmizegetusa Regia, in order to obtain both
silver and lead, galena being carried there from some distance28. It is impossible to say with certainty
which is the source of this lead ore, however it may be presumed that its presence at Sarmizegetusa
Regia is the result of trading exchanges.
In the area of the Metaliferi and Trascău Mountains, iron resources are less, being listed only
those of Baia de Arieş. Instead, in this area are present non-ferrous metals, known especially owing
to gold mining recorded archaeologically starting with the Roman period. Even though there is no
evidence of golden seams exploitation in the area, some authors believe it is difficult to believe that
the gold the Dacians used came only from golden sands washing29.
20
Ferenczi 1979c, p. 99.
21
Mârza 1997, p. 822; Iaroslavschi 1997, p. 34; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 12.
22
Glodariu 1983, p. 41; Glodariu 1986, p. 99.
23
Schafarzik 1908, p. 240; Glodariu 1986, p. 100; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 53; Mârza 1995, p. 201.
24
Lăscoiu 2014, p. 718–719.
25
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 243–256; Chapter 6.2.1.
26
Ferenczi 1979c, p. 97.
27
Finály 1916, p. 15–16.
28
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 19.
29
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 17.
 3.
HISTORY OF RESEARCH

This chapter records the works in the Romanian historiograpy referencing the research topic
and presents in detail how the trading routes and roads were described in the historiography dis-
cussing the Geto-Dacian civilisation manifestations. Reference shall be made to the trading routes
identified by the scholars of the classical Dacian civilisation, to how such identifications were made,
making also a detailed description of the possible identified trading routes. In another subchapter
we shall discuss the transport vehicles known in the Dacian world and the state of research on the
matter shall be presented. Since concerns on this subject are rather few, this presentation in extenso
is useful in order to understand and compare the results of this research with the current knowledge
level of the topic.

3.1. Dacian trading routes and communication roads in historiography

Most academic works discussing trade, trading relations, trading routes, in fact few in numbers,
analyse the subject here from the view of import products arriving in the Dacian Kingdom less
identifying a trading route network linking several areas. References to trading routes are usually
archaeologically documented by the topographic layout of imports originating mainly from the
Greco-Roman world and the connection of these areas with the large trading routes known in the
Balkan area. For the lack of structured roads, trading routes cannot be identified by archaeological
investigations, while in literature these are supposed indirectly, without connecting resources, pro-
duction centres and beneficiaries, except for only a few instances and rather indirectly.
The first one who tackled the subject of roads and pathways but as well the import and export
of products for the Dacian civilisation was the father of Romanian archaeology, Vasile Pârvan30.
His observation on the subject are however indirectly and are not the main topic of his remark-
able monograph. In the sixth chapter, part two, the author approach the La Tèneperiod making an
important synthesis at that time discussing about both Celtic and Dacian material culture, religion
and cultural manifestations. In a subchapter, the author talks about war chariots used by Celtic pop-
ulation exemplifying with a chariot grave from Prejmer (Braşov county) where several cart parts
were found. From this he talks about the Dacian war carts specifying that are very different from
the Celtic ones, however based only on literary sources and monuments depictions31. In another

30
Pârvan 1926.
31
Pârvan 1926, p. 525.
28 Cristian Dima

subchapter the author talks about the commercial relation between Greeks and Dacian population
mostly about the exchanged products. The commercial routes are indirectly presented mostly by
water courses of the sub-Carpathian region and passes through Carpathian mountains. Regarding
the Roman import products the author mention that the route was from West and South-West
using the Mureş river course, the main road to the interior of Dacia Kingdom.
Possibly the most important historiographic approach to date, with references to the trading
routes utilized in the Geto-Dacian period was drawn up by I. Glodariu. In his doctoral thesis, the
author allots a full chapter to routes, roads and trading sites32. Nevertheless, owing to the addressed
topic, references to trading routes focus mainly on presenting sea and river ways used by the trad-
ers selling products from the Greco-Roman world. Thus, it is believed that before reaching the
Dacian space, they travelled the roads of the Balkan Peninsula. With regards to the trading routes
from the Geto-Dacian territories, emphasis is laid more on those known in the extra-Carpathian
area and the entry paths into that intra-Carpathian and less on the trading routes from the heart
of the Dacian Kingdom. Regarding the trading routes from the extra-Carpathian area, the author
argues that traders who reached the space of the Geto-Dacian civilisation made use of the existent
pathways on the course of main rivers and regardless the length of the navigable stretches, the land
routes followed, at least in plain areas, their course. It is assumed this route may be reconstructed
based on the geographical set up of the import products and coins originating from the Greco-
Roman world, thus being these presented the routes of main land pathways, with the mention that
the majority of trading routes start from the Danube, the main navigable artery33.
The first presented trading route is by the Prut river to the interflow area with the Jijia, a route
not extensively travelled considering the ratio of the Greek amphorae, pottery and coins presence34.
The next one and the most important route for the area situated east of the Carpathians is by the
Siret river, navigable on the lower course, at least. In fact, on the Siret river valley are located a
series of settlements in which import goods from the Greco-Roman world are abundant, like those
at Barboşi, Poiana (Galaţi county), Răcătău and Brad (Bacău county). This road has a series of
branches, one heading to the Bârlad Plateau, and other two towards the intra-Carpathian area. A
trading route on the Trotuş valley which crossed to Transylvania by the Oituz Pass, linked the settle-
ments from eastern and south-eastern Transylvania to the fortified settlement of Poiana, a dava
with extensive economic activity in both what imports and their redistribution as well as in what
local production duplicating import products are concerned. Another mentioned trading route is
still a road linking the intra-Carpathian area to Moldova, namely on the Bistriţa valley, nearby the
fortifications of Bâtca Doamnei and Cozla (Neamţ county), towards the Bicaz Pass and then by the
Rodna Pass, a road which seems not to have been so extensively travelled like that through the Oituz
Pass35.
South the Carpathians, I. Glodariu repertories certain important trading routes, some making
the connection between the Danube and the intra-Carpathian area. The first, on the Ialomiţa river
valley linked the Danube and the plain Dacian settlements, for instance, Piscu Crăsani (Ialomiţa
county), then the sub-Carpathian area. Another pathway, much more travelled, on the Argeş river
had a fork by the junction with the Dâmboviţa river, one of the roads running towards the Getae
settlements in the vicinity of Bucharest, further to the north-west to the Cetăţeni (Argeş county)
settlement. The other branch further followed the course of the Argeş river towards the settlement
32
Glodariu 1974a, p. 110–125.
33
Glodariu 1974a, p. 114.
34
Glodariu 1974a, p. 114.
35
Glodariu 1974a, p. 115.
 History of research 29

of Popeşti. For the connection with the intra-Carpathian area, an important trading route starts
from the Dâmboviţa river valley and then from Cetăţeni, crosses by the Bran Pass towards the
Țara Bârsei. The author maintains this road is main route by which the Southern Carpathians were
crossed, bringing as supporting evidence the status of the Cetăţeni settlement of important trading
site as shown by the presence of a large number of amphorae and amassment of import products
in the Țara Bârsei, by the end of the road arriving through the Bran Pass36. In fact, in a preceding
chapter regarding the Greek amphorae it is shown that their large numbers at Cetăţeni, yet also at
Poiana, might be explained by the transfer of wine and oils into more sturdy recipients than the
amphorae, thus able to survive the crossing of the Carpathians since at the time, no road develop-
ments are known in the area37. The Olt river valley is another presented trading route, yet which
according to the author, does not cross to Transylvania by the Olt Gorge because of the difficult track
and its development only in the Roman period. It is rather believed that the route ran westwards to
the interflow with the Lotru river, along its course and continuing with the ridge road descending
to Transylvania in the area of the Sad mouths, where Thassian tetradrachms were discovered. This
“hill road” would have been later used in the Middle Ages as well. Still there are mentioned the coin
finds from the Olt valley, in both the intra-Carpathian and south the Carpathians space and their
lack in the gorge area. West of the Olt, another trading route runs by the Jiu valley, joining another
road which started from the Turnul Severin (Mehedinţi county) area and then entered Transylvania
by the Vâlcan Pass38.
The trading routes from the intra-Carpathian area are presented generally, with special focus
on the Mureş river valley, navigable up to Alba Iulia, which represents the main trading artery of
Transylvania making the connection with Pannonia, going up on the Mureş to the interflow with
the Sebeş river. There the road forks, one branch following further the course of the Mureş and the
Târnave rivers, the other descending towards the Olt. In southern Transylvania, it is also mentioned
the road which linked the Dacian fortress of Tilişca with that of Căpâlna, following the route of
today’s vicinity roads as well as the road on the Râul Negru valley running towards the Oituz Pass
by Breţcu and then towards Moldova. Other roads are presumed to connect the Mureş river and the
lands on the Someş river, as well as the westward territories and the Crişana area. By the end of this
subchapter, the author underlines that none of these roads were specially built, being incomparable
inferior in terms of development and durability to those throughout of the Roman empire, however
their route avoided the damages produced by nearby rivers or streams39.
In the subsequent subchapter of his work, the quoted author approaches an interesting issue
concerning the trading relations and role of certain settlement as diffusion centres of import prod-
ucts, yet also of certain local products. Their outlet role for products arriving from farther areas and
the redistribution of commodities towards a series of geographically well positioned settlements led
to prosperity and economic development, such centres becoming concurrently also power centres,
impacting significantly the Geto-Dacian civilisation culture. In this case too, the role of large trading
sites seems better defined for the extra-Carpathian space, an area easily reached by import products.
These sites developed their local trade with neighbouring areas, becoming at the same time sup-
pliers of import and local products for the the intra-Carpathian area as well. In Transylvania’s case,
the scarcity of certain import products is explained by the small number of investigated Dacian
settlements. In western Dacia is identified the fortified settlement of Pecica (Arad county), the most
36
Glodariu 1974a, p. 116.
37
Glodariu 1974a, p. 31–32.
38
Glodariu 1974a, p. 117.
39
Glodariu 1974a, p. 118.
30 Cristian Dima

important trading site owing to both its geographical position and abundance of import materi-
als. Last but not least, the multiple resources from the area and its location on the most important
trading artery from the intra-Carpathian space, the Mureş river valley had played a key role in
this site’s development. For the south-eastern area of Transylvania it is mentioned the commercial
importance of the Pârâul Negru water course, with the areas around Sf. Gheorghe and Cernatu
(Covasna county). In central Transylvania, the role of important trading centres was played by the
fortified settlements of Tilişca (Sibiu county) and Piatra Craivii (Alba county), the latter notable by
the multitude of import products, yet also by its rich available resources from the Mureş valley and
controlled access towards the Apuseni Mountains. The area of the Dacian fortresses and settlements
of Orăştiei Mountains, which seems to lack trading traffic, offers considerable opportunities for the
outlet of Greco-Roman luxury products owing to the social status of those who inhabited the entire
area. Thus, the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia likely represented an important market for the exchange
of different types of goods40.
The access and travelling roads in the Șureanu Mountains area (known also as Orăştie
Mountains), without being termed trading routes by the authors, were presented on several occa-
sions in various works aimed to repertory and present the archaeological points of interest (civil and
military settlements, fortresses and isolate finds) from south-western Transylvania. Information is
important from the view of identifying the ancient roads used by the inhabitants of the area during
the 2nd c. BC – 1st c. AD, referenced more than once, and identified by scholars in the field.
One of the first works attempting to repertory and survey the archaeological points of interest
from the Șureanu Mountain area belongs to C. Daicoviciu, who drafts a first part titled „Studiu topo-
grafic al aşezărilor” (“Topographical study of the settlements”), while in the second he posthumously
publishes a shortened contribution of the historiographic research on the Dacian settlements from
this area drawn up by A. Ferenczi in 192141. There, the roads practiced by the Dacians are often ref-
erenced, however mostly in connection with access roads towards a specific fortress or settlement
and tracked on relatively short distances. Nevertheless, some elements are important as they com-
plete the communication roads and trading routes between the settlements functioning as trading
sites and the remaining areas. The author identifies the ancient roads based on his own observations
during the field investigations, put in relation to the discovered archaeological points of interest.
A first reference to an ancient road is made regarding the access road to the Dacian fortress
of Costeşti – “Cetăţuie” and starts from the left bank of Apa Grădiştii, a cart road, which forks
after 300 meters, thus resulting two access possibilities into the fortress, one by-passing the fortress
in the north and west and leading to certain village houses, from there north-eastwards climbing
to the fortress. Another road would run to the south and south-west reaching the fortress on its
south side42. The latter was monitored by two towers located on the eastern side of the fortress43,
while an additional argument for its use in Antiquity as access road to the fortification seems to be
represented by more recent find, still under research, of a burial context (mound?)44. These could
confirm the location of the aristocracy cemeteries in visible places, in the vicinity of access roads as
the case of the Dacian fortress of Cugir45. The next ancient road proposed by the author is that on
the Faerag Hill running towards the fortress of Blidaru, linked to this road by one secondary. This
40
Glodariu 1974a, p. 124–125.
41
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 8.
42
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 9.
43
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 17.
44
Glodariu et alii1998a, p. 50; Glodariu et alii1999, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208.
45
Rustoiu 2015a, p. 361.
 History of research 31

road, less the secondary, is mentioned as that of access to the Costeşti – Cetăţuie on the map locat-
ing the finds from the area46. Another ancient road starts from it and links the other tower-houses
nearby the Costeşti – Blidaru fortress, lying south the towers on the Faerag Hill. The presence of
the many archaeological finds nearby the course of Apa Grădiştii makes the author believe that one
on this valley course, there was an access road towards the capital at Grădiştea de Munte, while the
finds yielded by the excavations prior the construction of the railway at the point termed “Curătura
Tocaciului” (or Curmătura), lead to the supposition of an existing tower that would have monitored
the road on the Apa Grădiştii valley47. From the interflow of Apa Mică with Apa Grădiştii, nearby
the Grădişte village (Hunedoara county) school, another road identified by the author as rather
wide and used in Antiquity, advances towards the hilltop called “Pustâiosul”48.
The road towards the capital, Sarmizegetusa Regia, is assumed to run along the Godeanu valley,
which to the author, seems sufficiently broad to enable a road to run up to the fortress49. Further,
the author presents his finds and observations once with advancing towards the fortress on a “road-
path” starting from the interflow of the Alba valley with the Godeanu Valley. This road runs on a
first rather difficult 200 meters on the approximately 20 m narrow ridge, yet which widens while
the slope diminishes. The author mentions this “road-path” was stoned, being ca. 3 m wide, at least
nearby the Western gate50.
In the area of the Luncani Plateau, on the territory of the Târsa village (Hunedoara county), the
author shows that from the Apa Grădiştii valley one could reach on several roads, of which the easi-
est would be that of access towards the Costeşti – Blidaru fortress, starting from the Faerag valley
and further on the Faerag ridge, nearby Blidaru, then following the Pietroasa Hill top (Pietrosul)
near Vf. Leurzaia, to the Târsa village (Hunedoara county) school. A second, more difficult road,
would start from a point located southward “Curătura Tocaciului”, climbing on the Ocolişan Hill
and across the Gros Hill runs its southern end, towards the West, reaching the Târsa school still
nearby. Lastly, a third road, the most uphill according to the author, starts from the Grădişte village
and climbs abruptly from Prihodişte reaching nearby Voineag Hill on the Luncani Plateau51.
It is possible to reach the Dacian fortress of Luncani – Piatra Roşie (Hunedoara county), as it
is indicated, from Târsa descending the hill called “Dâlma cu cale” or Tisza Hill and climbing from
the Tisza valley (or Stângului) towards the fortress. An easier access path towards this fortress on
the Luncani Plateau, reaching on the hill’s western ridge, is the only suitable for access towards the
fortress52. This fortress was aimed to block access from the West on either the road climbing from
the Mureş river valley on Strei stream and then the Luncani valley or the shorter road towards the
south, from Pui, across Ponorici and Cioclovina53 (Hunedoara county), a road also blocked by the
Cioclovina-Ponorici fortification, the latter being the last road presented in the work.
In historiography, references to the access roads towards the Dacian kingdom capital,
Sarmizegetusa Regia, as well as the surrounding fortresses and settlements were made from the view
of the analysis of possible entry paths of the Roman troops during the military campaigns which
resulted in the conquest of Dacia. The routes followed by the Roman troops make principally use of

46
Daicoviciu, Ferenzi 1951, p. 22, fig. 2.
47
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 28.
48
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 30.
49
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 31.
50
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 33; Daicoviciu et alii 1951, p. 104.
51
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 47.
52
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 54.
53
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 54.
32 Cristian Dima

ridge roads, some, if not all, being most likely previously used by the Dacians as trading routes or
movements paths from one settlement to another. The issue of identifying the marching camps and
routes followed by the Roman army has been approached in turn by I. Ferenczi in several articles54
and I. Glodariu, who published a study attempting to establish the entry paths of the Mauri cavalry
led by Lusius Quietus55. The marching camps and itineraries of the Roman army are presented by
A.S. Ștefan56 from the same perspective.
Starting from the field location of the Roman marching camps of Vf. lui Pătru, Jigoru Mare,
those at Comărnicel Hill, as well as that of Muncel Hill, it was argued that certain Roman units
advanced from two main directions, from Pătru Peak and Jigoru Mare, with a mandatory crossing
and junction point of the troops in the Comărnicel area. The possible access paths of the Roman
troops to reach both Vf. lui Pătru and Jigoru Mare are accordingly discussed. Identification of these
toads was made subsequent to field investigations which attempted to find and travel the natural
mountains roads, favourable for circulation. A first road towards Jigoru Mare starts from Băniţa
(Hunedoara county), climbing west of Baba valley tracking the ridge to the north of Jigorel Peak
and reaches Jigoru Mare. From there towards Comărnicel, the east-west direction is maintained,
along the mountains ridge, by-passing Druglu Peak and Poiana Didei Peak, Taia Peak and reaches
Comărnicel. Towards Pătru Peak the author suggests two mountainous roads from two different
directions, one from the Jiu valley and another from the Sebeş valley. The first ridge road would
climb on the eastern side of the Jiu valley to the interflow between the Fetiţa valley with Sterminosu
valley, from there climbing on the namesake mountain tracking its ridge to the Poiana Muierii
Peak, where it shifts its direction towards north – north-west along the mountain ridge, by-passing
eastwards the La Holoangă Peak, westwards the Sălanele Peak and then Smida Mare peak reaching
the Pătru Peak. From there, the road towards Comărnicel runs on a south-east – north-west direc-
tion, by-passing northwards the Auşel Peak and south-westwards the Pârva and Gropşoara Peaks.
The second road towards Pătru Peak, tracks the flow of the Sebeş valley towards its interflow with
the Sălanele valley, running southwards where it joins the Saşa valley, from where climbs west-
wards to the ridge joining the Smida Mare Peak to Pătru Peak57. From Comărnicel, the junction
point of the Roman troops, towards Sarmizegetusa Regia, by-passes Negru Hill eastwards, run-
ning nearby the Rovinii Peak to Șinca Peak. From there the road forks on two directions, a west-
ern branch descending to Șinca valley and then climbs to the Scârna Peak, where it intersects the
eastern branch, which runs along northwards the Steaua Mare Peak and eastwards the Steaua Mică
Peak. From Scârna Peak, the road crosses southwards the Zebru Peak and northwards the Godeanu
Peak and descends to Muncel. In a note, the author also reports a road linking the Dacian fortress of
Căpâlna (Alba county) to Pătru Peak. The road starts from Stăuini (Alba county) and runs on Plaiul
Lomanului, Stroii Peak, the Tonii valley mouth, Crucilor Peak and then Recea Peak, Lung Hill,
Măgura Tomnaticului, La Hodineli, Comanu Peak, Prisaca, Canciu Peak, Poarta Raiului, Puru and
Pătru Peak58. This road is mentioned later in an article authored by I. Glodariu, where references are
made to the role of the Dacian fortress of Căpâlna from a military standpoint59. Whether the Roman
troops used or not these roads during their military expeditions, it is important they were checked
in the field and very likely used by the inhabitants of the area in the Dacian period as well.
54
Ferenczi 1976, p. 45–64; Ferenczi 1978, p. 119–134; Ferenczi 1983, p. 179–197.
55
Glodariu 1974b, p. 151–164.
56
Ștefan 2005, p. 575–582.
57
Glodariu 1974b, p. 158.
58
Glodariu 1974b, p. 158, note 19.
59
Glodariu 1983, 62-63.
 History of research 33

A significant contribution to the research of the Dacian trading routes refers to the access roads
in and towards the Șureanu Mountains area60, certain roads previously described by the same
author61 being re-discussed. Their descriptions seem to rely rather on survey and geographical con-
siderations rather than the consistency of the archaeological finds, in fact many of the described
roads are not even archaeologically confirmed. Some are still related to the roads used by the Roman
army, described especially according to the field location of the marching forts. The roads descrip-
tion is rather detailed and becomes a landmark for the south-western area of Transylvania, while
the majority of works later referencing access pathways to the royal fortress of Grădiştea de Munte
– Sarmizegetusa Regia (Hunedoara county), make use of these survey records.
Starting from the northern and north-eastern side, a first road described by I. Ferenczi links
the Dacian fortress of Tilişca to that of Căpâlna. The road would start on Plaiul Tilişcăi towards
the Jina commune ending with Sibielelor and Popii Hills, and then, along the Nedeii Hill, the road
would descend to the Sebeş valley further down the Șugag commune (Alba county), upstream the
Cetăţii Hill from Căpâlna. The road that would reach the Pătru peak from the Dacian fortress of
Căpâlna described by I. Glodariu62 is resumed by I. Ferenczi. The author argues these two routes
might not have been used in the Dacian period. Also, regarding the connection between the fortress
of Căpâlna and that of Cugir (Alba county), the author shows that travelling possibilities cannot be
traced owing to the area fragmentation by the valleys of a number of smaller left tributaries of the
Middle Mureş river. Three possibilities are still proposed, one by the southern edge of the Mureş
river couloir, another supposed the crossing of the Pianu valley and its tributaries, while the third
possibility, by a by-pass that would start from the end of the Gărgălău valley by Haita Peak, Lung
Hill, then by surrounding the Pianu stream and descending to Cugir. Towards Sarmizegetusa Regia,
from the Dacian fortress of Cugir, are described two roads that the author did not check or inves-
tigate in the field, yet which seem easy to travel. One climbs on the westward ridge of the Mic river
gradually rising to the Scîrna Mountains, in the vicinity of Cetăţii Hill, following the Prihodişte
slope, crosses at Frăsinei the Feţii Peak, “La Baltă” point nearby the Vaidean, Tomnatec, Plevaia,
Lupşa, Certezu and then Scârna Peaks. The second runs on the hill road from the ridge between the
Mic and Mare rivers, following the Ainelui or Bucur Hills, then the Faţa Fântânii ridge, Sasului Hill,
Răgita Mare and Mică Peaks, Refoianu Hill, Măgulicea, Grosului, Șipcii, Bâtrâna Mounatain and
Șinca and then joins the previously described road. From mount Scârna westwards, the road leads
nearby the Godeanu Peak, from where it can be descended towards Sarmziegetusa Regia. Another
entry road towards Muncel starts from a ridge lying southwards the Sibişelul Vechi by Naia Hill,
Deluţul, Faţa Mare, Groape Hill, Cioaca Ulmului, Negrul and reaches Muncel. Nearby the places
of Beriu-Sereca (Hunedoara county), it may be easily climbed at Negrila, Strungaru Peak then by
Pirsaca, Brusturelul, Ceata, Izvoarele reaching Groape Hill and then further towards Muncel, a road
that crosses in the vicinity of the fortress at Hulpe Peak63.
Because a large number of towers and other find types are located in the Apa Grădiştii area, it
is believed this valley represented in the Dacian period an important access route. Such hypothesis
is supported by the identification of the ancient road remains on certain stretches of the anthropo-
genic terraces in the area. From the Luncani valley and Boşorod towards Bobaia the road climbs
a wide saddle which divides the Chiciorii Hill from the Luncani Plateau, and then a fork leads to
Cetăţuia of Costeşti, yet also towards the Luncani Plateau by-crossing the Secui Peak, an access
60
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 86–120.
61
Ferenczi 1976, p. 45–64; Ferenczi 1978, p. 119–134; Ferenczi 1983, p. 179–197.
62
Glodariu 1974b, p. 158.
63
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 88–89.
34 Cristian Dima

path also used by the Romans and evidenced by the fort of Târsa. From the Luncani Plateau, a
road runs by the Frasin Hill and at Prihodişte it may descend towards the Grădiştea valley or go
further towards Gerosu and Rude Hill64. The author does not go continue this road towards Meleia,
which may reach Godeanu. From the Haţeg Basin, I. Ferenczi underlines there are only two access
pathways towards the area of the Dacian fortresses, one on the Fizeş valley and the other on Ohaba-
Ponor valley. The two roads join on the karst plateau of Padeş Hill and the lowest saddle located
westwards, descending towards the Ponorici valley. From there, on the sinkhole field between the
Padeş and Robului Hill, one may reach further up the rock wall of Cioclovina, and from there the
Poiana Omului. Tracking the ridge road on the Frasinului Hill towards Prihodişte, one may descend
on the Pustiosului valley to the Apa Grădiştii valley, or another easier and shorter road crossing by
Ticera Izvorului on a field, descending then on Gerosu Hill, a height which rises above the Alba
valley interflow with that of Godeanu. Another access path suggested by I. Ferenczi from the south-
west of the Șureanu Mountains would lie on the Petrosu valley (Upper Strei river), which may be
followed to its mouths, wide on its entire length, carriageable, more propitious than Apa Grădiştei.
The author supports his theories by the ferrous resources and deposits on the Pravăţ and Strîmbului
Hills located on either sides of the Petrosului valley65 as well. Starting from the broad presentation
of these roads from the Șureanu Mountains area, various syntheses works resume the information
or parts of it, without many further additions related to the circulation possibilities in the area66.
A brief reference to roads and the research of certain road stretches is reported by the histori-
ography of the Dacian period67. Regarding the stone carriage from Măgura Călanului (Hunedoara
county) towards the fortresses built using this building material, certain parallels for the stone
transport reference the Greek world. Thus, for the cart transport of a column, the Greeks would
have required two-three days for a 46 km road and 14 pairs of oxen. Thus, it is believed that for
such carriage difficulties, the Dacians would have used ridge roads, which avoided steep slopes and
significantly shortened distances. Information according to which the sizes of the limestone blocks
used for the walls’ construction was impacted by distances68 and therefore more difficult carriage
possibilities is also mentioned, together with the find of the mica schist road leading from the west-
wards quarters towards the western gate of the fortification continued with the limestone slab road
to the sacred area69 or the presence of certain roads connecting settlement terraces.
Certain information, some resumed and checked, about access roads to the fortresses or in-
between the fortresses also emerge from various monographs or articles on various topics, yet
approaches on trading routes or their features are missing from the Romanian research. In the
monograph discussing the Cugir valley and an article on the Dacian inhabitancy on this valley, C.I.
Popa suggests three access roads towards the Cetăţii Hill70. The first would follow the water flow on
the Dăii valley, crossing the plateau on the western slope of the fortress (Dosul Cetăţii) and than
making a turn south-eastwards climbing on the plateau. A second road ran from Cugir valley and
climbed the eastern slope of the Cetăţii Hill, while on the ridge making the connection with that
western, the road turned southwards, where its set up would be noticeable even today, namely the
excavating into the hill rock, and which joined upwards the first described road. The third road

64
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 90.
65
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 93.
66
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 15–16; Popa 2004, p. 90–91; Popa 2011, p. 282–283.
67
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 33–34.
68
Glodariu 1986, p. 101.
69
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 33.
70
Popa 2004, p. 90–91; Popa 2011, p. 282–283.
 History of research 35

started from the Viilor valley on the western hill slope joining the road arriving from the Dăii valley,
to “Dosul Cetăţii”71. Two connection roads are only supposed as linking the Cugir fortress with the
capital of the Dacian Kingdom of Sarmizegetusa Regia, both “hill roads”. One would start from the
Mic and Mare rivers interflow, climbing by point “Scăunel” on Chiciură Hill, where a Dacian sur-
veillance point was supposed. From there, the road runs towards Bucuru Peak, then the ridge road
on Sasului Hill, then on Răchita Peak, Moliviş Hill and Groşilor Hill, towards Bătrâna where are
presumed iron ore mining remains72 as well as the possible existence of a marching Roman camp73,
the road running from there towards Godeanu and then to Sarmizegetusa Regia. The second road,
without identified Dacian date finds, would start from Mic river valley, by Feţei, Tomnatec, Plăvaia
then Prislop, Lupşa Peaks to Scârna74. On the basis of Dacian date finds present on either sides of
the Cugir valley, it is assumed it represented the connection between the Dacian fortress of Cugir
and the Mureş valley75, a secondary trading route able to supply the fortress inhabitants and those
of the settlements in the area with various products.
Towards the fortress of Ardeu (Hunedoara), the access road was suggested following certain
recent pluridisciplinary research, by gradient analyses. Thus, access towards the fortification upper
plateau that could be vehicle crossed, would be on the southern hill slope, however its the establish-
ment with certainty was impossible because of its destruction by the limestone quarry. The second
access variant, on the northern slope of the hill would be possibly only by foot or draught animals76.
Reference to one of the access roads to the fortress of Costeşti – Blidaru appears in a recent
study on the towers surrounding this fortification77. Thus, it is mentioned that this road follows the
Muchea Chişătorii, the ancient road being still visible today on several segments. This road would
be suitable for cart travelling, as evidenced by a slab still preserving the traces of a cart wheel. Also,
it is mentioned that from point Pietrele lui Solomon one may easily reach Sarmizegetusa Regia fol-
lowing the mountain path, without many hindrances, yet without further details.
In conclusion, although some possible trading routes were well specified, especially in the area
of maximum development of the Dacian Kingdom, these were not addressed in historiography
in the context of local trade, product exchanges and raw materials or finished goods carriage. For
the intra-Carpathian space, trading routes were generally specified and the importance of certain
main trading arteries was emphasized, like the Mureş river, especially in terms of the relation with
the Roman world. The trading relations with the Greco-Roman world were especially approached
from the view of import commodities arriving in the intra-Carpathian area, without yet the men-
tion, merely hypothetical, of their origin or route by which they arrived. Regarding the trade and
exchange products offered for export by the Dacian society to other Barbarian populaces, in histo-
riography discussions did not exceed a general framework and only hypothetically. Although it was
evidenced that a series of workshops could produce enough metalworking products for export or
even raw materials could be exported, for the lack of analyses attesting such export to other civilisa-
tions, discussions remain hypothetical. The export of the salt available in the intra-Carpathian space
was discussed by contrast with other periods, however, the archaeological evidence on exploiting

71
Popa 2004, p. 90–91; Popa 2011, p. 282.
72
Glodariu 1975b, p. 116; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17–18; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 21; Iaroslavschi 2004, p. 57; Popa
2011, p. 303–304.
73
Popa 2011, p. 346; Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016, p.732.
74
Ferenczi 1976, p. 58–59; Ferenczi 1978, p. 123; Popa 2004, p. 90; Popa 2011, p. 283.
75
Popa 2004, p. 90; Popa 2011, p. 283.
76
Ferencz, Hegyi 2014, p. 19.
77
Pescaru et alii 2014, p. 6.
36 Cristian Dima

the salt massifs is at this time insufficient to support such hypothesis. The subject of the local trade
was less addressed as well, especially because of the research trend of the material culture analysis.

3.2. Dacian transport vehicles in historiography

The transport means from the Geto-Dacian space were rarely discussed in historiography, cir-
cumstances likely due to a relatively small existing number of such artefacts as well as their difficult
identification for the lack of clear find contexts. All metal parts of a ceremonial cart could be identi-
fied in only one archaeological context. This is mound II in the barrow cemetery discovered on the
south-western slope of the Cugir fortress78. The grave itself, grave goods and burial depositions are
mentioned in historiography more or less complete, however the discovered artefacts were not yet
fully published. Thus, the reconstruction of the burial cart that the archaeologist made is unclear
and cannot be confirmed for the lack of knowledge of all parts. Another possible burial context in
which several cart pieces would have been discovered is under research, identified in the area of
the Dacian fortress of Costeşti – Cetăţuie79, nearby dweeling-tower 3, located outside the fortifica-
tion on its eastern side. Other cart pieces were discovered in certain civil contexts, isolate finds or
retrieved from archaeological poaching carried out in the Dacian fortresses and settlements, case in
which the archaeological context was destroyed and therefore difficult to interpret.
An important contribution to the knowledge of the carts used in the Geto-Dacian space
approaches the cart “decorative” pieces, especially terrets80. In this study, such artefacts are typo-
logically and chronologically framed based on parallels with especially the Celtic milieu. Other
three rein parts were reinterpreted by the authors of the study, while two, one from Berindia (Bihor
county) and another from Luncani – Piatra Roşie, are a rare class of pieces fulfilling only a decora-
tive purpose. The third piece a special item, known in the academic literature, is represented by a
silver feline set on an iron rod discovered in the area of the Dacian fortress of Costeşti – Blidaru.
The authors of the above mentioned paper identified this piece as linchpin based on similar pieces
from the Celtic world. These bronze cart pieces have been previously presented, without yet typo-
logical framing. To these adds a piece decorated by the ends discovered in the fortified settlement
of Poiana, as well as other decorative elements with functional role discovered in the Dacian settle-
ment of Brad81.
Iron-made cart pieces are presented generally, without further details related to typological
framing, parallels, description, within a reference work for iron archaeological artefacts of Dacian
date, which presents a significant number of artefact classes of various functionalities, made in
iron. The iron cart parts were mainly discovered in area of the capital Sarmizegetusa Regia as well
as in the fortress of Costeşti – Cetăţuie82. These are elements of cart wheel elements (nave lining,
nave hoops, reinforcement fittings), however some of the pieces presented in other chapters, for
which no parallels could be found at the time when the paper was drafted, could be cart pieces that
belonged either to the cart-box or hound of such vehicles. The repertory of cart pieces is further
completed with three bronze nave linings discovered in the Dacian fortress of Costeşti – Cetăţuie83,
beside being represented the bronze decorated artefacts, mentioned above in the study authored by

78
Crişan 1980, 81–86; Popa 2011, 326–329; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52.
79
Glodariu et alii 1998, p. 50; Glodariu et alii 1999a, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208.
80
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231–242.
81
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 157–159.
82
Glodariu, Iarsolavschi 1979, p. 127–128.
83
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 192/1–3.
 History of research 37

A. Rustoiu and I.V. Ferencz. In this case neither, when several Dacian date cart items are compiled,
a more detailed description is made. Except the mentioned works, cart pieces are presented singu-
larly, when materials resulted from archaeological excavations, stray finds or the re-discussion of
incompletely published inventories84 are issued, many of the items remaining in museum deposits,
unpublished.

84
Lupu 1989, pl. 23/6; Ursachi 1995, p. 147–148; Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 173–174; Popa 2011, p. 326–333;
 4.
DACIAN CONVEYANCE VEHICLES
IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS

4.1. Cart parts in the Dacian world

In pre-Roman Dacia, a number of 118 cart parts were discovered in various settlements, for-
tresses or funerary contexts. Even though most cart parts are made of organic materials (wood,
leather etc.) that cannot be archaeologically identified, the find of cart metal parts in only a few
settlements or fortresses does not accurately illustrate the extensive use of this vehicle type in trad-
ing activities. Nevertheless, the presence of a large number of artefacts imported from the Greco-
Roman world, the transport from considerable distances of the building materials used in the con-
struction of the Șureanu Mountains fortifications, the widespread economic activity recorded by the
numerous metal deposits evidence the far-reaching circulation of commodities, whilst for transport
on land, vehicles had to be used. Conveyance on trading routes could neither occur only by water-
ways nor the exclusive use of beasts of burden or sleigh, therefore the explanation for the few found
items must lie somewhere else. The difficulty to recognize such pieces given by their preservation
state, yet also the lack of archaeological contexts providing the opportunity to reconstruct a Dacian
cart, underlie the erroneous identification of a series of cart parts, while other remain still unpub-
lished. Except for mound II in the tumular necropolis of Cugir, still not fully published, in no other
archaeological context were found all metal parts of a cart. Thus, the image of the cart in the Dacian
period is still prejudiced, while the functionality and accurate positioning of cart metal pieces dis-
covered in the area inhabited by the Dacians, in various archaeological features, may be established
only through parallels with contemporary finds from other areas, where the archaeological features
yielding such items are more complete.

4.1.1. Terminology
Owing to inconsistent research and limited concern with regards to cart parts, it is difficult to
determine certain metal constituents of these conveyance vehicles, understanding the design prin-
ciples and reconstruction possibilities of the ancient carts being extremely difficult, many of such
restorations being merely hypothetical. Similarly difficult is the terminology used to denominate
cart parts85. In order to understand the functionality of the cart parts discovered in the Dacian
85
Hanemann 2014, p. 241.
40 Cristian Dima

environment and their correlation with comparable finds from other more or less contemporary
geographical areas, it is necessary to discuss certain terminological aspects. If for German86 and
French87 archaeological literature, certain terms have been generally well defined in several spe-
cialty works, in the case of the Romanian terms there are still certain hindrances. In order to des-
ignate certain cart elements discovered in the archaeological sites, the academic literature makes
used of either archaic terms of the ethnographic folklore or modern terms borrowed from modern
motorised vehicles. Thus, for each discussed term there shall be used, for better understanding, the
English version and, in brackets, in the same order, the German, Romanian and French versions.

a. Wheel
For the Dacian period, most metal constituents of a cart are the elements composing the cart
wheel, to which adds a series of yoke pieces. The cart wheel comprises several elements, of which
some are made of metal, while other only in wood (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The parts of a cart wheel (Ignatov 2018)

Metal Tyre (Radreifen / Raful de roată / Bandage de roue) in modern terms, it represents the
wheel tyre cover and is aimed to protect the wooden wheel against soil interaction.
Felloe (Felge / Obadă / Jante) – according to modern terms, it represents the wheel rim, com-
monly comprising five wooden circular arcs that together form the circular wheel frame.
Spoke (Speiche / Spiţă / Rayon) –in present terms, it represents the bar-shaped wooden ele-
ments which connect the wheel nave to its felloes.
Nave, Hub (Nabe / Butuc / Moyeu) – it is the central wheel part in which the cart axle is fixed.
Nave band, nave hoop (Nabenring / Inel de butuc / Frette de moyeu) – These are circular, wide
metal pieces set on either sides of the wheel nave. Their role is to reinforce the hub, and if the latter
is made of two parts, to hold these together.
86
Ginzrot 1917; Röring 1983, p. 4; Visy 1993, 320–327; Schönfelder 2000, p. 125, 422; Hanneman 2014, p. 245- 271.
87
Verger, Thouvenot 2009, p. 375–392.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 41

Nave lining (Stockring, Nabenbüchse / Bucşă de butuc / Boite à moyeu) – These are circular,
soldered metal pieces occasionally provided with a perforation or projections attached to the wheel
nave. Their role is to protect and reinforce the nave interior, while their diameter mirrors the axle
diameter onto which they are occasionally riveted.
Felloe clamp (Felgenklammer / Clemă de obadă / Agrafe de jante) – It represents the metal ele-
ments for reinforcing wheel felloe joints, being provided with perforations for their attachment to
the wheel wood.
Linchpin (Achsnägel / Cuiele de ax / Clavette d’essieu, esse) are aimed to prevent the wheel to
detach from the axle. These are fixed into a perforation made by the axle extremity, by its exit from
the wheel nave.

Fig. 2. Cart parts (Visy 1993) (ger./eng.)

b. Cart parts
The front pivot – It is a cart element composed of several parts which ensures the joint between
the draught pole and hound. There is no suitable term in the international languages to denominate
the whole item, only its constituents. Thus, the front pivot consists of two tangarms (Scherarme,
Zugarm /“braţe de tracţiune”/ Bars de traction) attached in the front via a ring or pole pin
(Deichelnagel / “bolţ” / Goupille de timon) to the draught pole. These two tangarms are each com-
posed of two elements, an arched arm that starts from draught pole and is connected to a straight
arm that passes above the axle, fixed in certain cases to the latter through a two-headed attachment
rivet. All these four elements are joined together through a pole axle (Schwenkachse der Deichsel,
Deichselscharnier / Bolţul / Pivotul braţului de tracţiune / Charnière de timon). Other two skamels
(Schemel, Tragbrett / Bare de lemn / Claie) are attached above the arms for reinforcement and onto
which the cart box is affixed. Another set of arms similar to the tangarms as well as the skamel onto
which the cart box is attached, join at the back side of the cart, above the back axle, attached to the
cart hound via a two-headed attachment rivet (Fig. 2, 4).
42 Cristian Dima

Fig. 3. Metal cart parts (Ignatov 2018)

Wagon-box (Wagenkasten / Lada Carului, loitră / Caisse) –in modern terms, it is the cart body,
which receives the load to be carried (Fig. 2, 4).
Hound (Langfuhr / Dric, Șasiu, Inima Carului / Longe) – it represents the wooden bar, com-
monly reinforced with iron elements and which supports the cart box and its load. The hound is
assembled on the cart axles and is connected to the front pivot and draught pole through a king pin.
On the cart back side is assembled another king pin, which attaches the cart box to the hound and
the back axle (Fig. 2, 4).
Draught-pole (Deichsel / Oişte, Proţap / Timon) – it is a wooden bar connected to the cart
hound via the front pivot, being attached to the yoke on the other end and through which the cart
is pulled. Beasts of burden are yoked to its two sides (Fig. 2, 4).
Axle (Achse / Osie, Ax / Essieu) – this is a wooden bar onto which are attached the cart wheels
and which is occasionally reinforced with metal pieces (Fig. 3).
King pin (Reibnagel, Bolzen mit Rundkopf / Bolţ, pivot / Tige de pivot) – it is a massive iron bar,
with rounded, bulging head, provided in the lower part with a circular orifice for the attachment
and block of the piece under the axle. Its role was to assemble and connect the cart box to the front
pivot and wheel axle. Another function is that of joining the tangarms of the front pivot – pole axle
(Schwenkachse der Deichsel, Deichselscharnier / Bolţul / Pivotul braţului de tracţiune / Charnière
de timon). Such smaller pole pins connected in certain cases the front pivot to the draught pole
(Deichelnagel / Pole pin / Goupille de timon). Still under this name is referenced a series of cart
pieces of various sizes, whose function could be multiple. Some could be used with the same func-
tion of a rounded head king pin, either connecting the cart box to the hound and axle or the front
pivot to the draught pole. Furthermore, such a king pin could be used for the yoke as well, in order
to fasten its side parts in the event that oxen were yoked (Fig. 3, 4).
Two-headed attachment rivet – it is a type of piece used to attach several cart components. The
tangarms could be fixed to the axle or hound via such items (Fig. 3).
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 43

Fig. 4. Cart reconstruction (Ignatov 2018)

c. Yoke pieces
An often found yoke piece in La Tène date archaeological contexts, the Dacian area included,
serves to distribute the reins from the horse bit to the charioteer hands. This artifact is known in the
Romanian specialty literature as “inel de jug” (yoke ring), most likely originating from the French
anneau de joug. In the German literature, several terms were used for this piece type, like rein ring
(Zügelring) or harness ring (Zügelführungsring)88, whilst certain authors believe more suitable only
the term of guide ring (Führungsring)89. Since these items were intended to spread the reins on
either side of the horse bit and the reins were used to guide the horse, the terms of yoke ring, harness
ring or guide ring do not seem the most appropriate. This yoke piece has several components, the
guide ring being only one of these, therefore the most suitable term for designating this item type
would rather be that of terret.
Rein-rings, terrets (Führungsring, Jochaufsatze mit Zügelführungsring, Zügelringe /
Distribuitoarele de frâu / Anneau de joug) are composed of four elements (Fig. 5), present in the
88
Hanneman 2014, p. 307.
89
Schönfelder 2000, p. 245.
44 Cristian Dima

majority of the items. The oval or circular ring through which the reins pass from the horse bit
to the cart driver is in fact the item’s guide ring (Führungsring). It is attached to the yoke through
a rectangular fixing plate (Bügelplatte), curved semicircularly, usually decorated with triangles or
rhombuses. Underneath this plate there is a mounting bracket or fixing clamp (Befestigungsbügel),
semicircular, attached to the plate, which serves to fix to the yoke via a notched groove made into
it, and then most likely bound with a string. This attachment type gives the terret certain flexibility
against sudden handling of the reins and subsequent damage to the wooden yoke. The fourth terret
element is represented by a collar piece (Kragenstück) through which the guide ring is connected to
the strap plate on the yoke (Fig. 5).
Another yoke piece present in a few archaeological finds, not many, was likely attached to the
yoke however, its functionality is unknown, being believed to serve decorative purposes. Items
known in the Celtic area do not seem to preserve all components, nevertheless, the four exemplars
discovered in the fortified settlement of Brad complete the picture of this type pieces. Since its
accurate function is unknown, the most appropriate denomination terminologically is that of yoke
attachments (Jochaufsätze / ataş de jug / Attaches de joug). It is composed of three main elements.
The upper part is represented by a pine cone shaped knob decorated with two or three mouldings. It
is attached to an elongated horseshoe shaped semicircular strip fixed to the wooden yoke similarly
to the terret strap plate. These two elements are generally bronze made. A third element is made in
iron and is represented by a bar set on the internal arch of the semicircular strip, having a circular
ring by the end.

Fig. 5. Terret parts

4.1.2. Wheel parts

As shown in the terminology subchapter, the wheel of a cart comprises several elements, while
the number of wheels in a cart (two or four) would justify the presence of a higher number of
wheel parts within archaeological contexts. Furthermore, the components of a wheel are more eas-
ily recognisable compared to other cart parts, as they have a clear morphology easy to set apart.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 45

Nonetheless, their number is still small in the Dacian environment, although by contrast with the
other finds from the Dacian setting these are prevalent.

a. Nave hops
Iron-made nave bands were discovered in the Dacian area in few numbers at Grădiştea de
Munte – Feţele Albe90 (Cat. 62) and Sarmizegetusa Regia91 (Cat. 89, 90), while bronze nave bands
were found at Costeşti – Cetăţuie92 (Cat.16, 17, 18) and the mound necropolis of Cugir93 (Cat. 47,
48, 49, 50, 51).
Nave bands were not yet identified in the case of solid wheels, these being specific to spoke
wheels. These were made either in iron or bronze and set in pairs on either side of the wheel nave.
During the La Tène period, iron made nave bands usually had a simple form, few being decorated
with ribs, being present in many of the finds dated to above mentioned period. Nave bands were
generally directly assembled on the nave by hot forging and not riveted, overlapping and forged
areas being occasionally visible94. Two of the exemplars known in the Dacian environment are made
in the same manner (Cat. 62, 89), while the third is different from the examples known in the
Second Iron Age, the hoop not being soldered but attached by the outsplayed ends through a rivet
whose perforation is still visible (Cat. 90).

Fig. 6. Graphic reproduction of the burial feature from mound no. 2 at Cugir (Popa 2011, Pl. 158/8).

90
https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/356/ro
91
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig.74/4; https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/211/ro
92
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 192/1–3.
93
Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333, pl. 152/2; Teleagă 2014, p. 305–311; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.
94
Schönfelder 2000, p. 168.
46 Cristian Dima

Compared to the nave hoops of burial carts specific to the early Iron Age, which were lavishly
decorated, in the La Tène period the number of nave hoops decorated with ribs is relatively small.
Nave hoops exhibiting two or three decorative ribs are made of bronze, although there are few
exceptions made in iron. Bronze exemplars are cast though the lost-wax method, while the ribs
were designed to reinforce the nave hoop, some being semicircular in cross-section, while other
triangular. Regardless the material of which these were made or the ribs’ number, their diameters
is relatively uniform with sizes ranging between 10 and 12 cm. The majority of finds of such ribbed
nave bands, bronze-made were discovered in the chariot burials of Kappel (Germany), Kraghede
(Denmark), Langå (Denmark), Dejbjerg (Denmark), Berna (Swtitzerland)95 and Verne (France)96.
Three similar pieces are known in the Cugir cemetery (Cat. 47, 48, 49), whose closest parallels are
found in the chariot burial of Verne. Their number should be higher since these hoops stood in
pairs on a wheel nave, however this is impossible to ascertain for the lack of publication or access
to documentations. Still in the Cugir cemetery were further identified two bronze pieces that could
represent nave hoops or decorative nave caps (Cat. 50, 51), however this sort of items are unknown
for the La Tène date carts, any such interpreting being rather speculative. In the graphic reproduc-
tion of the burial feature97 (Fig. 6) and a photo taken during the excavations98 are still visible two
nave hoops morphologically similar with those discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie. The three bronze
made nave hoops discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuite have no clear parallels in the Celtic world and
at this point in time, other similar are not known in other contemporary cultural areas. The hoops
are circular in shape and have a diameter comparable with those known and presented above, yet
their external part was fastened on the nave.

b. Nave linings
In the area that the Dacians inhabited, pieces of the sort were mainly discovered in the Șureanu
Mountains, at Sarmizegetusa Regia99 (Cat. 65–67), Feţele Albe (Cat. 61) and Costeşti – Cetăţuie100
(Cat. 19–29). In the case of mound II in the barrow cemetery of Cugir, such nave lining were neither
published nor exhibited, however in the specialty literature these are mentioned101. Nevertheless, it
is impossible to say with certainty whether the funerary chariot wheel naves were provided with
such pieces, as they appear to be specific to the Roman imperial period102. It is possible that known
nave hoops had been termed nave lining, although in the drawing of the archaeological feature
there is an item which could be deemed nave lining (Fig. 26).
As previously mentioned, nave linings are not present in the La Tène period of the Central
European space, being believed specific to Roman carts of imperial date, various types being discov-
ered in the provinces of Raetia, Germania, Pannonia and those from the Balkan area103. In Roman
forts of the Augustean period, nave linings do not yet emerge, yet they are found in civil contexts as
the case of the cart discovered in villa Ariadna, burnt in AD 79, among objects being identified both
nave hoops and nave linings104. Nevertheless, some finds from the Alps area evidence their prior
95
Schonfelder 2000, Table 14, p. 175.
96
Perrin, Schönfelder 2003, p. 95–97, fig. 53.
97
Popa 2011, p. 328, pl. 151/8; Popa 2004, p. 163, Pl 12/11(5);Teleagă 2014, p. 306, fig. 3.
98
Popa 2011, fig. 39b/2.
99
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 7–8,10.
100
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 9, 11–12.
101
Popa 2011, p. 326–333, pl. 152/2
102
Visy 1993, p. 263–268; Schönfelder 2000, p. 176.
103
Visy 1993, p. 263–268.
104
Miniero 1987, p. 192, N. 39, fig. 17.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 47

use, during the late La Tène, without yet being able to specify whether the nave linings later diffused
within the empire originated from this area105. Such items were discovered in a house at Wattens –
Himmelreich (Austria)106, a burial at Ciringhelli (Italy)107, to which add a few uncertain finds from
the alpine area in the sites of Sanzeno (Italy), Meran (Italy), Terlan (Italy) and Trentino (Italy)108.
Outside the alpine area, such pieces are rather rare, in the Central European space like oppida type
settlements of Manching or other from Germany or France, these being inexistent. Their role was to
make the cart nave and axle more durable, however it seems that in the La Tène period such tech-
nology was unsuccessful109.
Thus, the lack of such items outside the Șureanu Mountains is not only due to more frequent
archaeological investigations in the two archaeological sites there (Sarmizegetusa Regia and
Costeşti) or inconsistent publishing, as their determination should not pose major difficulties like
in the case of other cart parts, but rather to their developing state in the Dacian environment. Thus,
the pieces discovered in the Dacian milieu could be the result of contacts with the Roman world,
these dating most likely to the 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
Metal made nave linings are aimed to diminish the friction effects between the wooden axle
and the wooden nave, their contact being the most exposed to such processes, to which also adds
the load weight which the wheel and axle bear the most. Consequently, the internal parts of the
wheel nave, on both its sides, were provided with iron hoops so to prevent quick wear-and-tear of
the wheel wood. The majority of nave linings discovered in the Dacian environment were made
of good quality iron, given these are exposed to higher strain. Their majority is made of a circular
strip unsoldered by the ends, while on the opposite side they are provided either with a spike or
perforation. These were pushed and pressed into the nave, the spikes with which some were pro-
vided being designed to attach to the wooden nave. Similarly to the slit between the heads of the
circular strip, this allowed the nave lining to be more easily pressed into the nave hole, so that the
iron strips to press on it. The iron nave linings from the Dacian environment discovered at Costeşti
– Cetăţuie110 (Cat. 22, 23, 25, 27) and Sarmizegetusa111 (Cat. 65, 67) typologically frame in type 1 of
B. Hanneman’s classification112, being made of a circular iron strip, unsoldered by the ends, the only
difference consisting in most, in the circular perforation, likely used for its attachment to the nave.
Z. Visy frames these pieces in type C113, believing that in the case of two of the pieces in the Neupotz
hoard, which he examines, the spike is only suggested114. In another item115 similar with the nave
linings with perforation from the Dacian milieu, it was maintained that for the lack of parallels, the
perforation may result from a broken spike. The presence in the Dacian setting of a number of six
such exemplars evidences a subvariant of these nave linings, the function of the perforation being
that for inserting a rivet by which the item was attached to the nave. Another explanation for the
present perforation in some of the nave linings from the Dacian area would be these were fixed by
a rivet to the cart axle, functioning in pair with a second nave lining attached via the spike to the
105
Schönfelder 2000, p. 176.
106
Schönfelder 2000, p. 176, fig. 4–6.
107
Schönfelder 2000, p. 176, fig. 2–3.
108
Schönfelder 2000, p. 176–177, tab. 15.
109
Schönfelder 2000, p. 176.
110
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 10–12.
111
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 1, 7, 10.
112
Hanneman 2014, p. 257–260.
113
Visy 1993, p. 265.
114
Visy 1993, p. 265, fig. 76, 83.
115
Visy 1993, p. 265, fig. 73.
48 Cristian Dima

wheel nave116. Nevertheless, the use of a pair of nave linings that would scrape one on the other is
less likely, unrecorded for Roman date items. These items are specific to both the La Tène period
and the Roman imperial age.
Two of the items in the Dacian environment discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie117 (Cat. 28) belong
to type 2b – Hanneman, being made of circular strip, unsoldered by the heads and bent outwards,
the role of the bend being still that for its attachment to the wheel nave.
Another type, present to a certain degree in the Dacian area is type 3 according to Hanneman118
and type A after Visy119, representing a common form of the Roman period. This type of piece is
though different from exemplars known in the Dacian environment, being represented by items
made of circular strip, unsoldered by the head, provided with two spikes. Instead, the examples
from the Dacian kingdom discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie120 (Cat. 26) and Grădiştea de Munte
– Sarmizegetusa Regia121 (Cat. 66) present only a spike set at 180 degrees from the sleeve opening,
likely still a subversion of these types.
A special category of nave linings, without known parallels at this point of time, are two nave
linings made in bronze discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie122 (Cat. 19, 20). These most likely come
from a ceremonial or funerary chariot123, their functionality with a transport cart being excluded
owing to the load they were supposed to carry. The presence of bronze cart pieces for burial chariot
wheels (nave linings, nave hoops, linchpin) is well documented in the case of mound II at Cugir124,
yet also by the presence in burial contexts of a nave hoop at Costeşti – Cetăţuie125. Ceremonial wag-
ons are still insufficiently documented for the Dacian period, the single item that might be consid-
ered to belong to such a cart being the linchpin from Costeşti – Blidaru, since a sanctuary126 existed
in the area. Nevertheless, the find context is not very clear and further suppositions regarding the
cart type cannot be made.

c. Felloe clamps
A few items that could be morphologically framed to the class of felloe clamps were identified
in the Dacian environment, being difficult to determine, many of the similar items being used as fit-
tings to support and reinforce wooden gate posts. Two such items were catalogued as cart pieces127,
both discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie (Cat. 38, 39), however for the lack of the find context and
slightly different morphology compared to known felloe clamps, these could in fact be building ele-
ments only (Fig. 7).
Their number in the Celtic environment is relatively small, believed to represent only additional
elements, without being a generalised type, since the pressure of the wooden felloes was enough
to ensure that the wheel did to detach128. Thus, the question arises whether their function was no
116
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 128, fig. 74/11–12.
117
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/12.
118
Hanneman 2014, p. 257–260.
119
Visy 1993, p. 264–265.
120
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 11.
121
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/ 8.
122
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 192/1–2.
123
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181.
124
Popa 2004, p. 100, pl. 12/4–5; Popa 2011, p. 326, pl. 151/4, 152/2, 5.
125
Glodariu et alii 1998a, p. 50; Glodariu et alii 1999, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208,
fig. 192/3.
126
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 158; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232.
127
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 128, fig. 74/2,5.
128
Schönfelder 2000, p. 165.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 49

other than to fix the felloes, namely that of balancing the wheels, similarly to today’s lead clamps.
The exemplars in the Celtic environment were framed into two types, type Stradonice and type
Husby129. The clamps in the Dacian setting frame to the first type, even though compared to those in
the Celtic environment, these have two perforations at each of the ends. The clamps framed to type
Stradonice were discovered in small numbers at Dejbjerg and Stradonice, both being bronze made,
to which adds an iron piece found at Arnót (Hungary), dated to La Tène C2.

Fig. 7. Felloe clamps, Costeşti – Cetăţuie (Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979).

d. Metal Tyres
Wheel metal tyres were discovered in the Dacian environment at Grădiştea de Munte –
Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 91–100, fig. 8)130, in the area of the western civil quarters on the so-called
“terrace with circles” and mound II in the barrow cemetery of Cugir (Cat. 53–56)131. In general, Iron
Age cart wheels were not provided with such elements for wood protection, finds being rare also
in the Celtic environment. Such items are much more often found in the Roman world, once with
the emergence and development of infrastructure and stone roads. Identification of a mica schist
road in the “Western quarters” at Sarmizegetusa Regia, which leads to the Western Gate of the forti-
fied enclosure from where it runs further with the road built of limestone slabs to the “Square” in
the sacred area132, seems connected with the finds from the “terrace with circles”. The wheel tyres
discovered at Sarmizegetusa Regia were not yet published with all find details, being the object of
a forthcoming study133. The diameter of these tyres is approximately 1 meter, while their thickness
is of 3 cm. The strips are provided with six perforations for their attachment to the wooden wheel
felloes, these being important elements in determining the pieces as wheel tyres134.

129
Schönfelder 2000, p. 165, fig. 126, Tab. 13.
130
Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66.
131
Popa 2004, pl. 12/4; Popa 2011, pl. 151/4.
132
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 33; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 33.
133
Inf. R. Mateescu
134
The drawing of a wheel tyre discovered at Grădiştea Muncelului was made available to me by colleague Dr. Răzvan
Mateescu.
50 Cristian Dima

For the late period of the La Tène, identifi-

cation of similar items remains unclear owing
to the lack of knowledge of the find context
or association with other cart pieces, some
being also framed as barrel rings. Thus, it was
shown in the case of two exemplars identified
at Manching as wheel tyres that the presence
of only two attachment perforations is insuf-
ficient for their fixing into wheel felloes, these
being determined as rings for wooden bar-
rels135. Wheel tyres, in a more or less fragmen-
tary state were discovered at Lozna (Romania)
dated to La Tène C136, Heidelberg (Germany)137,
Ebihens (France)138, Gründberg (Austria)139
dated to La Tène C-D, Kappel (Germany)140
and Körner (Germany)141 to La Tène C-D.
For many of these, the diameter could not be
Fig. 8. Raf roată, Grădiştea Muncelului, identified, while in those identified, it ranges
Sarmizegetusa Regia (D. Bulzan) between 88 and 92 cm.
Wheel tyres found in the Cugir cemetery
(Cat. 53–56), in mound 2, are 1 meter in diameter, however they are morphologically different from
both those discovered at Grădiştea de Munte and the majority of this type of pieces yielded in the
Celtic environment. The tyre edges are twisted outwards, thus forming a groove midway, which is
most often found in exemplars of the early La Tène142.

e. Wheel fitting
A particular type of cart items was discovered at Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia
(Fig. 9), in the blacksmith workshop on Căprăreaţa point(Cat. 73, 76, 79, 82)143. These are made of a
conical tube attached to a round plate by the larger diameter extremity, while on the other extrem-
ity, another circular plate was fixed on the tube in the same way as a fastening washer does. Both
plates were provided with attachment orifices by which they were pinned to the cart wheel, some
still surviving. The piece tube somewhat plays the role of nave lining, minimizing axle and wheel
nave wood wear-and-tear, while the circular plates were intended to be affixed to the wheel alike the
nave hoops. A similar item was seemingly found on terrace IV at Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 72), in
secondary location, preserving only the tube and plate it was attached to144. In the deposits of the
Cluj-Napoca-based museum were identified other 12 fragments (Cat. 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84
135
Scönfelder 2000, p. 160.
136
Teodor 1980, p. 139, fig, 10/3, 5, 6;Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
137
Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
138
Langouet, Bucur 1989, p. 131; Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
139
Urban, Ruprechtsberger 1997, p. 34–36; Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
140
Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
141
Goetze 1900, fig. 7; Schönfelder 2000, p. 154, Tab. 9.
142
Schönfelder 2000, p. 160.
143
Glodariu 1975b, p. 112, 117–118, Fig. 13/1–4; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127 – fig. 74/6, 13–15; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 180, fig. 193/5–8; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66, fig. 15.
144
Beceanu 2003, p. 131–135, photo 5; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 51

–88) of at least two such fittings. These were not published, with one exception145, a fragmentary
piece. They were discovered on terrace VIII, in the area of the blacksmith shop, according to the
information from the inventory register.

Fig. 9. Wheel fittings, Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, Căprăreaţa (Gheorghiu 2005)

For this type of pieces, parallels in other contemporary civilisations or chronological intervals
are unknown, the term used for denomination being wheel fitting146. It was believed these were
fitted to the wheel wooden nave, wheels being provided with spokes147. Based on morphology and
used material, it may be argued that such wheel reinforcement was necessary in order to build a
vehicle able to carry a much greater load than common carts. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that
the piece was fitted on solid wheels as well, which would also provide the opportunity to support
greater loads. Evidently, the use of solid wheel carts in the Dacian environment is not recorded by
other finds or iconographic depictions that render the Dacian carts (Trajan’s Column, the Tropaeum
Traiani). Nevertheless, in the case of another triumphal monument built at a later date, namely
Hadrian’s Column, such solid wheel carts, which might have belonged to the Marcomanni, are rep-
resented carrying considerable loads148. Transportation of iron blooms from the mining location,
occurring either from the Bătrâna Mountain area, the Șteaua Mare Mountain, the Negru Hill or
from farther regions, supposed conveyance vehicles able to carry such a load, hence the presence of
such solid wheel carts cannot be excluded.

f. Linchpin
Linchpins from the Dacian environment are few in archaeological finds, representing a type of
piece rather difficult to identify for the lack of accurate archaeological contexts, so many of these
145
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/1.
146
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127–128; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66.
147
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127–128.
148
See chapter 5.1.1.
52 Cristian Dima

were possibly not yet determined, most being yielded by older finds. In fact, linchpins are rarely
mentioned in the specialty literature from Romania, not only for the period of the second Iron
Age, but for other periods as well. Thus, for the early and middle La Tène, in the Carpathian area
are known a few chariot burials whose furnishing also contained linchpins. The grave goods of
the Celtic burial at Toarcla (Braşov county)149 included a two-wheeled cart, among its constitu-
ent parts also counting two linchpins of the type with rectangular head and curved pin dated to
La Tène B – La Tène C. In a grave from the Fântânele-Dâmbu Popi cemetery (Bistriţa-Năsăud
county)150 was found a linchpin which seems to be a pars pro toto deposition or in connection
with other rituals, of the type with half-moon head and curved pin dated starting with La Tène
C1 until La Tène D1151.
For the late La Tène, the development period of the Dacian civilisation, the linchpins known in
the specialty literature come from mound II in the Cugir cemetery (Cat. 52)152 and the area of the
Dacian fortress at Costeşti – Blidaru (Cat. 14), nearby the temples of “Pietrele lui Solomon”153. Other
few published exemplars could be determined as representing such linchpins, provided that the find
context is unknown and identification relied only on the item’s morphology as it results from the
published drawings.
The linchpin from mound II in the Cugir cemetery (Cat. 52) belongs to the funerary chariot
on which the deceased was cremated. Its photo was published154 without further details and, from
the existing bibliography it is not known whether all 4 linchpins survived. It is one of the few
grave goods published and exhibited, however most likely, the other linchpins of the remaining
wheels were within the grave. The piece, bronze made, is composed of a ca. 1 cm wide bar, which
divides into two parts in the upper part and forms a double loop. At their fastening point the item
is provided with a safety knob for its attachment to the axle. It was typologically framed in the
type of linchpins with glasses-shaped head and straight pin155, specific to the central and eastern
Celtic area. Commonly, such linchpins were iron made, however, rarely, these were also made of
bronze. This group of glasses-shaped head and straight pin linchpins made in bronze were used
for four-wheeled ceremonial wagons156 as confirmed by the wagon of Cugir, however grave 23
in the Hoppstädten-Weiersbach cemetery evidences the general use of the bronze linchpins157.
Linchpins of the bronze made type were also discovered at Třisov158 (the Czech Republic), Kolin159
(the Czech Republic), Dejbjerg160 (Denmark), Manching161 (Germany), while an iron-made pair
at Belgrad-Karaburma162 (Serbia), Stradonice (the Check Republic)163, Mont Beuvary – Bibracte164
149
Horedt 1945, p. 189–194, fig. 1–3.
150
Rustoiu 2015a, p. 73, fig. 3/3, 5/1.
151
Scönfelder 2000, p. 196, fig. 143–144, Tab. 23; Rustoiu 2015a, p. 73, fig. 3/3, 5/1.
152
Popa 2004, pl. 12/4; Popa 2011, pl. 151/4.
153
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 48; Glodariu 1974a, p. 243, no. 3, pl. XXXIV/a3; Rustoiu 1996a, 158–159, fig. 99/3;
Florea 1998, p. 212, pl. 83; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 4/3; p. 216–217, fig. 239.
154
Popa 2004, pl. 12/4; Popa 2011, pl. 151/4.
155
Schönfelder 2002, p. 189, fig. 138, 139, 141, Tab. 20, 21.
156
Jacobi 1974, p. 218; Schönfelder 2002, p. 189.
157
Schönfelder 2002, p. 189.
158
Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
159
Rybová, Motyková 1983, fig. 12,3; Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
160
Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
161
Jacobi 1974, fig. 56, nr. 853; Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
162
Guštin 1984, p. 127, fig. 5/12.
163
Píč 1906, fig. 38, 45; Schönfelder 2002, p.194, Tab. 21.
164
Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 53

(France), Staré Hradisko165 (the Czech Republic) and Manching, the majority being chronologi-
cally framed in the La Tène D.
One of the exceptional pieces known in the Dacian environment is represented by a linchpin
discovered at Costeşti – Blidaru (Cat. 14)166. It is made of an iron rod and a statuette depicting
a massive silver feline affixed to the rod tip, its features being indicative of either a Roman or
East Hellenistic origin167. Closest parallels for this type of piece come from the Manching settle-
ment168, these being framed in the type of linchpins with decorated head169, in which also frame
a series of pieces discovered at Donnersberg170 (Germany), Basel171 (Switzerland), Berching172
(Germany), Stradonice (Czech republic), Urach173 (Germany), Verne, Mouliets-et-Villemartin174
(France), Rhein bei Mainz175 (Germany), Hannogne-Saint-Remy and Amplepuis176 (France).
Without exception, their ornaments were made in bronze, while the rod is in iron, while in none
of the cases one may speak of a uniform type, the decoration representing forms of individual
creativity, and not one was identical to the other. For instance, in the case of the linchpins from
Manching, the decorative birds are made differently. The linchpin of Costeşti – Blidaru is an indi-
vidual design too, the piece being special not only by its unique character, but also by the fact that
by contrast to linchpins with decorated heads from the Celtic environment, its ornament is silver
made. Exemplars of the type found in the Celtic setting were chronologically framed starting with
La Tène C until La Tène D.
A few iron objects known in the Dacian environment could morphologically represent linchpins.
One comes from Costeşti – Cetăţuie (Cat. 15) and beside other pieces it was determined as locker,
since many were discovered nearby house doorways177. The head of the piece is semicircular extend-
ing with a pin which seems broken by the end. The semicircular head is provided midway with a
projection, a knob, which might have fitted the piece to the cart axle. This item, if indeed a linchpin,
could be framed into a common linchpin type, namely that with semicircular head and straight
pin178 from the typology suggested by M. Schönfelder and type 2 in that of B. Hanneman179. Such
common exemplars were discovered in both the Celtic environment, at Manching180 (Germany),
Lattes181 (France), Staffelberg (Germany), Linz (Austria)182 and that Roman, one identical being
found at Augsburg-Oberhausen (Germany)183.

165
Meduna 1961, Taf. 38, 1. 5; Schönfelder 2002, p.194, tab. 21.
166
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 48; Glodariu 1974, p. 243, no. 3, pl. XXXIV/a3; Rustoiu 1996, 158–159, fig. 99/3; Florea
1998, p. 212, pl. 83; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 4/3; p. 216–217, fig. 239.
167
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232.
168
van Endert 1991, p. 52–53; Schönfelder 2000, p. 200. fig. 147/1–2; Rustoiu, Ferencz, p. 232, fig. 4/1–2.
169
Schönfelder 2000, p. 200. fig. 147–148, Tab. 26.
170
Polenz 1974, p. 386–340; Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
171
Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, tab. 26.
172
Fischer, Rieckhoff-Pauli, Spindler 1984, fig. 18,6; Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
173
Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
174
Sireix 1984, fig. 66; Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
175
Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
176
Schönfelder 2000, p. 202, Tab. 26.
177
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 114–115, fig. 59/18.
178
Schönfelder 2000, p. 200, fig. 145, Tab. 24.
179
Hanneman 2014, p. 263–264, fig. 222.
180
Schönfelder 2000, p. 198, Tab. 24.
181
Feugère 1990, fig. 197, no. 164; Schönfelder 2000, p. 198, Tab. 24.
182
Schönfelder 2000, p. 198, Tab. 24.
183
Hanneman 2014, p. 263, fig. 222/7.
54 Cristian Dima

Another exemplar, which originally could not be determined, was likely discovered within the
territory of Măgura (Bacău county) (Cat. 112)184. It does not belong to the area discussed here,
however in its case, it is possible to make certain mentions and ascribe the artefact to cart pieces,
namely to linchpins. It is composed of an ellipsoid head elongating into the axle attachment pin,
which is curved. From the head of the piece starts a hook which twists further to the lower end of
the ellipsoid head and preserves two links of a fitting chain. The exemplar could be framed in type
2 in Hanneman’s typology185, with the note that items framed in this type have straight pins, while
that of Măgura is curved. Similar to the previously described example and bearing the same func-
tionality could also be two objects discovered at Grădiştea de Munte186, however it is impossible to
say with certainty these are linchpins as well.

4.1.3. Cart components

It is rather difficult to recognize cart components, namely body or hound parts in archaeological
finds, while for the lack of secure archaeological contexts some may also be ascribed other func-
tions despite obvious resemblances. Nevertheless, a few were determined based on parallels from
archaeological contexts which preserved all metal elements.
Some of the cart components are designed to connect its various elements. As explained in the
terminology subchapter, these bear the name of kingpins. During the first Iron Age, this piece type
was always made of wood for four-wheeled carts. In the La Tène period too, the kingpin was most
likely made still of wood in most carts, as suggested by the wagons at Dejbjerg, Boé and Husby,
from where such iron-made pieces are missing187. In the intra-Carpathian area inhabited by the
Dacians a few such kingpins were identified, however it is impossible to say that all were or were
not car parts. Thus, items in this class most definitely determined as cart pieces may be divided into
two larger types. In type 1 are framed iron kingpins with bulging head, provided by one extremity
with a circular perforation, while in type 2 frame kingpins with “T”-shaped head and a rectangular
orifice in the lower part.
In the workshop identified on terrace VIII from Sarmizegetusa Regia, among the numerous
deposited iron objects were found two such iron kingpins with bulging head – type 1 (Cat. 63,
64). The single clearly La Tène date kingpin identified comes from the funerary feature of Verne
(France)188. A kingpin similar with that of Verne was discovered in the site of Manching189, how-
ever it has no certain date, while another, from the oppida type settlement of Étival-Clairefontaine
(France)190 dated to the first layer (50 BC – AD 15), is most likely Roman in origin. Other exem-
plars come from the provinces of the Roman empire, many being discovered in military forts191.
Still in Roman environment, such pieces were identified in a cart from the villa Arianna in Stabia
(Italy)192, kingpins being identical with those identified at Grădiştea de Munte. Their presence in the
workshop on terrace VIII is rather suggestive of Roman influences, as these cart pieces might have
reached the area subsequent to trade relations, being possibly either parts of a conveyance vehicle
184
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 117, fig. 59/8.
185
Hanneman 2014, p. 263–264, fig. 222.
186
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/5,7.
187
Schönfelder 2000, p. 229.
188
Schönfelder 2000, p. 229–230, fig. 165/1; Perrin, Schönfelder 2003, p. 185, fig. 61.
189
Jacobi 1974, pl. 72/1356; Schönfelder 2000, p. 229–230, fig. 165/2.
190
Schönfelder 2000, p. 229–230, fig. 165/3.
191
Schönfelder 2000, p. 230.
192
Miniero 1987, p. 183–185, N. 11, 18, fig. 11, 14.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 55

designed for transporting commodities throughout the empire or the production of artisans who
arrived and settled in Sarmizegetusa Regia from the Roman empire.
The same function of connecting various cart parts seem to have had the “T”-shaped head
kingpins, type 2, discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie (Cat. 32) and Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 69 –71).
They are slightly different from aforementioned kingpins, since instead of a bulging head, they are
provided with a “T”-shaped head. For these too, parallels are found still in the Roman world, cor-
responding exemplars being identified in the deposit in Rin river, at Neupotz193.
Various iron constituent parts are related either with hound fittings (Langfurhbeschlag / dric
/ Eléments de longe) or the upper cart side, the box. Owing to the morphological differentiations
between these piece types, beside functional some being also decorative, few in fact from the Dacian
environment, it is impossible to say with certainty where they were set and how did they function,
however resemblances with exemplars discovered in more secure contexts documenting several
cart pieces, lead to their determining as having belonged to such vehicles. Five comparable pieces194
(Cat. 30, 31, 37, 68, 104) were determined most likely to pertain to the hound, fitted to other cart
elements via kingpins or rivets.
A series of attachment rivets of the various cart elements were discovered at Grădiştea de Munte,
Costeşti – Cetăţuie or Băniţa195 (Cat. 2, 3, 36, 45, 101, 102, 103). Their presence within the same con-
texts beside wheel fittings196, compared to a series of parallels197 in vehicles that used such rivets to
affix the tangarms of the front pivot to its other components or of the similar shape arms connected
at the back of the cart by the hound198, lead to the identification of other such rivets in the Dacian
environment. These were also found at Manching199 or together with other cart parts at Berna/
Tiefenau (Switzerland), La Tène (Switzerland), Heimbach-Weis (Germany) or Plaidt (Germany)200.
A few items known in the Dacian environment, yet whose functionality could not be clearly
defined, might belong to certain decorative or functional elements of the cart box. In the chariot
burial of Bóe (France) were identified several decorative elements of the cart body, among which
also a series of bronze tubes and iron rods, some with decorative purposes and found only in four-
wheeled wagons201. Their morphology and sizes seem to evidence similarities with some of the tubes
discovered in the Dacian environment. Two such tubes were found in the fortifications of Tilişca202
(Cat. 115) and Luncani-Piatra Roşie203 (Cat. 109). The two items are bronze cast by the lost-wax
technique and have four, respectively six groups of two mouldings, both being fragmentary. Another
similar example was discovered at Bucharest and interpreted as a domestic use object204. Suggested
parallels for these two items include an iron tube from Sighişoara (Mureş countr)205, however its
morphology is different and its role cannot be determined. Neither the tube of Piatra Craivii206
193
Visy 1993, p 282, F138
194
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/19,22,24.
195
Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/6–9
196
Glodariu 1975b, fig. 13/5; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 58/12; Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/6.
197
Ignatov 2018, p. 143, fig. 7/2.8.2.1–4; Kiss 1989, fig. 30.
198
The determing of the piece from the workshop at the archaeological point of interest Căprăreaţa belongs to colleague
R. Mateescu, whom we thank for the information.
199
Jacobi 1974, p. 237, pl. 74/1434–1440.
200
Schönfelder 2000, 226, fig. 163.
201
Schönfelder 2000, p. 135–137, fig. 103–110.
202
Lupu 1989, pl. 23/6; Rustoiu 1996a, fig. 100/12.
203
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 173–174, Pl. III/1.
204
Turcu 1979, p. 203, pl. VIII/4.
205
Rustoiu 1996a, fig. 100/10.
206
Glodariu 1974a, pl. XLVII/B11/ţ.
56 Cristian Dima

exhibits the same features and cannot be deemed as a parallel piece, as stated elsewhere207. These
were interpreted either as objects with household functions208 or as dagger handles209, nevertheless
none of these interpretations is certain. Among parallels may count both the exemplars identified
in the Roman date chariot burial of Kozármisleny (Hungary)210, where two such items, bronze cast,
14.8 cm high, were designed to support and encase the metal elements of the cart body211 and those
with similar function from Polhov Gradec (Slovenia)212. For the lack of secure find contexts, the
examples of Luncani – Piatra Roşie and Tilişca remain uncertain, however it must be mentioned
that the tube of Piatra Roşie was discovered subsequent to illegal detecting beside objects indicative
of grave furnishings. Amongst, count a terret (Cat. 106) and an iron rod wound into a bronze spring
which could be interpreted still as cart piece (Cat. 108). The latter might have belonged to the cart
box rig or its hound. A similar piece was discovered in the fortress of Craiva (Cat. 46), however it
lacks the iron rod.
In both Greco-Roman and Thracian world finds, certain bronze reliefs or plaques with vari-
ous depictions were affixed to ceremonial chariots. In the Dacian environment, such an example,
believed to have been attached to a wooden, bronze or iron support, is the female anthropomorphic
depiction found in tower B at Lunicani – Piatra Roşie (Cat. 111). Its association with other cart
elements could suggest it was a cart piece, similar to those discovered for instance at Kozármisleny
(Hungart)213 or in the Roman date Thracian burials from Bulgaria at Chatal Tepe, Pastuscha,
Karanovo214. A bronze relief with the depiction of Dionysus discovered on the terraces of the fortifi-
cation at Luncani – Piatra Roşie, in a lot recovered from treasure hunters and associated with other
cart pieces, could also represent a decoration element of a burial chariot215.

4.1.4. Yoke fittings

During the Late Iron Age, draft animals, both oxen and horses, mules or donkeys, were har-
nessed on the transport vehicle by a double yoke that transmitted the traction power to the wagon
through which it was fastened. Only for the Roman period there is an evidence for the use of only
one horse that was harnessed to the wagon by a simple yoke and a pair of rods, while the horse
harnesses without yoke appeared in the Middle Ages. In European Late Iron Age several wooden
double yokes have been discovered in Kt. Neuchâtel (Switzerland), Ezinge (Netherlands), Uterlübbe
(Linde Minden, Germany), Bredmose of Lundgaardshede (Denmark), Kelheim (Germany), plus
some with uncertain dating.216 Same type of yoke must have been used as well in Dacian milieu
taken into consideration the similarities of metal yoke fittings with Central European space. The
power of draft animal is transmitted from the yoke to the draught-pole, while with the help of some
terrets fixed on the yoke, the reins gets from the bridle of the horse to the charioteer’s hands. As a
rule, during the La Tène period, these dispensers are bronze casted and are almost exclusively deco-
rated with a specific motif in a rhombic or triangular shape, located on the mounting side of the

207
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 173.
208
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 163.
209
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 173.
210
Kiss 1989, fig. 36/2, pl. 19.
211
Kiss 1989, fig. 46, pl. 10.
212
Božič 2005, fig. 13/5.
213
Kiss 1989, fig. 25, pl. 13–14.
214
Cholakov 2004, p. 105–116.
215
Egri, Ferencz 2017.
216
Schönfelder 2000, p. 241–242.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 57

piece on the yoke. These were made of bronze and decorated because they are visible pieces, which
have not only a functional role but also an ornamental one.217 These bronze casted terrets, of differ-
ent types, are numerous in the Celtic and Thracian milieu as well, but also in the Roman world.218
Within the intra-Carpathian space several yoke pieces were discovered by chance or in archaeo-
logical contexts and were dated between the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. Most of them
were typologically classified219 according to the two major types established by M. Menke.220 This
simple division was based on a first type (A), in which pieces with a rectangular, semi-circular and
oval shaped part were included, and a second type (B) which differs from the first type through the
larger ring and by ornamentation. In both the Central European and the Carpathian Basins, the
typology proposed by M. Menke in 1968 seems to be insufficient, the differences in the same type
being obvious, and resulting in a number of subdivisions made by some researchers. For the typo-
logical framing of Dacian spaces, some authors considered whole series as sub-variants of the two
types.221 More recently, several yoke fittings belonging to the La Tène period were reclassified by M.
Schönfelder in a more detailed typology, defining several types that are named after the site where
the type was first discovered.222 As not all of the yoke elements from Dacian milieu are properly
known, several of them were not included in this new typology. This research aims to discuss the
terminology and the typology of the Dacian yoke elements but also to concentrate on the chronol-
ogy and the archaeological context.
A terret discovered in the Dacian fortress from Ardeu (Cat. 1)223 was included in the first
type defined by Menke (Menke A)224 and could be included in the Bechtheim type defined by M.
Schönfelder.225 This terret has a simple guiding ring attached by a narrow collar to the rectangu-
lar and curved semi-circular fixing plate. A similar rein distributor was discovered recently by
treasure hunters coming most likely from the fortress of Luncani-Piatra Roşie226 (Cat. 107) and
could be framed in the same type. This type of artefacts are chronologically framed in La Tène D
and were discovered in the Celtic milieu both in oppida settlements and in funerary contexts at
Bechtheim (Germany),227 Manching (Germany),228 Bratislava/Dévin (Czech Republic),229 Mesnil-
Aubry (France),230 La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Franţa),231 Mels/Castels (Switzerland),232 Oberursel
– Oberstedten/Heidetränke (Germany),233 Púchov (Slovakia),234 Stradonice/Hradištì (Czech

217
Rustoiu 1996, p. 157.
218
Rustoiu 1996, p. 157; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, 231–242; Schönfelder 2000, p. 245–272; Hanemann 2014, p. 307–312;
Ignatov 2018, p. 45–46.
219
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
220
Menke 1968, p. 60–64.
221
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231–233.
222
Schönfelder 2000, p. 241–272.
223
Andriţoiu, Mărghitan 1972, fig. 28; Rustoiu 1996, p. 157, fig. 97/2; Rustoiu, Ferencz, 2002, p. 281, fig. 1/1; Dima 2019,
p. 23, fig. 1/3.
224
Menke 1968, p. 60–64; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
225
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250–251, fig. 175, Tab. 32.
226
Dima 2019, p. 24, fig. 2/2.
227
Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/1
228
Van Endert 1991, p. 67, pl. 18/335–340, p. 344; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/2–11.
229
Pieta 1996, 186, Fig. 3/3; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/12.
230
Guadagnin 1983, p. 202, fig. 6; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/13.
231
Brunaux, Fichtl, Marchand 1990, fig. 15/8–9; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/14–15.
232
Menke 1968, p. 61, fig. 2; Nagy 1996, fig. 1/16. Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/16.
233
Müler-Karpe, Müler-Karpe 1977, p. 47, fig. 3/10; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/17.
234
Pieta 1982, p. 257, fig. 15/15; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/18.
58 Cristian Dima

Republic),235 Wattens/Himmelreich (Austria).236 The terret coming from Ardeu fortress was for-
tunate discovery while the one from Luncani-Piatra Roşie was discovered due to illegal detection
and for none of them can be provided any chronological date, but based on analogies the one from
Ardeu was dated in the 1st century BC.237
A terret kept in the Severeanu collection at MM-Bucureşti coming probably from Grădiştea de
Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 60),238 was framed in Menke type B239 and could be framed in
type Kappel240 from M. Schönfelder typology. This type is defined by the triangles applied on the
collar, one with the tip up towards the guide ring and the other with the point down towards the
fastening plate, forming together a rhombic figure separated by a circular groove on the collar.241
This type of terret have similarities with Estinnes and Grabenstetten type242 in the shape of the guid-
ing ring the main differences consisting in the dimension and the way in which the fixing plate was
realised.
The difference from Bechtheim guiding rings that form a continuous ring is that they are formed
by a broken ring at the bottom, forming an arched tube with open ends that engage the collar, usu-
ally triangular, that connects with the fixing plate. Terrets of these three types were chronologically
framed in La Tène D being specific for the Celtic milieu of the Central European space and were
discovered mainly in oppida settlements. The best similarity for the rein distributor coming from
Sarmizegetusa Regia is a terret found at Kappel (Germany),243 other ones coming from Manching,244
Judenburg (Austria),245 Slavkon u Brna (Czech Republic),246 Rhein bei Mainz (Germania),247
Jüchsen (Germany),248 Staré Hradisko (Czech Republic),249 Biebertal-Fellingshausen/Dünsberg
(Germany),250 Wörschlach (Austria)251. The terret from Sarmizegetusa Regia kept in the Severeanu
collection has no known archaeological context and was initially dated in the Roman period, later
corrected between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD.252
As it has already been argued, some terrets coming from Piatra Craivii fortress (Alba county)
(Cat. 40–42)253 but as well as two of those discovered in the Dacian fortress of Luncani-Piatra Roşie
(Cat. 105–106)254 are slightly different from the Menke type B guiding-rings. The terrets of Menke
type B have as their dispersion area mainly in the Danube’s Upper Basin and the Rhine, and the ones
235
Pič 1906, fig. 26/1; Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/19.
236
Schönfelder 2000, p. 251, fig. 175/20.
237
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
238
Gramatopol 1982, p. 265–266, pl. 28/24; Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p . 231; Dima 2019, p. 23,
fig. 2/3.
239
Menke 1968, p. 60–64; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
240
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250, fig. 177, Tab. 34.
241
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250.
242
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250.
243
Fischer 1959, pl. 6/6,7; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/1.
244
Jacobi 1974, pl. 52/814–816; Van Endert 1991, pl. 18, p. 351–353; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/2–4.
245
Menke 1968, p. 61, pl. 1/1; Behm-Blancke 1971, p. 250, fig. 3b; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/5.
246
Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/6.
247
Wegner 1976, p. 83, pl. 73/2; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/7.
248
Behm-Blancke 1971, p. 250, fig. 3a; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/8–9.
249
Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/10.
250
Jacobi 1974, pl. 3/9; Schönfelder 2000, fig. 177/11.
251
Kramer 1994, p. 55, pl. 37–5; Schönfelder 2000, Tab. 34.
252
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
253
Berciu, Popa 1970, p. 281, fig. 12/5–6; Ferencz, Rustoiu 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/3–5; Dima 2019, p. 25, fig. 3/1–3.
254
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 88, pl. XVI/1; Rustoiu 1996, 157, fig. 97/3; Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175, pl. II/2; Rustoiu, Ferencz
2002, p. 231, fig. 1/2, 6; Dima 2019, p. 26, fig. 4/1–2.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 59

from Dacian milieu would rather be a subvariant that finds the closest analogies in the Carpathian
basin area,255 such as the terrets coming from Orešak (Croatia).256
M. Schönfelder establishes a new type for these terrets, type Orešak257, type in which he includes
one Luncani-Piatra Roşie guiding-ring (Cat. 105), known better in the Romanian literature258. Also
the terret discovered by illegal detection on the same site (Cat. 106), and also the ones from Piatra
Craivii (Cat 40–42) could be included in this type. To these ones ads a terret recently discovered due
to metal detection at Vadul Crişului (Bihor County) (Cat 118)259 that could be included in the same
type. These terrets are different from the previous ones and they can be distinguished by the shape
of the guiding ring, the very obvious interruption of the arched tube at the mounting part with
the collar of the piece, as well as the ornamentation of the two-rib fixing plate on one side and the
other of the triangular specific decoration. The terrets of this type were dated to the La Tène D and
are coming only from the eastern area of the Celtic space between Karlstein260 (Germany) and the
Dacian space with the discoveries from Luncani-Piatra Roşie and Piatra Craivii. Other terrets of this
type are coming from Magdalensberg (Austria),261 Orešak,262 Celje (Slovenia),263 Bazinul Carpatic.264
There must be noticed that the terret coming from illegal detections in the area of Luncani-Piatra
Roşie fortress is slightly different from the other ones. The fixing yoke clamp is missing while the
presence of small perforations in the corners of the fixing plate indicates that the piece could be
fixed to the yoke by nails.265 A similar piece is coming from Magdalensberg,266 which has the same
type of perforations, and the yoke holder is lacking. These terrets are coming from the Celtic milieu
from the middle Danube267 area due to the closest analogies and could be dated beginning with the
end of the 2nd century BC.
A few terrets from the Dacian milieu could not be typologically framed so far, being considered
as a particular type of terrets and based on the decor coming from the Celtic milieu, most likely
from to Scordistic space.268 In a more detailed analysis, they would appear to be a variant that could
be included in the Kappel or Orešak type. Initially, this particular type was defined starting from
a single piece found in a fragmented state. The terret was discovered in the Dacian fortress from
Divici (Caraş-Severin County) (Cat. 59) and was described as having an ornamented fixing plate
with incised lines and filled with emailed circles, and the upper part, ornamented, also having a
triangular shape.269
Recently, some artefacts from the inventory of the main tomb of the yet unpublished tumu-
lary necropolis from Cugir (Alba County)270 were presented in an exhibition at Muzeul Naţional
255
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
256
Scönfelder 2000, fig. 180/3, fig. 188; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
257
Scönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180, Tab. 37.
258
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 88, pl. XVI/1; Rustoiu 1996, 157, fig. 97/3; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/2; Dima 2019,
p. 26, fig. 4/2.
259
Inf. C. Borangic.
260
Menke 1968, fig. 1/3; Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/1.
261
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/2.
262
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/3.
263
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/4.
264
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/6.
265
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175, pl. II/2.
266
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 180/2.
267
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
268
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/7.
269
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231–232, fig. 1/7.
270
Crişan 1980, p. 84; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Spânu 2002, p. 127; Popa 2004, p. 120; Rustoiu 2008, p. 161–162; Moga, Plantos
60 Cristian Dima

al Unirii Alba Iulia. Two rein distributors similar with the one from Divici (Caraş-Severin county)
were identified belonging to this inventory (Cat. 57–58). Both pieces have a similar decoration and
shape, also in fragmentary state, with a series of ruptures observed both at the top of the piece and
at the top of the fixing plate. On the two terrets from Cugir there can be noticed the presence of the
circular fixing clamp but also two perforations on each side of the fixing plate.
The guiding rings of the terrets which belong to the Kappel, Estinnes, Grabenstetten and Orešak
types271 have interrupted ends and they are made of a single arched tube that was attached later to
the collar formed by two opposite triangles. Considering this, it can be assumed that the guiding
ring of the pieces from Divici and Cugir was not preserved. The upper side of these terrets, trian-
gular in shape, is rather part of the collar from which it continued with the guiding ring, broken
and lost (Fig. 10). The terret from Divici was fortunate discovery in the area of the site, the archaeo-
logical context being unknown, but it was considered that it belongs to the earlier levels of this site
being framed in the 1st century BC.272 The main tomb of the Cugir tumulary necropolis was dated
in the first half of the 1st century BC, based on the funerary inventory, in particular of an Eggers 20
type situla.273 More recently, it was stated that the correct dating of the context would be somewhat
earlier, somewhere in the second half of the 2nd century BC (160–95 BC), based on a C14 dating.274
A terret coming from Piatra Craivii fortress (Alba County)
(Cat. 43)275 is different from all the known Late Iron Age types,
as the item was relatively simply manufactured; one can notice a
slight resemblance to the terrets of Verna type.276 However, the ter-
ret from Piatra Craivii has neither a fixing plate nor a collar, and
the fixing clamp has a perpendicular arrangement on the axis of
the guiding ring, a situation which is not encountered by any of
the terrets known in the Celtic milieu. A. Rustoiu includes in a
first type only this terret, while the rest of the rein distributors are
included in a second type.277 The author, in collaboration with I.
V. Ferencz, returns to the analysis of the yoke fittings, using this
time the typology defined by M. Menke, but the terret from Piatra
Craivii was not included in this typology probably due to the lack
Fig. 10. Proposal for the
reconstitution of the terret from of ornamentation.278 In a typology dedicated to the terrets dated
Divici, Caraş-Severin County. to the Iron Age and the Roman Age from Britain, some pieces are
slightly similar with the one from Piatra Craivii. Those do not have
the fixing clamp perpendicular on the guiding ring, but in what
regards the one from the Dacian fortress the fixing plate and the collar are also missing. This type of
terrets casted in bronze is coming from Roman sites dating from the 1st to the 3rd century AD, and
was considered an influence from the Empire. Two terrets with the rectangular-shaped fixing clamp
arranged perpendicular to the axis of the guiding ring are coming from a Roman age Thracian tomb
2007, p. 20; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33; Popa 2011, p. 335; Teleagă 2014, p. 308; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 321; Rustoiu 2015, p. 359.
271
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250–251.
272
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231–232.
273
Initialy 1st c. BC (Crişan 1980, p. 84; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52); Spânu 2002, p. 127; Popa 2004, p. 120; Rustoiu 2008,
p. 161–162; Moga, Plantos 2007, p. 20; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33; Popa 2011, p. 335; Rustoiu 2015, p. 359.
274
Teleagă 2014, p. 308; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 321.
275
Berciu, Popa 1970, fig. 12/9; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 157, fig. 97/1; Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 191/8; Dima 2019, p. 28–29, fig. 7/1.
276
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 181, Tab. 38.
277
Rustoiu 1996, p. 157.
278
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231–242.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 61

from Nova Zagora.279 One of them is similar to the one from Piatra Craivii; the only difference is
that the item from Bulgaria has the fixing plate. Thus, the terret from Piatra Craivii may be consid-
ered of Roman influence, even if identical exemplars are yet unknown, but they could represent a
sub-variant of such kind of terret. Within the Dacian settlement of Sighişoara-Wiettemberg a terret
was discovered (Cat. 114)280, with analogies belonging to the Roman period. The piece has an ellip-
soidal guide ring with a button on the top. This ring is attached to a rectangular and curved fixing
plate, decorated with four parallel grooves, and the fixing clamp was made of a rounded transverse
bar. More details on this piece cannot be seen from the illustration and the artefact was not been
identified so far in the collections of the history museum in Sighişoara. Two similar terrets were
discovered at Mangalia – 2 Mai (Constanţa county) in a tumulary chariot tomb dated to the 2nd
century AD.281
A fragmentary piece discovered in older excavations at Piatra Craivii fortress was interpreted as
pendant (Cat. 44).282 The piece is a button with the dimensions of 3.8 × 2 cm; it is casted in bronze,
pine-shaped, and decorated with several mouldings. This could represent in fact a part of a rein
distributor of Hoppstädten type283 or a part of the Titelberg yoke attachments.284
In this last type – Titelberg, four yoke attachments found in the Dacian settlement of Brad can
be framed (Cat. 5–8).285 The functionality of the Titelberg type parts is not very clear, but due to
the analogy with other yoke pieces, they are also considered as parts attached to the yoke, maybe
with an ornamental role. These yoke attachments have, at the top, a pine cone-shaped button orna-
mented with two or three mouldings, attached to an elongated semi-circular band in the shape of
a horseshoe that is trapped on the wooden yoke. Inside the semi-circular part there was an iron
bar with a circular link at the end. This bar is not present in the yoke attachments of Titelberg type
known in the Central European space, while in the case of Brad fortified settlement, only two of
them preserve the iron element. Probably this bar with circular link had the role of supporting the
attachment on the yoke, its position being probably in the middle of the yoke, most likely fixing the
draught-pole to the yoke. Two yoke attachments of this type resembling to those of Brad were iden-
tified alongside the yoke pieces at Orešak.286 In this type there were also included some fragmentary
pieces discovered in funerary context and in oppida settlements at Titelberg (Luxemburg), Mont
Beuvray/Croix de Rebout Grab (France), Mont Beuvray – Bibracte (France), Besançon (France),
Saint-Just-en-Chaussée „Le Rossignol“ (France), Baarburg (Switzerland), Magdalensberg, Gracarca
(Austria), Liptovská Mara (Slovakia).287 Another piece in a horseshoe shape (Cat. 9)288, with slightly
widened and rounded ends, each with a thread of bronze nail was found in the same archaeological
context from Brad, but due to its differences it cannot be included in the Titelberg type.
In the same archaeological context from the fortified settlement of Brad several pieces were also
interpreted as parts of chariot elements, most likely as yoke attachments. For these, no analogies
have been found so far and their functionality is unknown. Two of them are oval-shaped appliques,

279
Ignatov 2018, Cat. 34, fig. 25/6.1.3.1–2.
280
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, fig. 61/8; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232; Dima 2019, p. 28–29, fig. 7/2.
281
Harţuche 1967, p. 235, fig. 5/3–4, 6/6–7; Sîrbu, Oţa 2004, p. 407, fig. 4/1.
282
Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965, fig. 33/14; Berciu, Popa 1970, p. 283, fig. 14/11; Dima 2019, p. 28–29, fig. 7/3.
283
Scönfelder 2000, p. 263, fig. 184, Tab. 39.
284
Scönfelder 2000, p. 267–270, fig. 189, Tab. 42.
285
Ursachi 1995, p. 147–148, Pl. 50/2–4,6, Fig. 248/1–4; Dima 2019, p. 29–30, fig. 8/1–4.
286
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 188.
287
Scönfelder 2000, p. 267–270, fig. 189, Tab. 42.
288
Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 50/5, 248/5; Dima 2019, p. 29–30, fig. 8/5.
62 Cristian Dima

with a semi-circular shaped attached to each side289 (Cat. 10–11). Two other yoke fittings were made
of bronze, with slightly widened ends and a curved middle, one of which was fastened by a brass and
iron clamp provided with two rivets and a fastening link (Cat. 12–13).290

Fig. 11. Terret and yoke fittings distribution in Iron Age Europe

Several ornamental attachments placed in the ends of the yoke (Jochendebeschläg) were framed
in another Orešak type (Jochendebeschläg Typ Orešak)291, discovered at Orešak along with the
other yoke pieces already mentioned292 and in Dacian milieu at Luncani – Piatra Roşie fortress
(Cat. 110)293 and the Dacian settlement from Berindia (Arad county) (Cat. 4).294 This type of yoke
attachments were bronze casted and decorated with vegetal motifs. The piece is made up of a pin
shaped button with deep grooves, attached to a perforated strip for attaching the nails to the yoke,
encompassing lanceolate plant motifs. The ornament on the end of the pieces is also found on the
yokes of Liptovská Mara framed in the Titelberg type.295 These ornamental yoke pieces probably

289
Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 17/1,2, 247/6,15; Dima 2019, p. 29–30, fig. 8/6–7.
290
Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 50/1,7, 247/13,14; Dima 2019, p. 29–30, fig. 8/8–9.
291
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 188.
292
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, fig. 188.
293
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 88, pl. V/3; Rustoiu 1996, p. 157, fig. 97/3; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 3/3; Gheorghiu 2005,
pl. 191/5; Dima 2019, p. 30–31, fig. 9/1.
294
Dumitraşcu, Ordentlich 1973, p. 67, fig. 18; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 3/4; Dima 2019, p. 30–31, fig. 9/2.
295
Scönfelder 2000, p. 267–270, fig. 189/9, Tab. 42; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 3/1,2.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 63

date back to the 1st century BC. They were fixed on the ends of a yoke, similar to the one found in
Annaberg (Poland),296 which has instead of a button a „horn” on which these pieces can be mounted.
A bronze fitting discovered at Poiana (Cat. 113) was firstly interpreted as sword handle.297 Later
the artefact was interpreted as chariot fitting that would have served to secure the wagon-box to its
own hound.298 The piece is made of bronze with symmetrically antithetic horse heads and in the
middle the piece has a perforation in which another piece of metal was probably fixed. According
to the morphology of the item, two analogies may offer two different functionalities to the piece in
question. In the first case, the artefact discovered in the Dacian settlement could be a Strap holder
(ger. Gurthalter, fr. Suspension de caisse) known for Roman chariots in several provinces of the
Empire. This type of fittings was fastened to the top of two curved beams attached to the hound,
beams that continued on both sides of the wagon-box. A strap was fastened to these pieces and sup-
ported the carriage-box, providing a suspension so that the passenger would have not felt the road’s
unevenness. Several similar items, but with two antithetic water-birds instead of horse are known
in NBM Tunis,299 in the territory of the Roman provinces of Germania Krefeld-Gelelep, Belgica at
Ulmen, Nerdlen, Reims, in Aquitania and in Thracia at Brestovica.300 Another fitting, much more
closer as analogy is coming from the province of Thracia in Pastuscha (Bulgaria).301 It has two anti-
thetic horse heads, but unlike the one from Poiana, the heads of the animals are preserved only from
the neck up and the representation of the horses is a bit more faithful.
Since the fitting from the Dacian settlement from Poiana does not have a fixing tube on the
wooden or iron support that came under the carriage, as it is present in similar fittings, but only one
hole, the fitting from Poiana could have as well a different functionality. It can be assumed that this
could represent a yoke fitting, either as a yoke attachment or as part of a terret. A yoke attachment
morphologically similar with the fittings mentioned above, that presents antithetic water-birds but
which has in the inferior part a fixing plate for the yoke is known from Mramora (Bulgaria).302 A
zoomorphic terret composed by three elements was also discovered at Manching (Fig. 10/2)303 is
very similar with the one discovered at Poiana. The upper part of the item consists in two sym-
metrical antithetic heads of an animal with horns, and a second part, arranged perpendicularly,
shows two other bird heads in a symmetrical and antithetic position, placed on a third element
represented as a conical base. Considering these analogies, the fitting discovered at Poiana might
rather be a terret similar to this one, considering as well the dimension of the fittings.
The known yoke fittings of pre-Roman Dacia are not very numerous and all of them are bronze
casted. Without any doubt almost all the yoke fittings discovered in the space occupied by the
Dacian civilisation are coming from the Celtic area due to commercial relations on the Mureş val-
ley.304 Only the exemplar from Sighişoara and one of the terrets from Piatra Craivii are Roman
imports. Even that there are not so many discoveries, it can be noticed that almost all known types
are covered by the Dacian fittings.
The yoke fittings of pre-Roman Dacia were discovered in funerary context but also in fortresses
or fortified settlements. There is a fact that all the chariot components discovered in Dacian milieu
296
Scönfelder 2000, p. 241, fig. 171/8.
297
Vulpe et alii 1951, p. 202, fig. 22/2;
298
Rustoiu 1996, p. 157.
299
Röring 1983, p. 164–165.
300
Röring 1983, p. 165–167, pl. 18, fig. 2.
301
Röring 1983, p. 167; Mercklin 1933, p. 122–123, fig. 40.
302
Ignatov 2018, fig. 27/6.6.1.4.
303
Jacobi 1974, 201, n. 817, pl. 53/817.
304
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232.
64 Cristian Dima

are coming mainly from fortresses, fortified settlements or funerary context. In what regards the
discovery in a funerary context, yoke fittings, including all the metallic parts of a ceremonial cart,
are known in the tumulary grave from Cugir (Alba county). One of the terrets discovered due to
illegal detection, coming from Luncani – Piatra Roşie could be part of a funerary context as well,
due to the association with other artefacts from the same recovered lot.305 Two inedited terrets were
also discovered in a funerary context at Costeşti – Cetăţuie fortress.306 From a dwelling context one
can refer to yoke fittings from the Dacian settlement of Brad or the yoke attachment from tower B
from Luncani – Piatra Roşie fortress and the terret from tower 4. The other yoke fittings are coming
from fortunate discoveries or illegal detection. Even if many of the discussed fittings are coming
from fortunate discoveries, the area of the discovery is centred near or within the Dacian hillforts.
Due to their decoration and the fact that were bronze casted and discovered in funerary context or
within the Dacian fortresses it was suggested that the presence of this fittings prove the existence of
fastidious chariots for showing the aristocratic prestige.307

4.2. Find contexts

4.2.1. Cart parts from fortresses and fortified settlements
A few of the catalogued cart parts come from fortified settlements and fortresses, even though
not all originate from secure find contexts. Thus, a terret308 (Cat. 1) was discovered in the area of the
Dacian fortress of Ardeu, however the findspot is not known with certainty. Access to the fortress
was made from the Jude Hill, one of the entry roads tracking the contour line by-passing Cetăţuie
to the north, later reaching the supposed fortress gate located on its south-western part. The access
pathway is a cart track, approximately 4–5 meters wide. Other wagon parts were no longer identified
subsequent to more recent research conducted in the Ardeu fortress area, initiated in 2001. It must
be specified that investigations carried out in this site yielded on the Jude Hill a burial feature and
a civil settlement situated by the fortress base, at “Gura Cheilor”, lying south-east the stronghold309.
Another terret (Cat. 59), chronologically framed to the 1st century BC, was discovered in simi-
lar circumstances within the area of the Dacian fortress at Divici, yet the find spot is not known for
certain310.
A significant lot of cart wheel parts were identified in the fortress of Costeşti – Cetăţuie, the
majority yet without secure find contexts, the inventory registry recording for some only their prov-
enance, namely the fortress plateau, “the yellow layer” (Cat. 23, 24, 25) or Alignment I (Cat. 29), yet
the precise location of the performed excavations and the type of features identified there remain
unspecified.
In the Dacian fortress of Luncani – Piatra Roşie, one of the terrets known there (Cat. 105) would
have been found in tower 4 of the fortified enclosure on the upper plateau. Nonetheless, there is
further uncertainty about this find context as well, since in the fortress monograph, the presentation
of the artefacts discovered in the fortress towers mentions for tower 4 only a footwear iron hobnail
and a bronze handle311. It is possible that the item was discovered elsewhere.
305
Egri, Ferencz 2017; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 28–29.
306
Inf. R. Mateescu
307
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232.
308
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/1.
309
Pescaru et alii 2002, p. 41–43; Ferencz et alii 2004, p. 43–45; Ferencz, Dima 2009, p. 20;Ferencz 2012, p. 119–130.
310
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/7.
311
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 50.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 65

A fragment of a wheel fitting (Cat. 72), of which survive the tube and the circular attachment
plate, was found on terrace IV within the fortification at Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia,
however the item was seemingly identified in secondary location in the Roman filling layer312.
Possibly, it had belonged to the same context from terrace VIII, the blacksmith workshop, where
several fragments of this type of wheel fitting were also found, yet further more accurate specifica-
tions in this respect cannot be made.
All yoke parts discovered outside the intra-Carpathian area, in the fortified settlement of Brad
(Cat. 5–13) come from a house type context (large house 1) located on the acropolis. The house is
of large sizes and covers an approximate total surface of 400 m2, being divided into several rooms,
some delimited in the building’s layout. The artefacts found in this structure are plenty, including
many pottery fragments of various types, military equipment pieces like bronze shield tires, house-
hold objects like knives, bone sickles, sharpening stones etc. It is mentioned that several iron and
bronze items that might have belonged to a cart were discovered313. These were determined as yoke
parts, while other cart elements could not be distinguished upon the analysis of the Brad fortress
monograph illustration.

4.2.2. Cart parts in civil contexts

Some of the cart parts discovered in the Dacian environment come from contexts that may be
deemed civil to a certain extent. To this class belong a number of pieces identified in the blacksmith
workshops from Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, more specifically the four wheel fit-
tings314 (Cat. 73, 76, 79, 82), to which adds a fitting rivet315 (Cat. 103) discovered in the workshop
investigated on terrace VI at point “Căprăreaţa”, in a trench termed Trench III excavated by meters
32–36 on a 45 m length and 2 m width. Among the objects found there and in another area, Trench
II sized 31.50 × 12 m, count many blacksmithing, woodworking and farming tools, iron building
materials and pottery fragments of various pots. The presence of raw iron in the form of blooms on
both terrace VI and the other investigated terraces as well as the find of a higher number of metal-
working tools or half-finished items, to which add two iron tool deposits deposited in two large stor-
age vessels on terrace VII or the presence of certain pieces used for a supposed iron ore reduction
kiln, led to the conclusion that a blacksmithing workshop lay on this terrace. Moreover, wooden,
strongly burnt structures were documented, however their layout could not be specified. On the
same terrace, a silver and goldsmithing workshop is assumed to have been in existence in another
building on the basis of three objects (an anvil, small size tongs and a copper wire “drawer”)316.
Nonetheless, there are insufficient arguments to support an existing goldsmithing workshop on this
terrace, while for the lack of research of the entire terrace and identification of kilns or moulds, such
interpretation is purely speculative. Still, an existent blacksmithing shop cannot be excluded only
because of incomplete research of this area. Even though iron ore reduction kilns or other necessary
metalworking installations are missing, the large number of metalworking objects and half-finished
pieces, as well as the present building seem sufficient supportive arguments.
Cart parts are present in a relatively large number in the inventory of an iron objects deposit
from terrace VIII at Sarmizegetusa Regia, where beside a few houses, a blacksmithing workshop

312
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180.
313
Ursachi 1995, p. 52–53.
314
Glodariu 1975b, fig. 13/1–4; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 6, 13–15: Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 193/5–8.
315
Glodariu 1975b, fig. 13/5; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 58/12; Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/6.
316
Glodariu 1975b, p. 111–115.
66 Cristian Dima

was also identified. Among these count two cart kingpins of type 1317 (Cat. 63, 64) and other two
kingpins of type 2318 (Cat. 69, 70) as well as another item, which likely belonged to a cart body319
(Cat. 68). Beside these items, from the deposits of the MNIT – Cluj-Napoca, were recovered the
fragments of certain iron wheel fittings (Cat. 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83–88), similar to those discov-
ered in the workshop at Căprăreaţa. On C. Daicoviciu’s published photo of the deposit inventory
discovered on the terrace (Fig. 12), are visible two such fittings, which at the time of their find were
better preserved. To these cart pieces also add a few found still in the workshop on terrace VIII,
namely two nave hoops (Cat. 89, 90) and two fitting rivets resembling that discovered in the work-
shop at “Căprăreaţa” (Cat. 101, 102). The terrace, which lies above those terraces where the temples
were located, was more extensively investigated starting with 1951, as the results of a 1950 sondage
revealed inhabitancy traces320. The cart parts were yielded by the 1952 campaign in a deposit of iron
objects which contained various tool types (around 180 exemplars), one falx and a large iron vessel
in which part of the items were placed. The deposit was excavated nearby a house, on the eastern
side of the terrace321. The two archaeological campaigns performed there unearthed several wood
constructions, whose layout could not be established with certainty, many of these having no stone
foundations. Waste pits that contained grains were also identified. The inventory of the supposed
workshop comprised various iron tools.
It was believed that the reason behind the cart parts discovery in the blacksmithing work-
shops area lay with damaged objects322 repair activities carried out there. An additional argu-
ment would consist in the fragmentary kingpin discovered in the workshop on terrace VIII from
Sarmizegetusa Regia323. Another interpretation, at least in the case of the cart parts from the work-
shop at “Căprăreaţa”, which would have been identified by the entrance into the workshop, is that
these were part of a cart used to carry raw materials from iron mining areas. The type of iron fittings
used in the wheels of such a cart justify the possibility that a load of iron blooms, whose weight and
density was high, was transported. Further supportive arguments include the presence of similar
fittings, even though discovered fragmentary, in the workshop on terrace VIII. It may be assumed
that for very heavy loads, like iron blooms used in such workshops, this more solid cart type was
utilized. It is possible that such carts with very well reinforced wheels, possibly even solid wheels,
had been used for the transport of limestone blocks and of the andesite building elements used in
the construction of the fortification and temples at Sarmizegetusa Regia.
Ten wheel tyres of Dacian carts were discovered in the area of the Western Quarters of
Sarmizegetusa Regia324 (Cat. 91–100). The parts were yielded by the systematic archaeological exca-
vations conducted in 1999, nine wheel metal tyres being the result of the 2001 archaeological cam-
paign, the tenth being identified on a terrace termed “the terrace with circles”, located west of the
Western Gate of the stone fortification, almost by the end of Piciorul Muncelului. The excavations
on this terrace occurred over the course of three archaeological campaigns325 (1999–2001). In 1999
were partially investigated, according to the excavation report, two features with the appearance
of stone mantles. The first five wheel metal tyres emerged from underneath one of these stone
317
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 57/15–16.
318
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 57/5–6.
319
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/22.
320
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 297–302.
321
Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 164–173.
322
Glodariu 1975b, p. 117–118;
323
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66.
324
Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181.
325
Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2001, p. 94–95; Glodariu et alii 2002, p. 149–150.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 67

mantles, while other four were identified in a pit located beneath this mantle, where were also found
two anvils, a sickle, a punch and an iron cutter326. In the following year campaign were excavated
three trenches and an area on this terrace, however, the archaeological finds were not significant.
A modest structure was unearthed, among the found objects counting fragments of wall plaster-
ing, pottery, a nail and fragmentary base of a bronze patera327. Not even the last campaign yielded
notable results, finds being reduced to a superficially fired earth hearth. In this campaign was also
discovered the tenth wheel metal tyre, tossed on the terrace slope likely by treasure hunters328. In
conclusion, it may be argued that these parts that belonged to Dacian cart wheels were deposited
beside other tools, thus possibly composing the inventory of a blacksmith’s workshop.

Fig. 12. The deposit of iron objects from terrace VIII, Grădiştea de Munte
– Sarmizegetusa Regia (Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016)

4.2.3. “Chariot” burials from pre-Roman Dacia

As noted, the archaeological contexts that usually supply most information on ancient vehi-
cles are the “chariot” burial features, a situation which results not by the number of such funerary
expressions, but by the possibility to have, from just one archaeological context, all metal parts of
such harness. The presence of wagons deposited within graves was recorded as early as the Bronze
326
Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60.
327
Glodariu et alii 2001, p. 94–95.
328
Glodariu et alii 2002, p. 149–150.
68 Cristian Dima

Age among the bearers of the Urnfield culture, tradition which survived also during the Hallstatt,
when a series of funerary contexts with chariot depositions329 existed. The same occurs during the
second Iron Age in a few graves from Central Europe and the Thracian graves from the Balkan
area, chariot burials being present until late 3rd century BC in this area, while the tradition would
be revived after the Roman conquest as well. It must be mentioned that “chariot” burials represent
a small size phenomenon compared to the remainder of funerary manifestations, the presence of
chariots in burial contexts being rather reserved to the elites, regardless the period.
For the chronological time span when the Geto-Dacian civilisation manifested itself, chariot
burial contexts are though very rare, given also the general specificity of the funerary phenomenon
of the period, that of “hiding” contexts of the type, burials, with few exceptions, ceasing to be vis-
ible by late 1st century BC330. In fact, also prior this time, funerary finds are visible in small num-
bers, being seemingly reserved to warrior elites only. In the academic literature, the only certainty
concerning the existence of a chariot burial is the case of the barrow cemetery from the area of
the Dacian fortress of Cugir, Alba county. Another possible funerary feature, where archaeological
investigations are ongoing, would be located at the Costeşti – Cetăţuie fortress, context which in
this state of research provides a few elements in order to be classified as “chariot” burial.
Mound 2 of Cugir (Fig. 13) is the main burial of a barrow cemetery where other three mounds
were discovered. The deceased was cremated in the deposition pit together with a four-wheel char-
iot on which the dead lay. The burial furnishing is very rich, comprising wagon metal parts, objects
of military equipment and personal objects of the deceased, as well as objects of the funerary feast.
Three horses were cremated nearby, whose bits were placed in the grave, among harness pieces also
counting a single spur331, connected to the third horse used for riding, while the other two horses
with resembling bits were teamed to the burial chariot. Among the cart parts surviving the crema-
tion, some in the collections of the MNUAI – Alba Iulia, are mentioned in the literature pieces like
nave linings, nave hoops, wheel metal tyres, hound, body and yoke parts as well as a few decorative
pieces332. From these collections and the few published items, were identified and determined frag-
ments of cart metal tyres, three grooved nave hoops, two nave hoops of another type, one linchpin
and two terrets (Cat. 47–58). The pieces of military equipment are also numerous, being recovered
an iron helmet, a chain mail, a spearhead, a bronze tube, a sica type curved dagger provided with
hilt scabbard, a Celtic type long sword, as well as fragments of a massive brooch, together with many
hemispherical buttons, the latter worked in silver. On top of the cinerary remains was added yellow
clay over which was placed a bronze situla, nearby which was deposited a handmade pot. A large
tazza, likely from the funerary feast, covered above objects333.
Starting with 1997, in the area of the fortress at Costeşti – Cetăţuie, on a terrace in the vicinity
of the fortified area above tower-house (No. TL3) was investigated a likely burial archaeological fea-
ture, among the finds being mentioned nave lining (in fact a nave hoop) and iron clamps of a cart334.
Research was halted in 2000, excavations being resumed only in 2017. During this time, except for
the archaeological excavation reports, no additional information was published regarding the grave

329
Pare 1992.
330
Sîrbu 2000, p. 162; Rustoiu 2015a, p. 359; Pupeză 2014, p. 62.
331
Dima 2005, p. 179–195.
332
Crişan 1980, p. 82–83; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Rustoiu 2009, p. 161–162; Popa 2011, p. 326, Pl. 151/1–
3; Teleagă et alii 2014, 314–321; Borangic 2017, p. 380–381.
333
Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333, pl. 152/2,4; Teleagă 2014, p. 305–311; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.
334
Glodariu et alii 1998a, p. 50; Glodariu et alii 1999, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 69

Fig. 13. Reconstruction of the funerary ritual of mound II at Cugir (Teleagă et alii 2014)

goods, except the nave hoop discovered there335. The 1997 research mentions the find of a “warrior’s
barrow grave”, whose furnishing contained pottery, a spearhead, a dagger, another dagger of sica
type, an iron clasp plated with gilded silver in fragmentary state, a nave hoop and cart iron clamps,
as well as 13 bronze histrian coins, bone fragments, all burnt336. The 1998 campaign furthered inves-
tigations of the archaeological context, pottery fragments being mentioned as present in-between
mantle stones and the find of a bronze piece which would be indicative of a dating to the second half
of the 1st century AD337, however until its publishing, the dating is unsecure, given the general chro-
nology of such archaeological contexts. The report of the 1999 campaign presents the excavation
stratigraphy, with the mention it partially differs from previous campaigns, lacking the large stones
from the mound mantle. South of the funerary context was discovered a ritual pit which contained
animal bones, a dog mandible, pottery fragments of two ovoid jars, two tazzas, a middle size pot, an
iron spike, a bronze applique and a silver rectangular plate338. The archaeological investigations of
the 2017 campaign were not yet published, however from information received from the research
team members it seems that among the items found there also counted two terrets. Since the other
materials have not yet been published and the excavations not completed, it is impossible to discuss
its dating more in detail. The presence of the bronze nave hoop, cart clamps as well as the two yoke
parts could suggest that a cart was deposited in this feature. Nevertheless, for the lack of human
bones it is difficult to frame the context in the class of “chariot burials”, even though the structure,
mound-shaped, seems to have had a burial purpose.
Other few bronze cart wheel parts discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie could be interpreted as
335
Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 191/3.
336
Glodariu et alii 1998a, p. 50.
337
Glodariu et alii 1999, p. 65–66.
338
Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31.
70 Cristian Dima

belonging to burial or ceremonial chariots. Thus, two nave hoops and a bronze nave lining (Cat. 16,
17, 19) were found, according to information from the inventory registry, within tower-house 2.
Another bronze nave lining (Cat. 20) was discovered on the plateau, in a trench excavated between
tower-houses 2 and 3, information taken still from the inventory registry. This trench is not men-
tioned in the archaeological excavation reports of Costeşti – Cetăţuie, however if the information
is accurate, the item could have belonged, without being certain though, to the above described
context, investigated since 1997, located above tower-house 3. The two bronze nave hoops, of which
the registry specifies to have been discovered in tower-house 2 located on the fortress acropolis, are
identical to the nave hoop discovered in the funerary context. All these bronze cart parts were firstly
published without data on find contexts, while the two nave hoops are presumed to originate from
Grădiştea de Munte339. These two nave hoops, together with that discovered in 1997 when the burial
context was investigated, seems to resemble two such hoops rendered on the graphic reproduction
of the burial context from Cugir (Fig. 7), however given that the entire archaeological material and
drawings of the excavation site documentations were not yet published, these items remain a mere
graphical representation, not being identified in the collections of the National Museum – Alba
Iulia.
A series of La Tène date burials from the Central European space contain among the grave goods
certain items that are only suggestive of the cart presence, without the latter’s deposition within the
grave. Parts like terrets, one linchpin or a pair of bits, were interpreted for the lack of other cart parts
as pars pro toto depositions. This custom is recorded from the late occurrence period of the bearers
of the Urnfield culture, when in a series of burial features were placed bits in pairs, a phenomenon
also continued during the first Iron Age, when yoke parts or linchpins were deposited for the same
purpose340.
Compared to funerary contexts with pars pro toto type depositions from previous periods,
burial customs specific to the La Tène period are much more complex. Within a series of burial
contexts were identified metal elements of certain carts, either complete or incomplete, amongst
being represented bit pairs, phalera, linchpins or terrets, yet also the metal elements of the cart box,
wheels or hound. These suggest the deposition of the full cart in the grave, its component parts
being included in the burial deposition either after having been burnt together with the deceased or
after the cremation of the deceased, thus explaining the lack of some of the cart constituents341. In
the case of depositions interpreted as pars pro toto only yoke parts, bit pairs, phalera or and rarely
linchpins342 were placed within graves.
The La Tène date pars pro toto type depositions clustered in the Middle Rhine and Rhine-Main
areas yet also in France343. Eastwards, a pair of linchpins was discovered in the Belgrad-Karaburma
cemetery344 (Serbia), a particular case from both a geographical point of view and that of linchpin
presence, as their inclusion in pars pro toto depositions was noted only at Abbeville (France)345
and Wildeshausen (Germany)346, to which may also add, with reserves, the exemplar discovered

339
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 182. The information is erroneous, the 3D version of the items being recently published on the
website www.dacit.utcluj.ro with the correct find spot.
340
Schönfelder 2000, p. 336.
341
Rustoiu 2015c, p. 74.
342
Schönfelder 2000, p. 338; Rustoiu 2015c, p. 75.
343
Schönfelder 2000, p. 336–340.
344
Guštin 1984, p. 127, fig. 5/1–2; Schönfelder 2000, p. 408, fig. 138/8–9, I/68.
345
Baray 1998, p. 216, 229: Schönfelder 2000, p. 337; Ginoux, Leman-Delerive, Severin 2009, p. 123, 219.
346
Schönfelder 2000, p. 329, Tab. 53, fig. 137/4.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 71

at Fântânele-Dâmbu Popii347. Pars pro toto burials containing only terrets have been identified
to date only in Germany at Ballern-Ripplingen348, Bechtheim349, Frohnhausen350, Hoppstädten-
Weiersbach351 or Saarlouis-Roden352. In Belgium, at Estinnes353, within a pars pro toto burial were
discovered a yoke piece and a goad (German Treibstachel), while this seems to be case too of a
grave at Wederath354, in Germany. Graves where only a pair of bits emerge beside other grave goods
specific to the deceased were found in Germany at Hahnheim, Wöllstein, and in France, with only
one bit at La Calotterie, Pomacle355. Phalera are not found by themselves in pars pro toto buri-
als, but associated with either bits or yoke parts, like at Kollig356 and Wederath357 in Germany and
Bouchon358 in France. To date, from just one burial context, that of Steinheim am Main359 (Germany)
come associated a pair of bits and a terret.
In the Dacian space, a funerary context suggestive of such a pars pro toto deposition is known.
It was discovered in the Roman cemetery of Călan (Hunedoara county). It was originally framed
as Roman date grave360, however it was reinterpreted based on weaponry and equipment items
and chronologically reframed361. The grave goods were thus reanalysed, reinterpreted and framed
to La Tène type burial contexts, specific to 3rd – 1st century BC warriors, occurrences of the cul-
tural phenomenon represented by group “Padea-Panagjursky Koloni”362. The grave goods of this
burial consist of weaponry and harness items specific to this group, including a sica curved dagger
and its fragmentary scabbard, a spearhead, a long Celtic type sword and three fragmentary bits of
Thracian type363. To these also adds an iron spur364, that was later accurately dated to the Dacian
period, discovered outside the barrow grave in the archaeological level and interpreted as either
lost or to have belonged to another destroyed Dacian grave365. However given that the dead was
cremated at another location than the place of deposition, it may be as well assumed that this spur
belonged to the deceased, being lost at the time of transport to the mound construction site366.
Chronologically, the funerary context of Călan frames the group of burial finds of the type from
south-western Transylvania dated to the 1st century BC. With respect to the funerary rite and rit-
ual elements, it was noted they were similar with those practiced in the cemetery of Cugir. It was
thus believed that the deceased was placed on the funerary pyre together with weaponry items,
347
Rustoiu 2015c, p. 75. (A. Rustoiu excludes from the pars pro toto burials the exemplars of Karabruma as uncertain,
while in the case of the Fântânele grave, the author suggests another interpretation of the item, related to magical
practices without yet excluding the pars pro toto practice)
348
Schönfelder 2000, p. 394, Tab. 53, I/10.
349
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250, Tab. 53, fig. 175/1, I/11.
350
Schönfelder 2000, p. 259, Tab. 53, fig. 182. 1–2, I/13.
351
Schönfelder 2000, p. 397, Tab. 53, I/22.
352
Schönfelder 2000, p. 399, Tab. 53, fig. 185/2, I/32.
353
Schönfelder 2000, p. 250, 392, Tab. 53, fig. 176/1–2, I/1; Ginoux, Leman-Delerive, Severin 2009, p. 213.
354
Schönfelder 2000, p. 400–401, Tab. 53, fig. 182/3–4, I/38.
355
Schönfelder 2000, p. 395, Tab. 53, I/14.
356
Schönfelder 2000, p. 398, Tab. 53, fig. 181/5. 197/2.4, I/26–27.
357
Müller-Karpe 1989, p. 141–160; Schönfelder 2000, Tab. 53, fig. 196, p. 400, I/37.
358
Baray 1998, p. 219; Schönfelder 2000, p. 403, Tab. 53, I/48.
359
Schönfelder 2000, p. 399, Tab. 53, fig. 176/11, I/33.
360
Eskenasy 1977, p. 603–609; Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 111.
361
Petculescu 1995, p. 105, 138, n. 4; Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 111.
362
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 111–127..
363
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 112.
364
Eskenasy 1977, p. 603–604, fig. 2/a.
365
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 116.
366
Dima 2005, p. 182–183.
72 Cristian Dima

and because three bits were present in the grave, it was suggested that three horses were sacrificed,
after the cremation completion remains being collected and deposited where the mound was
built. Most likely, other specific rituals were practiced as well, like for instance the funerary feast
suggested by the present potshards a pot ritually broken as offering367. It was believed for both the
Călan burial and the barrow cemetery of Cugir that the presence of three bits and the sacrifice of
three horses are enough arguments to infer that the Dacian warriors adopted the battle technique
known under the name of trimarkisia recorded with Celt warriors, representing groups of horse-
men accompanied each by two companions (“shield-bearers”)368. This interpretation starts from
a previous suggestion regarding the graves of Călan and Cugir369, arguments relying on the other
three mounds in the Cugir cemetery. The find of three swords and the note that Thracian bits are
specific to battle not to draught horses made the author believe that the exceptional use of such
horses to pull the burial chariot represented an honour for the owners of the two horses, likely
the warriors (“shield bearers”) buried near the main mound370. The presence of Thracian bits used
for the horses teamed to the burial chariot in the case of the barrow cemetery of Cugir does not
necessarily suggest these horses belonged to the “shield bearers”, but rather symbolise the status of
the cremated. Nevertheless, without further discussing this topic, for the lack of clear evidence on
the contemporariness of the Cugir burials as well as the complete knowledge of the grave goods
still not fully published, it may be noted that arguments for trimarkisia, be it adopted via the
Scordisci371, are not yet fully supported, horse sacrifices in chariot burials not being customary to
the Celtic world.
A counter-argument would be represented by the presence in Thracian environment of “char-
iot” burials where three horses were sacrificed, although this is no general rule, as there are chariot
burials where one, two or four horses were sacrificed372. In the main grave of the lavish cemetery
of Vraţa, among the grave goods count the present chariot and the sacrifice of two horses teamed
to the burial chariot and of a third horse, for riding373. The same circumstances are also found at
Zhaba Mogila, near Strelcha (Bulgaria)374. Three horses were sacrificed also north of the Danube in
the richly furnished grave of Agighiol, however in this case, the wagon is only suggested by the sac-
rificed horses and their harness375. To these adds a feature where are figured three clay horses and a
miniature chariot from the Macedonian milieu dated to the 6th century BC376, which may evidence
the origin of this phenomenon.
The resemblance of the bits from the Călan grave with those of Cugir may be suggestive to a dif-
ferent interpreting. In the literature regarding the Cugir cemetery it is mentioned on several occa-
sions that the Thracian type bits form a pair, used for the two draught horses, while the third is more
massive and richly decorated, which belonged to the third horse, used for riding377. Nonetheless, it
is unknown whether the “paired” bits had exactly the same sizes. The deposition of a single spur in

367
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 115.
368
Borangic, Barbu 2013, p. 40; Borangic 2017, p. 383.
369
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 114; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52.
370
Borangic 2017, p. 382–383.
371
Rustoiu 2002, p. 52.
372
Sîrbu 2004, p. 735.
373
Theodossiev 2000b, 435–447.
374
Theodossiev 2000b, 435–447.
375
Teleagă 2010, 78–85; Teleagă 2014, 295–318; Constantinescu et alii 2014, 645–666.
376
Voktopoulou 1996, 114–118.
377
Crişan 1980, p. 82–83; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Rustoiu 2009, p. 161–162; Popa 2011, p. 326, pl.
151/1–3; Teleagă et alii 2014, 314–321.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 73

this grave378 also suggests that one of the three cremated horses was used for riding, being a sym-
bolical deposition, bearing this significance. The other two horses were teamed to the burial chariot,
as also implied by the two terrets discovered in the grave.
In the case of the Călan grave, the bits survived fragmentarily, while at the time when the burial
context was reinterpreted, only one could be recovered for re-analysis. In its case, the total length
of the hackamores was of 22.1 cm379. According to the X-ray published by the authors, the second
bit is represented only by a hackamore and a mouthpiece fragment, both being similar to the type
of the first bit, except the fact that the hackamore is 24 cm long380. The third hackamore is seem-
ingly morphologically slightly different and is 28 cm long381. Its morphology and sizes differ from
the other two resembling bits, differentiation also noted in the case of the bits from mound II in the
Cugir cemetery. The spur discovered at Călan could be an additional argument to imply that one
of the sacrificed horses was used for riding, alike the deposition in mound II at Cugir. Similarities
between the two bits, even though of slightly different sizes, could suggest a pars pro toto deposi-
tion for the presence of the ceremonial chariot in the burial ritual, similarly to how the sacrifice of
the three horses is suggested. In the Dacian environment these were not interpreted as pars pro toto
depositions in any such burial contexts, however the custom is recorded in a series of contemporary
burials from the Central European Celtic milieu.
The presence of spurs in burial contexts of the Padea-Panagjursky Kolony group was recorded in
the case of mound II in the barrow cemetery of Cugir382, the burial contexts of Dubova (Mehedinţi
county)383, Bulbuc-Ceru Băcăinţi (Alba county)384 and with somewhat uncertainty, in a context
from Dobruja area385. The spurs from funerary finds, few in numbers, were associated to Thracian
bits, however they cannot be interpreted as a pars pro toto deposition suggestive of the horse pres-
ence386. Their deposition is rather an additional symbol indicative of the riding warrior status of the
deceased. In both the case of the Cugir cemetery as well as that of Călan, the present spur and third
bit symbolise the knight status of the deceased and only the pair of bits from the Călan grave may be
interpreted as pars pro toto deposition, as a substituent of the burial chariot used in the burial ritual.
A lot of objects which require examination from the point of view of the find context is repre-
sented by certain possible grave goods identified in the Dacian fortress of Luncani-Piatra Roşie. The
lot, recovered subsequent to illegal detecting in the area in 2001, is composed of a series of bronze
and iron items, among which also weaponry, harness and cart objects387, which may compose or
be part of one or several grave furnishings388. Based on how this lot of items was recovered and the
possibility that not all pieces come from the same location, the existence of one or several burial
features from where these could originate is to a certain extent speculative. Regardless, the analysis
of the pieces from this lot is necessary, as the association of certain artefact classes makes possible
such interpreting.
The items recovered in 2001 were apparently found in the area of the anthropic terraces on the
378
Dima 2005, p. 183.
379
Eskenasy 1977, p. 607, fig. 5; Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 112, fig. 4.
380
Eskenasy 1977, p. 607, fig. 6/c; Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 112, fig. 3/3b,c.
381
Eskenasy 1977, p. 607, fig. 6/a; Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 112, fig. 3/3a.
382
Dima 2005, p. 183.
383
Spânu 2002, p. 84, fig. 1/5; Dima 2005, p. 182, pl. II/10.
384
Borangic 2014, p. 364, fig. 3/d, fig. 4.
385
Ferencz 2015, p. 432, fig. 1, fig. 3/3,4.
386
Borangic 2013, p. 62.
387
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 169–181.
388
Egri, Ferencz 2017; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 28.
74 Cristian Dima

eastern side of the hill where the Dacian fortification lay. Even though the action was re-enacted,
not many details were provided regarding the more accurate location of the findspot. The items
were partially published, one of the retrieved objects, composed of two items, being preserved
owing to its special nature, for later publishing389. This object has been recently presented in a con-
ference and it is a fragmentary bronze relief rendering Dionysus and the bronze disc it was attached
to. The relief was deemed architectural decoration, however its functionality is still debated, its use
as cart decorative piece being possible as well390. The same functionality was also proposed for the
depiction of a female deity bust discovered still at Luncani – Piatra Roşie, in tower B (Cat. 111).
As previously mentioned, three pieces of the lot were also interpreted as cart parts. These are two
bronze tubes (Cat. 108, 109) that could have been part of the cart hound or its box, while the third
is a terret (Cat. 106), fitted to the cart yoke. The harness pieces in this lot are represented by the
mouthpiece of a bit391 and four knotted links392. The fragmentary state of the bit prohibited any
accurate chronological or typological framing, types Werner VIII or IX being suggested, chrono-
logically framed starting with the 2nd century BC. Regarding the functionality of the knotted
links it was generally suggested their use as buckles, links fitted to the belt in order to hang cer-
tain objects393 or as harness items394. This type of piece was discovered in the Dacian environment
in burial and sacred contexts, fortresses or fortified settlements, chronologically framed to the
2nd century BC – 1st century AD. The spearhead is the single object from the discussed furnish-
ing part of weaponry items. Spearheads were discovered in military contexts (fortresses, fortified
settlements)395, however they also emerge in relatively large numbers in burial contexts, represent-
ing the most frequently found weaponry item in known Dacian graves396. For instance, upon the
examination of burials discovered in the middle course area of the Mureş only, spearheads were
discovered in the majority of known features associated with Thracian type bits, swords or curved
daggers. In the funerary context of Călan397, the spearhead is in associated with three Thracian bits,
a sica dagger and a Celtic type sword. In the chariot grave from mound 2 at Cugir398, the spearhead
is associated with a Celtic type sword in its scabbard, a curved dagger (?)399, bits, shield umbo, hel-
ment, chain mail etc., while in mound 4 at Cugir400, a spearhead is associated with a curved dagger.
Together with a curved dagger and a Thracian type bit, a spearhead comes from the grave furnish-
ing of Blandiana (Alba county)401, while at Teleac (Alba county)402 such a piece is associated with a
curved dagger. Other two spearheads are ascribed to a burial likely from Piatra Craivii403 beside a
Celtic type sword. It is not excluded that this grave furnishing also contained a sica dagger, yielded
by older finds of the late 19th century404. A spearhead is also reported in the case of the burial
389
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 169.
390
Egri, Ferencz 2017.
391
Ferencz, Bodo 2000, p. 172, pl. I/4.
392
Ferencz, Bodo 2000, p. 172, pl. III/5–8.
393
Glodariu 1984, p. 69.
394
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 107.
395
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 132–133, fig. 70.
396
Rustoiu 2002, p. 15; Spânu 2002, p. 108–109.
397
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, fig. 6/1.
398
Crişan 1980, p. 83; Sîrbu 1994a, p. 124–125; Popa 2011, p. 326; Teleagă 2014, p. 306.
399
Teleagă 2014, p. 306–307.
400
Crişan 1980, p. 82; Sîrbu 1994a, p. 124–125; Popa 2011, p. 330.
401
Ciugudean 1980, fig. 2/4; Rustoiu 2002, p. 26.
402
Moga 1982, fig. 1/2, 2/2.
403
Popa 2008, pl. 1/5–6; pl. 2/3–4.
404
Rustoiu 2007, p. 83.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 75

context of Costeşti – Cetăţuie405 associated, so far, with a sica dagger and cart parts. In two of the
Dacian graves discovered at Grădina Castelului in Hunedoara were also deposited spearheads. The
first (Feature 12) was found beside another curved dagger (sica), the grave goods comprising two
bronze links, bone objects and a bead406 as well, while the second was associated with an arrowhead
(Feature 24)407. In the five features identified following illegal detecting at Bulbuc (Ceru-Băcăinţi
commune), which are most likely funerary, were deposited six spearheads. These were associated
in the first feature with a spur, a Thracian bit and a curved dagger408, while in the second feature the
spearhead is associated with a curved dagger in a scabbard409. Two of the spearheads seem to have
been deposited beside a curved dagger in a scabbard and a Thracian bit410. In the other two features,
spearheads associate with a curved dagger in a scabbard, bit411, respectively a curved dagger412.
As noted from this brief presentation of grave furnishings with spearheads, from the repertory
of finds of the sort known on the middle Mureş valley are missing only a few Dacian graves, which
do not contain spearheads. This is the case of the chance find of items collected from the farming
layer in the archaeological site of Tărtăria (Alba county), composed of a curved dagger scabbard
fragments, two hackamore fragments of a Thracian bit and a hanger of a Celtic sword scabbard413.
Given the find conditions it may be assumed that the furnishing of this burial feature was not
entirely found. Spearheads were neither found in the case of the funerary context of Ardeu414, none-
theless both are not fully researched.
Most often, spearheads identified within graves are associated, as shown, with Thracian bits,
curved daggers or both. Occasionally, these spearheads were ritually bent, however this is not the
case for the discussed lot of Piatra Roşie. Thus, it may be assumed that its association with the bit
fragment could be indicative of a possible grave furnishing, however only if the two items come
from the same context, an aspect which most likely will remain unresolved.
Other two objects from the lot recovered by the treasure hunters that may be related to funer-
ary rituals are represented by the situla handle415 and the simpulum fragment416. The intact situla
handle is made in bronze and has rendered water bird heads by its extremities. Such situla handles
with stylised bird head extremities were also discovered in the Dacian environment of Costeşti –
Cetăţuie417, Căpâlna418, Tilişca419, and one in iron in a feature from the Sighişoara – Wietemberg
site420. In funerary setting, a situla with such a handle was discovered in mound 2 of the barrow
cemetery at Cugir421. To the same chronological time span date a few similar graves at Visagio,

405
Glodariu et alii 1998a, p.50; Glodariu et alii 1999, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208;
Borangic 2017, p. 400.
406
Sîrbu et alii 2007, p. 24–25, fig. 35,
407
Sîrbu et alii 2007, p. 45, fig. 40/10.
408
Borangic 2014, p. 264, fig. 3–4.
409
Borangic 2014, p. 265, fig. 5–6.
410
Borangic 2014, p. 266–267, fig. 7–9.
411
Borangic 2014, p. 268, fig. 10–12.
412
Borangic 2014, p. 268–269, fig. 13–14.
413
Ciugudean, Ciugudean 1993, p. 77–79, fig. 1; Rustoiu 2002, p. 26.
414
Ferencz, Dima 2009, p. 18–34.
415
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175, pl. II/1.
416
Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 171, pl. IV/2.
417
Glodariu 1974a, p. 234, pl. XLV/B10/11; Mateescu-Suciu, Gheorghiu, Găzdac 2016, p. 118, fig. 10.
418
Glodariu, Moga 1989, p. 103, fig. 87/4,8
419
Lupu 1989, p. 79, pl. 22/18.
420
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 84, fig. 67/4; Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997, p. 106. fig. 114/1.
421
Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Popa 2004, p. 100, p. 12/6; Rustoiu 2008, p. 161–163, fig. 81/1; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34, fig. 1;
76 Cristian Dima

Ciringhelli (Verona)422 or the chariot grave at Verna (Isére)423. In the case of the grave goods from
San Maria di Zevio “Lazisetta” (Verona)424, several bronze vessels used for the funerary feast, among
which also a situla, simpulum and a patera have their handles ending in bird heads.
These vessels are supposed to originate either from the Italian peninsula or the Balkans, and/or
the eastern Mediterranean area or were locally produced by artisans native to other regions425. They
are specific to wine consumption and their presence in burial contexts is related to burial rituals and
funerary feasts. In the case of burials, these might have been likely purposefully ordered, as water
bird depictions may be associated with the burial chariot, representing an occurrence with origins
in earlier periods.
The remainder of the items composing the goods recovered by the treasure hunters are not
specific to grave furnishings, some being possibly part of a jeweller’s toolkit. Their presence in the
discussed lot may be related to the items’ find in different areas, or, if discovered together, the con-
text could have other interpretations as well.
Still here may be included the items discovered in tower B of the Dacian fortress of Luncani –
Piatra Roşie, despite its interpretation of surveillance tower of the access road towards the fortress,
hence playing a mainly military role. Without discussing here the subject of rectangular towers in
the Dacian world, deemed either as towers with strictly military role426 or as prestige houses of the
Dacian aristocrats427, the objects yielded by the excavations performed in the tower above seem to
point to circumstances interpretable from several points of view. Beside the fretted yoke plaque
(Cat. 110), in inventory was also found the bronze plaque with the bust of a female deity (Cat. 111),
which may be interpreted as cart piece. Beside these two pieces, the rather rich furnishing also con-
tains a series of bronze and iron items, a small anvil428, two clay moulds used for bronze casting429
to which adds a series of finished bronze objects or bronze waste. These could suggest the presence
of a goldsmithing workshop in this tower430, however such interpreting is uncertain given that the
context did not yield crucibles or fire installations for bronze melting. Even more, the unclear stra-
tigraphy of this archaeological context, investigated by mid last century and lack of knowledge of
the stratigraphic relation between the discovered items and the time when this security tower was
built, impede its safe interpretation. Taking into account the general chronological framing of the
items discovered in the fortress of Luncani – Piatra Roşie, the association in the furnishing of tower
B of weaponry and military equipment objects, evidences resemblances with the funerary aristo-
cratic furnishings known in the Geto-Dacian environment. Obviously, for the lack of the deceased
and secure find context, the interpreting of a funerary context is doubtful. Equally indecisive are
the possible interpretations of the lot of items discovered via the illegal activities described above
or the furnishing of the natural cavit on terrace III in the fortress at Piatra Roşie431. The insufficient
archaeological documenting of building phases, stratigraphy and dating difficulty of the objects

Popa 2011, p. 326–333, pl. 151/5; Egri, Berecki 2015, p. 134, fig. 9; Borangic 2017, p. 400, pl. 57/2.
422
Bolla, Castoldi 2016, p. 146; Božič 2017.
423
Perrin, Schönfelder 2003.
424
Bolla 2002, p. 205–207, fig. 1; Salzani 2004, p. 682–683; Bolla, Castoldi 2016, p. 121–155, fig. 21; Božič 2017.
425
Egri, Berecki 2015, p. 134.
426
Glodariu 1983, p. 26–96.
427
See chap. 6.
428
Daicoviciu 1954, pl. XII, fig. 1
429
Daicoviciu 1954, pl. XIV/6–7.
430
Rustoiu 1992, p. 51.
431
Popa 2008, p. 359, note 30; Popa 2011, p. 331; Dima, Borangic 2018, 27–29; see Chap. 5.3 for the inventory of the
“natural cavity” from Luncani – Piatra Roşie fortress.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 77

discovered in tower B at Piatra Roşie, render the analysis of this archaeological context even more
difficult. The location of the archaeological context nearby the road and the dating of some of the
items to the 2nd – 1st century BC as well as their association could provide a series of arguments
for their interpreting as grave goods. Thus the yoke part associated with the two Thracian bits could
be a pars pro toto deposition, with parallels in the Central European area in the funerary deposition
at Steinheim am Main432 (Germany). A few aspects may be noted based on these hypotheses. One
must emphasize the uncertain nature of the three lots from Piatra Roşie found in Tower B by illegal
detecting and in “natural hole”. Their interpretation could be different owing to the presence in each
of the furnishings of waste or tools specific to a jeweller (workshop?, deposit?). Starting from this
idea, a few similarities both between the three furnishing as well as compared to grave goods known
in the Dacian environment require presentation.
Regarding the area designed for funerary manifestations, several attempts have been made in
archaeology in order to establish a general rule that funerary settings433 had to comply with. In the
case of burials located nearby fortifications, it was noted that graves lay outside the fortified area,
commonly on the slopes of the fortified hill or by its base. More importantly, it seems these were set
up in visible places, nearby the access road to the fortification, like the case of the barrow cemetery
at Cugir or the Hunedoara – “Grădina Castelului” cemetery to which add the burial contexts from
Ardeu, Costeşti – Cetăţuie and Piatra Craivii. In addition, connection with the roads or trading
routes was noted also in the case of the cemeteries located in the vicinity of the Mureş valley, like
those at Blandiana, Teleac, Tărtăria or Călan on the Strei valley or Bulbuc on Arieş valley434.
The three discussed furnishings of Luncani – Piatra Roşie were discovered on the same eastern
slope of the fortified hill. Compared to the 2nd – 1st century BC chronological framing, the finds
lie outside the fortified area, the dating of the large enclosure fortification from the eastern slope
terraces being late. The access, paved road towards the fortification on the acropolis is positioned
midway the same eastern slope.
From the analysis of the discussed three artefact inventories, certain associations that seem
specific to funerary contexts may be noted. Dacian date graves from the Padea-Panagjursky Kolony
group area are peculiar, specificity reserved only to funerary manifestations of the warrior elite.
The funerary features from the middle course area of the Mureş evidence the main specificities of
grave goods association, which may be traced throughout the diffusion area of this phenomenon.
Few of these funerary occurrences contain, differently from the general situation, also cart parts. In
the intra-Carpathian area, the funerary assemblies of Cugir, Costeşti – Cetăţuie and possibly Călan,
mark a special feature of the funerary phenomenon via the presence of the burial chariot, which
cannot be other than the expression of the burial procession, ekphora, the influences and origin of
which shall be presented in the following subchapter435. In the extra-Carpathian area were reported
two chariot burial features436, chronologically framed to the same time interval, in mound 2 of the
Popeşti (Giugiu county) cemetery437 and the barrow grave at Radovanu (Călăraşi county)438. The
fragmentary state of the items from Popeşti and their illustration render impossible their framing
as possible cart parts, while the inclusion of this mound in the class of chariot burials is uncertain.

432
Schönfelder 2000, p. 399, Tab. 53, fig. 176/11, I/33.
433
Popa 2008, p. 362; Rustoiu 2015a, 349–367; Dima, Borangic 2018. p. 26–28.
434
Popa 2008, p. 362–363; Borangic 2014, p. 269–272.
435
see Chap. 4.3.; Dima. Borangic 2018, p. 26–28; Dima 2020a, p. 25–29; Dima 2020b, p. 63–67.
436
Sîrbu 1994a, p. 133; Popa 2004, p. 125–126; Popa 2011, p. 340–341.
437
Vulpe 1976, p. 214, fig. 5/20, 10/15, 11/2.
438
Vulpe 1976, p. 208, fig. 18; Crişan 1986, p. 121; Sîrbu 1994a, p. 133.
78 Cristian Dima

Neither the item at Radovanu may be determined with certainty as an element of cart design (pos-
sibly the front pivot), as parallels for respective piece could not be identified to date.
Thus, the three groups of items from Piatra Roşie exhibit a series of similar features, resembling
the grave goods known for the 2nd – 1st century BC Dacian civilisation:
Weaponry and military equipment items:
a. Tower B – spear-butt, shield umbo;
b. Lot discovered by metal detecting: spearhead;
c. “natural hole”: Celtic type sword and spear-butt.
Harness pieces:
a. Tower B – a pair of Thracian type bits;
b. Lot discovered by metal detecting: fragmentary bit;
c. “natural hole”: Thracian type bit.
Cart parts:
a. Tower B – yoke piece, bronze plaque;
b. Lot discovered by metal detecting: terret;
c. “natural hole”: miniature cart fragment.

4.2.4. Cart parts from unsecure find contexts

Many of the cart parts included in the catalogue of finds have unsecure find contexts. For some,
according to certain possible associations, we attempt to determine and interpret the find contexts
in the following subchapters. This is for instance the case of the terret439 (Cat. 60) in the Severeanu
collection of the MM – Bucharest. It was argued that the item was discovered at Sarmizegetusa
Regia, without further details, so it could be only typologically and chronologically framed, while
the find context remains unknown. Many of the cart wheel parts discovered at Costeşti – Cetăţuie
or Grădiştea de Munte have no secure find contexts, these being typologically framed and discussed
below against the general background of the fortresses and fortified settlements or their possible
inclusion in civil contexts. To these add two items discovered in the fortress of Băniţa440 (Cat.2, 3),
which could belong to carts, however for the lack of find contexts and incomplete publishing of the
materials identified in this fortress, any further interpretations about their morphology are impre-
cise. Neither the item from the Dacian settlement of Berindia (Cat. 4) has a secure find context,
reason for which only certain typological and chronological specifications could be made.
In a possible cult context could be framed only one cart piece, the linchpin (Cat. 14) discovered
nearby the two temples at point “Pietrele lui Solomon” located within the area of the fortress at
Costeşti – Blidaru441. It might have belonged to a ceremonial chariot, however for the lack of asso-
ciation with other items and known find context it is impossible to say with certainty whether there
is some connection with the cult contexts from the area or not.
For a series of cart item originating from Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 65–67,
69–71, 89–90, 101, 102, 104) or Feţele Albe (61, 62) their find spot is unknown. One may though
assume these come still from the civil quarters of Sarmizegetusa Regia. Similar is the case of the

439
Gramatopol 1982, p. 265–266, pl. 28/24; Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231.
440
Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/8–9.
441
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 48; Glodariu 1974a, p. 243, nr. 3, pl. XXXIV/a3; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 197, nr. 5; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 158; Florea 1998, p. 212, pl. 83; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 4/3; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 216–217, fig. 239.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 79

yoke and cart parts discovered in the fortress of Piatra Craivii (Cat. 40–42), which may rather come
from outside the fortified enclosure, namely one of its terraces.

4.3. Miniature chariots

Ideas of any sort travel through time and space in different forms that can be recognised follow-
ing certain patterns or their symbolism. Cultural manifestations and rituals are often done by com-
munities without understanding the origin or even the exact significance of the idea, but because
they know that this is how has always been done for ages. The origins and influences of a certain
type of deposition or a certain ritual of a community can be archaeologically traced by analysing
similar manifestations in the same area in earlier periods, but also analysing cultural manifestations
of other communities that came in to contact with them and researching their background.
Despite a well attested tradition in the First Iron Age or Bronze Age, a phenomenon with rather
rare occurrence in the Late Iron Age of Central Europe and Carpathian Basin is represented by the
deposition of miniaturised wagon-models. Made of iron and bronze the Late Iron Age wagon-mod-
els were deposited in certain contexts only in the inner-Carpathian region, in the area inhabited by
the Dacians, with only few discoveries so far. In pre-Roman Central Europe there is no evidence of
this type of artefact. However, in large areas miniature or model-wheels were discovered in different
archaeological contexts, mostly sanctuaries.
The situation is different in the inner-Carpathian region, in the space occupied by Dacian, begin-
ning with the second century BC. Five fragments of wagon-models have been discovered so far,
dated between the second and the first century BC and maybe the first decade of the first century
AD. The artefacts are comprise of two wagon model fragments coming from the Dacian fortress
Luncani – Piatra Roşie442 (fig. 14/a,c); one other model-wheel fragment from the Dacian fortress of

Fig. 14. Model-wheels: a. Luncani-Piatra Roşie; d. Sighişoara-Wietemberg (after Horedt/Seraphin

1971, fig. 63/2); c. Luncani-Piatra Roşie. (after Daicoviciu 1954, p. 89, pl. XV, fig. 2.).
442
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 89, pl. XV/fig. 2; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 16, fig. 1/a,e; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 1/a,c; Dima 2020b,
p. 60–61, fig. 2/a,c.
80 Cristian Dima

Piatra Craivii443; another wheel is coming from the Dacian settlement of Sighişoara – Wietenberg444
(fig. 14/b); and the last one, represents an almost entire wagon model, from a Dacian settlement in
Miercurea Sibiului445 (Sibiu county) (fig. 15).
The presence of this kind of artefacts in Dacian milieu is related to certain beliefs and religious
practice that have similar patterns and roots that can be found in different cultural spaces and
which are the result of several encounters and cultural exchanges. Religious ideas circulate from one
population to another preserving certain symbolism even though the original idea is sometimes
altered. Thus, an issue that will be discussed here is related with the origins of such manifestation,
the cultural encounters and connection with other population, the roots of this phenomena and
how certain ideas circulates through time from an area to the other.

Fig. 15. Model-wagon: Miercurea Sibiului (after Natea 2016).

Model wheels and wagons in Dacian milieu

The object from which this research began is a fragmentary miniature model-wheel discovered
after illegal metal detection, recovered by National Heritage Police in 2016, being part of an on-
going law investigation. The artefact is now in the National Museum of Romanian History (MNIR)
collection and was found, according to the first declarations, in the Orăştie Mountains area, most
likely from the Luncani Piatra-Roşie Dacian fortress or Costeşti – Cetăţuie Dacian fortress, with
other approximately 200 different objects, mostly tools. The wheel model, most probably part of a
wagon-model (fig. 14/a), is made of bronze and iron. The hub of the wheel is bronze cast, while the
fragmentary iron spokes were made by forging. The middle part of the hub has maximum 2,7 cm
in diameter, while the preserved spokes are about 3,5 cm length. The perforation for the axle in the
hub has 1 cm in diameter and probably the diameter of the entire wheel was between 10 and 13 cm.
Another object comes from Luncani Piatra-Roşie Dacian fortress (fig. 14/c), discovered in 1949
443
Inf. C. Plantos; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 16; Dima 2020a, p. 23; Dima 2020b, p. 60.
444
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 84, fig. 67/5; Dima / Borangic 2018, 16, fig. 1/d; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 1/b; Dima 2020b,
p. 60–61, fig. 2/b.
445
Luca et al. 2013, p. 68; Natea 2016, 76–78, pl. 16–17; Dima / Borangic 2018, p. 17, fig. 2; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 2;
Dima 2020b, p. 60–61, fig. 3.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 81

in the main archaeological research on this site, in the so-called „natural cavity” context, a sinkhole,
together with several other artefacts. The object is a fragmentary axle and wheel of a miniature cart
or wagon446. The object consists in a rectangular bar, with two perforations to which the body of the
wagon was attached. The bar was bended at the ends, forming the axle on which there was preserved
a wheel with broken spokes. The wheel had eight spokes made in iron, as all the other preserved
parts. The axle is of 16 cm length, the diameter of the preserved wheel is of 4,5 cm, and the width
of the axle is 1,5–1,8 cm.
At Sighişoara-Wietenberg site, in old excavations, was found a small iron wheel447 with a diam-
eter of 18 cm (fig. 14/b). On the well-shaped hub were originally eight spokes. This and the wheel
rim had been broken up into individual pieces, and, since they were strongly oxidized, they could
only be joined together according to their probable cohesion. Because of its small diameter, the
author of the discovery mentions that the wheel could hardly have been used for profane purposes,
belonging to a cult cart or wagon. The wheel was found in a pit at 60 cm depth, near a silver brooch.
From old excavations, a fragmentary wheel also comes from the Piatra-Craivii fortress. The
wheel, made of iron, has a diameter with a range of 13 and 15 cm. The object was discovered on the
5th terrace of the settlement448 .
The complete model wagon was discovered during the preventive researches on the Transylvania
highway project, on the archaeological site of Miercurea Sibiului IV. The wagon has 13,5 cm height,
a length of 42 cm and a width of 25,5 cm (fig. 15). All components were made by forging and rivet-
ing of three layers of iron with a thickness of 5 mm, welded by 8 rivets. In the upper part, the wagon
has twisted bars on each side, and, on the shorter sides, handles were provided. In the corners, these
bars are fixed on the wagon with an iron button. The four hubs of the wheels were bronze casted.
The five spokes of the two restored wheels were also made of iron. The diameter of the hub has
3,7 cm, whilst the hole for the axle has 0,8 cm and the total diameter of wheel13 cm449.
Miniature wheels are a small frequency discovery. Only two of these types were discovered
in Dacian archaeological sites, in form of pendants. The first one comes from the Sighişoara-
Wietenberg settlement450, probably from a pit similar with the one where the model wheel was
discovered. The wheel is made of bronze with four spokes. At the end of the spokes, outside the rim,
it had two ornaments. The dimension of the wheel is 4,4 cm in diameter and it was dated between
the second half of 2nd century BC and the 1st century BC, according with the analogies from Central
Europe451.
The second miniature wheel comes from Măgura Moigradului (Zalău County)452, discovered in a
grave-pit, together with a globular pendant, pottery fragments and the upper parts of a woman skel-
eton. The fragmentary wheel pendant made in silver has three spokes and its diameter has 3,5 cm.
Chronologically, this wheel was dated in the same period as the one mentioned above, according to
the same analogies and also in relation with another pendant found in the same context.
446
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 89, pl. XV/fig. 2; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 16, fig. 1/a,e; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 1/a,c; Dima 2020b,
p. 60–61, fig. 2/a,c.
447
Horedt / Seraphin 1971, p. 84, fig. 67/5; Dima / Borangic 2018, 16, fig. 1/d; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 1/b; Dima 2020b,
p. 60–61, fig. 2/b.
448
Cf. Plantos 2016; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 16; Dima 2020a, p. 23; Dima 2020b, p. 60.
449
Luca et al. 2013, p. 68; Natea 2016, 76–78, pl. 16–17; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 17, fig. 2; Dima 2020a, p. 23, fig. 2; Dima
2020b, p. 60–61, fig. 3.
450
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, fig. 63/2; Rustoiu 1996, p. 126, fig. 87/6; Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997, p. 114, fig. 118/6; Dima,
Borangic 2018, p. 17, fig. 1/b.
451
Rustoiu 1996, p. 126.
452
Matei, Pop 2001, p. 262, pl. 2/2
82 Cristian Dima

Miniature wheels and model wagons in other cultural spaces and time frames
For the La Tène period, in Central Europe, there is no evidence of complete model-wagons,
or even parts of wagons, as there are known for earlier eras like the so-called Kassel Wagen from
Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Also, for the case of the wheel models identified in sanctuaries, civil
space or graves, it was assumed that there are no elements to suggest the presence of these ones
as part of a miniature wagon453. Wheel models or miniatures of La Tène, mostly bronze and lead,
more rarely silver or gold, are of a few centimetres diameter, with a range of 5 to 120 mm. They have
four to twelve spokes, and represent more likely stylized wheels and just the more detailed ones
could designate a wheel model, some of them with precisely designed hubs454. Up to now, no more
detailed function assignment was made beyond the general description as an amulet or jewellery455
or as votive offerings for the ones discovered in temples, sanctuaries or pits456.
As jewellery or amulet, an example is the bracelet with wheel pendants which comes from the
grave no. 2 from Canly „Les Trois Noyers” (Oise). The bracelet itself is highly corroded. Three cop-
pers alloy elements were threaded onto its ring: two much damaged wheels of about 2 cm diameter
perforated at the centre, and one small hollow cylinder, with a diameter of 1.1 cm and 1 cm high457.
As well, four Late Iron Age and one early Roman cremation burials in the cemetery at Wederath
(Belgium) contained wheel models that were located on the corpse at the time of cremation and not
added later. The grave goods were associated with fibulas and beads and for one grave several min-
iature wheels were attached to a single necklace (Kiernan 2009, 15). More evidence for using this
kind of artefact as dress accessories could be found in the use of wheel models attached to fibulae, as
the two form the numerous brooches found at Stradonice (Czech Republic), where one has attached
on it with a bronze chain a four spokes wheel, and the other one has a wheel threaded onto the pin
through one of the gaps between the spokes458.
In Celtic pre-Roman and Gallo-Roman space, wheels as votive offerings are wide spread,
being large scale finds in temples and ritual deposits. The earliest mention as an archaeological
phenomenon is at the hilltop oppidum site of Boviolles (La Meuse, France), where thousands
of miniature wheels were found459. Wheel models were also discovered in other oppida sites as
Manching (Bavaria, Germany)460, Stradonice461, Mt. Beuvray-Bibracte (France)462, even if not
in so large number. Other large scale deposit related with a watery context, most likely a ritual
deposit that was uncovered in the river Lorie near Orléans (France), with about 2000 wheels mod-
els and numerous coins463. More wheels were found in the Nanteuil-sur-Aisne, „Nepellier” site
(Ardennes, France), a Romano-Celtic temple build on top of an Iron Age sanctuary that was used
till the IVth century AD464. The wheels found here also in number of thousands were made of lead,
potin, and bronze. Without other information, two separate concentrations of lead and bronze

453
Kiernan 2009, p. 11–39; Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161
454
Kiernan 2009, p. 12; Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161
455
Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161.
456
Kiernan 2009, p. 11–39
457
Gaudefroy, Pinard 1997, p. 97–98.
458
Pic 1906, p. 61–62, pl. X; Déchelete 1914, fig. 2–3; Kiernan 2009, p. 15, fig. 2–3.
459
Kiernan 2009, p. 16.
460
van Enderd 1991, p. 17.
461
Pic 1906, 61–62, pl. X.
462
Kiernan 2009, p. 16.
463
Kiernan 2009, p. 17.
464
Lambot 1989; Kiernan 2009, p. 17–18.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 83

wheels where found inside the cella walls, but could also belong to the Iron Age sanctuary465. As
well, other deposition of miniature wheels were found in the site of Villeneuve-Saint-Germain
(Aisne, France), both bronze and lead, dated between 50 and 20/15 BC466. One of the highest
agglomerations of votive wheels comes from votive depositions inside an Iron Age sanctuary at
Villeneuve-au-Châtelot (Aube, France)467. From here there are known 310 bronze wheels, 32 sil-
ver, and approx. 25000 lead wheels, all of them, except two silver wheels, were part of a hoard of
1128 coins belonging to Iron Age and Augustan period, found in two ceramic vessels. The proof of
the ritual nature of this hoard is given not only by the other votive offerings found in a large cen-
tral pit that contained intentional destroyed weapons, coins and animal bones, but also because
most of the coins belonging to this hoard had been mutilated with two chisel marks giving the
ritual nature of it468 .
As jewellery hanger and votive offerings, miniature wheels can be observed even up to the
Roman imperial period469, mostly in North Gaul, where small metal votive wheels appear in some
cult or profane places, related with a pre-Roman tradition470. Some of the wheels are discovered
individual, or in small groups. An interesting example is a wheel found in Augst, Augusta Raurica
(Basel, Switzerland) in a temple site, found together with other several wheels, all dated from the
first to third centuries A.D. The wheel is a large bronze model (80 mm), in two pieces, that bore an
inscription along the rim: …]RMA[ ] PER BENEFICARIVS V [ S ] L [ M ]471. Another wheel that has
an inscription along the rim (IOVI OPTIMO MAXIMO) was found in a pit next to the Romano-
Celtic sanctuary at Matagne-la-Petite (Belgium). The offering of wheels in temples and sanctuaries
is also present in other periods or cultural spaces, and, mostly, the offering was specially realised
for the occasions, as the bronze wheel of 7,5 cm length, dated 550–525 BC, dedicated by a smith
in Kamiros (Rhodos, Greece), with the inscription „Onesos the smith has dedicated me to Apollo:
a cartwheel”472 . Wheels were also been found outside the sacred areas, as for example the wheel
models found in a Roman vicus at Liberchies (Belgium)473 or a wheel model from a Roman villa
at Treignes (Belgium)474. Wheels models in small groups or individual are present also in Britain,
but not in large deposit, as for example two bronze wheel models from Great Walsingham (United
Kingdom), or another one, found in a hoard of bronze items buried in a pit at Felmingham Hall
(United Kingdom)475. On the German limes, though wheel fibulae are quite common, true wheel
models are rare. Two large bronze wheels, both with eight spokes, were found in the north gate (dm.
85 mm) and the vicus bath (dm. 90 mm) of a small fort at Böhming (Germany), dated between 90
and 234 A.D. Both wheels wear the remains of the iron axels inside the hub and, most likely, they
were parts of miniature wagons or chariots476.
Taking this in consideration, there must be noticed that, except of the wheel models from
Böhming, and, with certain doubts, the one from Augusta Raurica, there is no evidence of metal

465
Kiernan 2009, p. 18.
466
Debrot, Lambot, Buchsenschutz 1988, p. 132; Kiernan 2009, p. 19.
467
Piette 1981; Kiernan 2009, p. 20.
468
Kiernan 2009, p. 20.
469
Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161.
470
Roymans 1990, p. 78.
471
Kiernan 2009, 21.
472
van Straten 1981, p. 94, fig. 33.
473
Doyen 1984, p. 25, fig. 1A,1B; Kiernan 2009, p. 23.
474
Doyen 1985, p. 20–21; Kiernan 2009, p. 23.
475
Kiernan 2009, p. 23.
476
Kiernan 2009, p. 22.
84 Cristian Dima

wagon models for the Iron Age or roman period. A distinct case is represented by the wagon discov-
ered in a burial at Rodenkirchen in Cologne (Germany), dated in late 4th century AD477. The cart
was built from five parts: the axels and the pole connecting the wagon to the yoke are in one single
piece, the pole attached to the undercarriage by a simple hinge, and four damaged wheels, each with
eight spokes, fit on the axels of the undercarriage. The double yoke of the wagon fits on the necks
to the back of two model oxen. The cart measures 15 cm, and the axels are 6 cm long. It is without
its upper section, which could be made of wood. This wagon was included in a phenomenon of the
so-called „Mithrassymbole”, along with other grave discoveries in the area of Cologne (further dis-
cussion about „mitrassymbole” see Kiernan 2009, 195–210). Thus its similarities with other wagons
from other periods, even the presence of the oxen, no association could be made with them, the
„Mitrassymbole” models being a particular case that has nothing to do with miniature and model
votive offerings presented above.
Going back in time, in Greek and Thracian space, there are several discoveries of metal wagons
found exclusively in funerary context. The highest number of metal carts is in the Archontiko cem-
etery (Greece), where were discovered 15 two-wheeled carts and six four-wheeled carts, all dated
between 6th and 5th c. BC478. In the Sindos necropolis (Greece), dated in late 6th century BC and the
beginning of the 5th century BC, in six graves there were found small iron and bronze wagon and
chariot models479, similar models in a grave in Peperia at Vergina (Greece), dated to 500–490 BC,
in the cemetery of Aiani (Greece) (end of 6th- begining of 5th c. BC), in the cemetery at Pydna were
was found a lead chariot model in a pit grave (5th c. BC), another cart (4th c. BC) in a cist grave of
the same necropolis, and a bronze model of chariot was found in the cist grave of a child, No. 26
of the 5th century BC, excavated in the cemetery at Michalitsi (Greece)480. Most of the carts found
were made of iron; their average width in Sindos is of 16 cm and their average length is of 30 cm,
including the yoke. There is no significant difference in size between the two-wheeled and the four-
wheeled carts. Every cart is unique in its shape: some are quite plain while others are more elabo-
rated481. The wagon models cease being deposited in the 4th century in the Macedonian necropolis,
the last surviving example being represented at Pydna, tomb 45, which is larger than the others, but
without reaching the dimensions of a life-size one482.
Metal model wagon are a much wider appearance for the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.
The Bronze Age wagon models belong to the Urne Field culture are known as vessel-carrying
wagon models (Kesselwagen) provided as grave goods, in the vessel being carried the cremated
remains of the deceased. Some of these wagons also have water-birds protomes and were found in
Acholshausen (Germany), Peckatel (Germany), Skallerup (Denmark), Milaveč (Czech Republic)483.
This evolved later in Villanovan and Hallstatt cultures of the Early Iron Age in different parts of
Europe, majority in Italy, also related with a funerary practice484. This kind of wagon were also found
in Carpathian Basin, some of them being decorated with water birds protomes, as, for example, the
Kesselwagen from Bujoru (Teleorman County, Romania) belonging to Basarabi culture485 (fig. 16/b)

477
Kiernan 2009, p. 201–202; Hanemann 2014, p. 279.
478
del Socorro 2013, p. 56.
479
Vokotopoulou 1996, p. 102–147; Theodosiev 2000, p. 188–191; del Socorro 2013, p. 53–59.
480
Theodosiev 2000, p. 188–189.
481
del Socorro 2013, p. 56.
482
del Socorro 2017, p. 110.
483
Pare 1989, 82; Pare 1992, p. 179.
484
Pare 1992, p. 177–186.
485
Pare 1992, p. 181, 184, fig. 126; Vulpe 2000, p. 44, fig. 28.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 85

or the ones discovered in Orăştie (Hunedoara County, Romania)486 (fig. 16/a) and Glasinac (Bosnia
Herzegovina)487 (fig. 16/c).

Fig. 16. Early Iron Age model-wagons with water-birds protomes: a. Orăştie (photo
C. Dima); b. Bujoru (photo C. Borş); c. Glasinac(photo C. Dima)

Archaeological context and chronology

Returning to the miniature wagons belonging to Dacian milieu, in relation with the chrono-
logical frame and archaeological contexts identification and interpretation, there must be noticed
that several difficulties are given due to the small amount of information. For the wheel fragment
recovered from illegal detection, along with other several artefacts, it is difficult to establish yet the
specific area where it was discovered and much more difficult to identify the archaeological con-
text. At the same time, the wheel fragment could be chronological framed only in relation with the
period of existence of the Dacian fortresses and settlements from Șureanu Mountains.
The wheel model fragment from Piatra Craivii fortress comes from old excavations and the only
information related with this artefact is that was found on the 5th terrace of the fortress488. This
terrace is one of the most researched areas of the fortress in the years ’60-’70, being positioned on
the East side of the fortified precinct489. Here, a rectangular shaped sanctuary was discovered that
had, most likely, four rows490 of wooden pillars placed on round plinth. Full unveiling of the terrace
brought to the light several burned layers coming from the burning of the sanctuary, in which except
artefacts, few disturbed plinths were discovered. As well, it is mentioned that were excavated five
ritual pits that contained rest of cereals, vessel deposits, weapons and animal bones491. According
to the authors of the diggings, the sanctuary contained a rich inventory, without mentioning which
one exactly, presenting the archaeological material from the fifth terrace all together, without an
evidence of the archaeological contexts or stratigraphic position492. The inventory of artefacts from
here is formed from several metal objects as buckles, brooches, pendants, weapons, vessels etc. and
it was dated between the first century B.C. and the beginning of the first century A.D.
The wagon discovered from Miercurea Sibiului was recently published with all the archaeological

486
Pare 1992, p. 181, 184, fig. 125; Schuster 2007, p. 33.
487
Pare 1992, p. 181.
488
cf. Plantos 2016.
489
Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965; Moga 1981; Plantos 2006, p. 7–24.
490
David 1999, p. 39, 46 – fig. 5; Plantos 2006, p. 14.
491
Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965, p. 126.
492
Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965; Moga 1981; Plantos 2006, p. 7–24.
86 Cristian Dima

details of the archaeological context. The author of discovery mentioned that the wagon comes from
a pit without any other artefacts, and was interpreted as votive pit493 . This site was interpreted as a
fortified settlement with two chronological layers, in the first one being framed the context with the
model wagon. Also, other pits were discovered in this layer, considered as ritual pits, with one, two
or three ceramic vessels as deposition. Contemporary with these pits were researched three living
complexes and two domestic ovens. In the second layer, in pits or living complexes the inventory
comprise different metal objects as weaponry or harness fittings, spurs, brooches, but also a silver
coin hoard of Greek drachmas and Roman denars. In this chronological phase were also framed
four inhumation graves, inside of the fortified area. The first phase in which the wagon model was
framed was dated in between the end of 3rd century and the middle of 2nd century BC, based on
two silver coins494.
The iron wheel from Sighişoara – Wietemberg was discovered in a pit at 60 cm depth in con-
nection with a silver brooch495 that was framed in the type 15a (Rustoiu)496 and it has the origins
in Gaule, more than a half of the brooches being discovered in this area, whilst few of them were
discovered in Britain, Italy, Greece, pre-Roman Dacia and at north of the Black Sea. These brooches
were dated in the second half of the first century BC, but for Dacian milieu, being considered as
import object, the chronological frame could be extended till the first quarter of the first century
AD497. The iron wheel was interpreted as part of a miniature wagon, giving as analogy the minia-
ture axis with fragmentary wheel from Luncani – Piatra-Roşie498, but was also believed, because
of its rarity in the Dacian milieu, that this wheel could be a modern object499. New records shown
here prove that this kind of artefact is well enough attested in pre-Roman Dacia. On the Sighişoara
– Wietemberg site, a great number of pits were found with different functionality. Many of them
were placed inside the settlement and some of them even inside the living buildings, with the func-
tion of food storage containers that end up in some waste pits. Other pits were found outside the
settlement, most of them being related with funeral, cultic and magic manifestation. In some con-
texts, there were placed human bones without anatomical connection related with the so-called
„pit fields”500. As well, other ritual pits were discovered, which comprise burned animal bones and
ceramic fragments501. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of all contexts inventory and even if the
iron wheel is said that was discovered in a pit with a brooch, there cannot be made any assumption
if the pit had other inventory, or not.
Related with the „natural cavity” from Piatra Roşie, there are several discussions upon this con-
text. The inventory of this context it is formed from a La Tène type sword, a „Thracian” bit, spear
butts, a wagon model axel with a broken wheel, a fragmentary situla handle, a bronze vessel, an iron
vessel, a fragmentary curved blade, a bronze three nozzle lamp, a spindle weight and some other
unidentified metal fragments. The sinkhole was interpreted by the C. Daicoviciu, as a disposal pit
where unnecessary objects were thrown there502. In the monograph of the fortress, there are no
specifications about the archaeological digging details and, only from a note found in the National
493
Natea 2016, p. 76
494
Luca et alii 2013, p. 68; Natea 2016, p. 76–96.
495
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 84, fig. 67/5.
496
Rustoiu 1997, p. 48.
497
Rustoiu 1997, p. 48.
498
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 84.
499
Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997, p. 110.
500
Sîrbu 1994b, p. 48.
501
Horedt, Seraphin 1971; Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997.
502
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 66.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 87

Museum of Transylvanian History (MNIT) deposits, together with several objects from this con-
text, it is mentioned that a bronze vessel was found at the West edge of the section of the „basin-pit”,
at a deep of 0,50 m. From the note, signed by N. Gostar in July 1949, it can be understood that the
section was orientated East-West and it is also specified that this context is a „basin-pit”. K. Strobel503
argues that this context could not represent a residual pit and nor it can be filled by the debris of a
first catastrophic fire and argues that this represents a ritual deposit pit, with a cultic significance,
related with the cult of water, phenomenon better known in the Celtic and Germanic world. Other
hypothesis is that the known inventory of this context could represent the elements of a funerary
contex504. Giving the presence nearby of a building related with religious field and of a probably
votive pit in the north slope, where several decorated iron disks were deposited505, the „natural cav-
ity’’ can be also interpreted as a deposit (favissa) of votive objects that were offered in the cult space
and later “buried” in the sinkhole.
The axle and the wheel from Luncani – Piatra Roşie, have a series of difficulties related with
the dating in relation with the objects discovered in the archaeological context. The three nozzle
lamp made of bronze discovered in this context along with other similar lamp that comes from
Dacian site Piscu Crăsani506 have analogies in Hellenistic world, almost identical one being discov-
ered in Athenian Agora507, chronologically framed in Late Hellenistic period. Other similar lamps,
produced, most likely, in the Greek workshops, were discovered in Pompei508 or in the shipwreck
of Mahdia509. The lamp from Piatra Roşie was included in the Spargi type and was dated in the
last century BC510. The Celtic type sword has a period of utility in dacian milieu according with
some authors of the second century BC until the first AD, although the majority of the discoveries
belong to the frame comprise between 2nd and 1st century BC. The sword from Piatra Roşie has
some particularities that are slightly different having the top of the sword sharpen and not round
as other swords of Celtic type. The situla handle was dated between 1st century BC – 1st century
AD and considered an import from the italic milieu511. However, this kind of bronze cast situlae
handles have more parallels in the Hellenistic space, but many of them were also found in Celtic
milieu, being difficult to date and identify the situla type only on the basis of the handle. Hence,
the archaeological context and as well the axle could be chronological framed between 2nd and 1st
century BC.
In conclusion, related with the chronology, the model wagon, and the wheel fragments and,
as well for the wheel pendants, could be dated between 2nd–1st century B.C., with the possibility to
extend to the first decades of the first century A.D.

Origins and influences

Analysing the origin and influences for this type of artefact begins with researching upon the
contemporaneous influences exercised on Dacian civilization. One may see a parallel with min-
iature or model wheels discovered in Celtic temples and sanctuaries of pre-roman times, due to
many of the artefacts with origins in Celtic milieu. However, for the La Tène period, in Central
503
Strobel 1998, p. 210
504
Popa 2008, p. 359.
505
Florea, Ferencz 2007, p. 47.
506
Andrieşescu 1926, p. 85–87, fig. 277; Glodariu 1974, p. 237, pl. 34/b12/a.
507
Perlzweig 1963, fig. 69.
508
Franken 1996, p. 292, fig. 8–9.
509
Franken 1996, p. 295–296, fig. 12–15.
510
Egri, Rustoiu 2008, p. 79–80.
511
Glodariu 1974, p. 238.
88 Cristian Dima

Europe, there is no evidence of complete model-wagons, or even elements of such miniaturised

wagons. Furthermore, in the case of the wheel models identified in sanctuaries, civil space or graves,
it was assumed that there are no elements to suggest the presence of these as part of a miniature
wagon512, and up to now, no further classification of function assignment was made beyond the
general description as an amulet or jewellery513, or as votive offerings for the ones discovered in
temples, sanctuaries or pits514.
Chronologically, the closest parallel for wagon or chariot models can be found in the inventory
of the Oxus Tresaure. The hoard comprise of gold and silver objects from Ahemenid period, datable
between VI and IV century BC, found in a place known as Takht-i Kuwad (Kuliab district/TJK)
on the north bank of the River Oxus. Among the artefacts, two golden chariot models were found,
one complete and the other one fragmentary. The first one is drawn by four horses and has two
wheels, with eight and nine spokes, and on the front of the cab is a representation of the Egyptian
dwarf-god Bes. In the chariot there are two figures, the driver, holding the reins in his hands and a
passenger who is seated515. The second chariot, less preserved, is missing the wheels and the head
of the passenger seated near the driver. Two sheet-gold cut-out figures of horses found in the hoard
inventory are believed to be parts of draught horses for the chariot model516. The miniature chariots
represent a small scale image of the chariots in which Persian kings or noble customarily to rode,
two-wheeled chariots being used in Persia, as in Egypt or other oriental monarchies, both in war
and for hunting. The Persian chariot is best known from a depiction of King Darius on a cylinder
that is now in the collection of British Museum but also from a relief at Persepolis or the mosaic
representing the battle of Issus from Pompeii517.
Even though there is a distance in time and space, in relation to the chariot models discovered
in the Dacian milieu, it could be noted that some connection between Oxus hoard and Late Iron
Age civilisation from the north of Danube can be made. According to Nikola Theodossiev, the silver
head from a 4th century BC the burial in Peretu (Teleorman county), representing the sacred image
of the divine ancestor, has the closest parallel with the gold head from the Oxus Tresaure, dated to
the same period. This one may also reflect similar religious ideas among Persian and, around the
beginning of Hellenistic period, a Near East influence on Getic toreutics can be suggested518. The
same author argues that it is possible to identify some common cult practices and religious beliefs
among Thracian, Scythians and Iranians, connected with the cult of ancestors and the symbolism of
their heads as their most sacred human feature519. Related with the cult of the head attested among
the above mentioned populations, a connection has been suggested between this and some ritual
practices in funerary contexts, in which cremated remains of the deceased were placed inside the
helmet520. This practice of illustrating the symbolic role played by helmets was also encountered in
the north Thracian populations such as the case from Cuptoare-Sfogea (Caraş-Severin County),
dated 4th century BC521 and in different historical and cultural environments as, for example, a grave

512
Kiernan 2009, p. 11–39; Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161.
513
Schönfelder 2000, p. 159–161.
514
Kiernan 2009, p. 11–39.
515
Dalton 1964, pl. xxxix, fig. 20; Mongiatti, Meeks, Simpson 2010, p. 28, fig. 2 a-b; Curtis 2012, p. 28, fig. 14.
516
Dalton 1964, pl. xl, fig. 21; Curtis 2012, p. 29, fig. 15.
517
Dalton 1964, pl. xxxvii.
518
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 175.
519
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 175.
520
Rustoiu, Berecki 2012, p. 170.
521
Rustoiu, Berecki 2012, p. 170.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 89

from Săvârşin (Arad county)522 (probably 4th–3rd century BC) and the tumulus no. 4 from Popeşti
(Giurgiu county) (2nd–1st century BC)523. Nevertheless, one may see similarities yo the cult of the
head in the case of the mask from the Ocniţa Dacian cultic acropolis (Vâlcea county), even though
this mask was interpreted as not being a funeral mask but a representation of a deity524, though it
could be also interpreted as the sacred image of a divine ancestor.
In relation to the cult of the head, mortuary practice and the use of funeral masks is attested for
the Thracian Mygdones buried in the Sindos necropolis (per. Thessaloniki/GR), where, at the same
time imported Greek pottery and some Persian metalwork show strong contacts and foreign influ-
ences, as a result of numerous Greek colonies along the Aegean cost of Thrace and the Persian occu-
pation during the late 6th and first decades of the 5th century BC525. Returning to this paper’s topic, in
the Sindos cemetery, with 121 pit graves, cists and sarcophagi dated between 560–450 BC, six graves
had, as burial gifts, small iron and bronze models of chariots and wagons (Fig. 17/a)526. The fre-
quency of model-cart deposition is bigger in the case of the more recently researched Macedonian
necropolis of Archontiko (per. Pella/GR) where were discovered 15 two-wheeled carts and six four-
wheeled carts (fig. 17/c), all dated between 6th and 5th c. BC527.

Fig. 17. Cart models from Macedonian graves: a. Sindos (after Ignatiodou 2012, 410, 37); b. Vergina
(after Kottaridi 2011, fig 88); c. Archontiko (after Chrysostomou / Chrysostomou 2012, fig. 14).

Similar models were discovered in a grave in Peperia at Vergina (per. Imathia/GR) (Fig. 17/b),
dated to 500–490 BC528; in the cemetery of Aiane (per. Kozani/GR) (end of 6th- beginning of 5th c.
BC)529; in the cemetery at Pydna (per. Pieria/GR) was found a lead chariot model in a pit grave (5th
c. BC)530; a cart (4th c. BC) in a cist grave of the same necropolis and a bronze model of a chariot
was found in the cist grave of a child, No. 26 dated to 5th century BC, excavated in the cemetery at
Michalitsi (per. Epirus/GR)531. Other model wagons were found in the cemeteries of Edessa (per.
Pella/GR)532, Gorna Porta (opš. Ohrid/MK)533. Most of the carts found were made of iron; their
average width in Sindos is of 16 cm and their average length is of 30 cm, including the yoke. There is
no significant difference in size between the two-wheeled and the four-wheeled carts. Every cart is

522
Barbu. Hügel 1999, p. 109; Ferencz 2007, p. 44, no. 19.
523
Vulpe 1976, p. 203.
524
Berciu 1975, p. 615 – 617; Berciu 1981, p. 100 – 101.
525
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 191.
526
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 188–191; Manakidou 2010, p. 177–197; del Socorro 2013, p. 53–59.
527
del Socorro 2013, 15.
528
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 188–191; Manakidou 2010, p. 177–197; del Socorro 2013, p. 53–59.
529
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 188–191; Manakidou 2010, p. 177–197; del Socorro 2013, p. 53–59.
530
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 188–191; Manakidou 2010, p. 177–197; del Socorro 2013, p. 53–59.
531
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 188–189; Dasen 2012, p. 14.
532
del Socorro 2017, p. 115.
533
von Wolfgang 2014, p. 48.
90 Cristian Dima

unique in its shape: some are quite plain while others are more elaborate534. The wagon models cease
being deposited in the 4th century in the Macedonian necropolises, the last surviving example being
represented at Pydna, tomb 45, which is larger than the others, but without reaching the dimensions
of a life-size one535. These miniature wagons were considered as symbolic representation of funeral
carts depicted on monuments536, but likely are related as well with the presence of ceremonial chari-
ots in Thracian necropolises as a distinct funeral ritual. Indeed, the presence of miniaturised carts
in graves was interpreted as substitutes or the real ones and could be associated with passage rites
and beliefs about afterlife537.

Fig. 18. Map of wagon-models distribution in different chronological frames.

The wagon models from Macedonian cemeteries were often associated with other miniaturised
goods as chairs, tables and obeloi, and could be interpreted together as an ensemble, even though
not all the elements are present in every tomb538. This kind of assemblage was placed in relation to
the funerary banquet, organised in honour of the deceased by his family and the participants that
were seated on chairs539. The miniatures found in Macedonia were interpreted as an indication that
the ones attending the banquet are seated on chairs, thus having parallels with the fresco found in
534
del Socorro 2013, p. 56.
535
del Socorro 2017, p. 110.
536
Bouzek, Ondřejová 1988, 93; cf. Vendikov, Gherasimov 1973, fig. 56.
537
Chrysostomou / Chrysostomou 2012, p. 372–373.
538
del Socorro 2017, p. 168.
539
del Socorro 2017, p. 169.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 91

Kazanlak (Stara Zagora okr./BG) chambered tomb in Thrace where banqueters sit on chairs540, but
also with other similar practices attested in ancient Thrace541.
The presence of miniature chariots in Macedonian necropolises represents an image of the life-
size cart used for the transport of the deceased in the ritual procession of ekphora, a custom well
attested in Geometric and Archaic Greek painting and even a terracotta model of a cart dated to
the 7th century BC from a burial at Vari (per. Attica/GR)542. The carrying of the dead in a chariot is
well attested in other civilisations, sometimes the life-size chariot being buried with the deceased or
its presence otherwise symbolised, pars pro toto, by placing chariot related artefacts such as jokes,
pairs of bridle-bits, lynch pins or miniature wagon. In the case of Macedonian necropolises it was
noticed that the carts used for transporting the dead in the funeral procession to the grave, after the
deceased was exposed and mourned, are not dedicated carts solely for this purpose but the same
onew used in everyday life. However, the wagons are not drawn by draft animals (oxes or mules) but
rather by horses, preferred for ritual ceremonies. Miniature clay horses were placed together with
the cart in several tombs from Sindos and Archontiko suggesting their importance in this ritual543.
An interesting grave, no. 59 in Sindos necropolis, is represented by the grave of a young boy dated
between 530–520 BC, in which was deposited a miniature chariot harnessed by two clay horses and
accompanied by a third riding horse. The inventory of the grave comprises also several interest-
ing pieces relating to the social status of the boy, represented as a warrior despite being a juvenile,
having a helmet of „Illyrien” type, a sword, and two spear heads. Furthermore, other artefacts are
related with the funerary banquet such as bronze vessels or clay, but also a miniature table and chair
and obeloi and finally several recipients for perfume or unguents544. It seems that the assemblage of
miniature offerings are part of a specific complex of models of tables and chairs, of chariots loaded
with wood, of two-wheeled chariots in which horses modelled from clay are harnessed and accom-
panied by a third riding horse, and of platforms for firewood and skewers depicting ritual scenes545.
The model carts from Macedonian necropolises are two-wheeled with a higher box in the
case of male tombs, while for the female graves are present the four-wheeled wagons with biers546.
Two-wheeled chariots were associated with Dionysiac and Eleusinian celebration in Attic iconog-
raphy, while the four-wheeled wagons were associated with the deceased’s funeral procession547.
Additionally, the gender differentiation of the miniature wagon deposition in tombs was explained
by differences between male and female main occupations, while with the four-wheeled wagon is
used for agriculture labour, the domain of women, while the two-wheeled chariots having a military
role, a field of the men548.

Discussion
Coming back to miniature carts from Macedonian graves, presented above was the grave
comprising of a miniature iron chariot and three clay horses, two of them harnessed with the
third one for riding549. In other graves, miniature clay horses were placed as well, but only one
540
del Socorro 2017, p. 169.
541
Gergova 2006, p. 51–56.
542
Theodosiev 2000, p. 190; del Socorro 2017, p. 188.
543
del Socorro 2017, p. 188.
544
Voktopoulou 1996, p. 114–118.
545
Gergova 2006, p. 51.
546
Bouzek, Ondřejová 1988, p. 93; Ignatiodou 2012, p. 398; del Socorro 2013, p. 56
547
Ignatiodou 2012, p. 398.
548
del Socorro 2017, p. 166.
549
Voktopoulou 1996, p. 114–118.
92 Cristian Dima

or two. The miniature carts placed in graves represent the life-size chariot used in the funerary
process, while the miniature clay horses could represent the sacrificed horses placed together with
their owner as in the case of the Thracian sumptuous tumulus. As was argued above, there can
be seen a powerful influence given from the Greeks on the one hand, and Persian on the other,
associated with Thracian populations in the territory of modern Macedonia and Bulgaria, that
affected the ways of living, the mentality, architecture and funerary practice of the 6th–5th century
BC550. After the Persian wars from the beginning of the 5th century BC there followed a retreat
and the disappearance of Persian hegemony from Europe, while the Macedonians, Athenians and
other Greek cities were disputing their hegemony in the Balkan Peninsula. The Greek colonisa-
tion on the western coast of Black Sea could not have been successful without interaction with the
Odrysian Kingdom and as well with the Scythian dynasty. The presence of Greek colonies, and
as well the Thracian and Scythian tribes, resulted in a series of contacts and influences visible in
cultural manifestations, funerary practice and art. A Persian influence through the Greeks was
at the same time considered in the development of Thracian toreutics in the 4th century BC that
evolved independently from Scythian art, while other authors suggest that there are several ele-
ments to suggest Scythian influence in what is believed to be solely Thracian art551. There was also
discussion regarding the Scythian presence and influence in the fastidious grave from Agighiol
(Tulcea county)552. Regardless of the influences on toreutics, the funerary ritual of this tomb is an
exceptional phenomenon. Excluding the sumptuous military equipment, adornments and funer-
ary banquet vessels in the grave were deposited three sacrificed horses along with their harness.
The sacrifice and the offering of horses represents a phenomenon well attested in the Scythian
rich graves from the north of the Black See area but also in the Thracian graves from south of the
Danube. Has been noted from the beginning of the 4th century that miniature chariots placed as
grave goods begun to disappear from Macedonian tombs and this could be placed in connection
with some changes in funerary customs. Especially following the rise of the Macedonian kings
Philip II, Alexander III the Great and their successors, the Diadochi, the characteristic tomb form
in Macedonia, Thessaly and the area of Thracia between the Danube and the Black Sea coast, is a
built tomb with a long dromos ending in a rectangular chamber, both roofed with a barrel-vault,
although the cist graves continued at the same time553. In the upper Vardar River valley in the
same period there can be noted a Macedonian influence and the occurrence of well-built tombs
considered representative of elite burials of tribal societies. The Greeks and Macedonians influ-
ence not only the funeral architecture, but also the funerary ritual through which Thracian tribal
elites express their political power and religious authority in different ways. The sacrifice and the
commemorative games organised in honour of the dead show that Thracian rulers and nobles
were heroized in the Greek manner554. A special case mentioned above is in relation with that of
the horse sacrifice and the burial of the chariot as well. The presence of miniature clay and iron or
bronze carts in Macedonian necropolises clearly expressed in a symbolic manner the horse funer-
ary sacrifice that probably carried the funerary cart in the process of ekphora. Sacrificed horses
are present in few rich Macedonian graves in Sindos555 and Vergina556 and their rarity shows that

550
Theodosiev 2000a, p. 191.
551
Teleagă 2014, p. 295–318.
552
Teleagă 2010, p. 78–85; Teleagă 2014, p. 295–318; Constantinescu et alii 2014, p. 645–666.
553
D’Angelo 2010, p. 57–68; Guštin, Kuzman 2016, p. 314.
554
Theodossiev 2000b, p. 435–447.
555
Antikas 2008, p. 24–27.
556
Antikas 2002, p. 46–49.
 Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 93

such custom was not for everyone and only few had the honour of being buried with horse or
other animal sacrifice.
The presence of two harnessed clay miniature horses and a third saddled one seems to be a pat-
tern for few graves with sacrificed horses present as well in Thracian tumuli, though this cannot
be generalised, several graves having just a pair of sacrificed horses, or just one. For instance, the
rich tumulus, Mogilaskata Mogila from Vratsa/BG has three stone-built burial constructions. The
most important was placed in the centre of the tumulus, and the funerary procession of ekphora
was symbolised by a wagon with two-sacrificed horses and another saddle-horse557. The same ritual
of ekphora was symbolised by a wagon with two horses and another horse, all sacrificed, placed in
the front of the tomb entrance from Zhaba Mogila tumulus, near Strelcha (Obl. Pazardzhik/BG)558.
All of these examples show common practices of Macedonian, Thracian tribes and Scytians tribes,
visible throughout funerary practice as proof of their influences that works in both directions and
builds a common aristocratic ideology present in the area of Balkans in the 5th–3th century BC.
In Dacian milieu the horse sacrifice with or without chariot is attested in the case of the Cugir
tumulus559 and most likely in the funerary context from Călan560, both having similarities with the
three horse sacrifice attested for the Thracian tumulus of 4th–3rd century BC. This similar funerary
practice represents, most likely, a result of the perpetuation of certain ideas and concepts through
time that could be traced back to the warriors belonging to the Padea-Panagjurski Kolonii group.
This group of warriors took over a series of elements of aristocratic ideology as tumulus burial,
equestrian heroization, iconographic and symbolic motifs and reinterpreted this in their manner,
expressing their identity by new symbolic means561.
Summarise these discussions on the subject of model-wagons attested in Dacian milieu, a few
conclusions must be drawn. The rise of the Dacian civilisation is linked to the appearance of the
new warrior ideology in the area of north-western and western Balkan Peninsula. This warrior
group evolved, reinterpreting in their own way the ideology of aristocratic elites of Macedonians
and Thracian of the 5th–3rd century BC. The horse sacrifice and the chariot (life-size, pars pro toto or
miniaturised) in the burials of the Padea-Panagjurski Kolonii group is reserved for only few mem-
bers of aristocracy and clearly originates in the funerary customs and practice of earlier Thracian
tumuli influenced on one side by a Celtic presence and on the other side by Greeks. The miniature
carts found in the Macedonian graves of 6th–4th century BC symbolise in the first place the funer-
ary procession of ekphora, a ritual depicted later on Thracian funerary monuments, but also in the
burial of the life-size chariot and sacrificed pair of horses and the third saddle-horse. Although, no
miniature carts or wagon-models have yet been found in the Thracian necropolises, the concept was
preserved by the deposition of life-size ceremonial carts and later transmitted to Dacian aristocracy.
The model-wagon and model-wagons fragments from Dacian milieu do not have clear archaeo-
logical contexts and can likely be placed in relation either with a votive deposition or a funerary one.
Their origins can be traced back through time and are linked with Thracian funerary manifestation
and further with Macedonian funerary miniaturised cart deposition up to the funerary expression
of Early Iron Age and Urnfield Kesselwagen depositions.

557
Theodossiev 2000b, p. 435–447.
558
Theodossiev 2000b, p. 435–447
559
Crişan 1980, p. 82–83; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2002, p. 52; Rustoiu 2015, p. 359–360; Popa 2011, p. 326, pl.
151/1–3; Teleagă et al.ii 2014, p. 314–321.
560
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz 2002, p. 111–127.
561
Rustoiu 2015, p. 355.
94 Cristian Dima

4.4. Catalog
1. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Ardeu, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The upper part of the part consists of a guide ring which
rests on a semicircular curved rectangular fixing plate. The ring is sepa-
rated from the fixing plate by a rhomboidal ornament with a horizontal
groove in relief. The semi-circular support that serves to hold the yoke
piece is partially preserved under the fixing plate.
c. Type: A – Menke; Bechtheim – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: Lost.
h. Photo/Drawing: Andriţoiu, Mărghitan 1972.
i. Bibliography: Andriţoiu, Mărghitan 1972, fig. 28; Rustoiu 1996a,
p. 157, fig. 97/2; Rustoiu, Ferencz, 2002, p. 281, fig. 1/1; Dima 2019,
p. 23, fig. 2/1.

2. Fixing rivet
a. Place/discovery context: Băniţa, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
ends.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 9,6 × 4,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/9.

3. Fixing rivet
a. Place/discovery context: Băniţa, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
ends. The lower end is perforated in the shape of a washer, with the role
of fixing the piece in the wooden elements.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 9,2 × 4,1 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/8.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 95

4. Ornamental yoke fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Berindia, Arad County.
b. Description: Perforated bronze piece with vegetal motifs, preserved
fragmentary. It consists of a tip terminated in a pine with a deep profile,
fixed on a perforated strip for the rivets on the yoke, incorporating lan-
ceolate vegetal motifs.
c. Type: Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 9,7 × 5,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st – 2nd century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MȚC – Oradea/ 4059
h. Photo/Drawing: S. Bulzan
i. Bibliography: Dumitraşcu, Ordentlich 1973, p. 67, fig. 18; Rustoiu,
Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 3/4, Dima 2019, p. 30, fig. 9/2.

5. Yoke fitting
a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/ dwelling, on the
acropolis.
b. Description: The top of the piece is decorated with a pinecone-shaped
button. It is fixed on an elongated horseshoe-shaped semicircular strip,
partially preserved. The bar made of iron and caught in the inner spring
of the strip is missing.
c. Type: Titelberg – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 10,5 × 7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15164
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 147, pl. 50/6, 248/3; Dima 2019, p. 29,
fig. 8/4.

6. Yoke fitting
a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/ dwelling, on the
acropolis.
b. Description: The upper part of the piece is in the shape of a pine
cone. It is fixed on an elongated horseshoe-shaped semicircular strip,
provided with rivets at the ends.
c. Type: Titelberg – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze, Iron.
e. Dimensions: 9,4 × 7,1 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15169.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman.
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 147, pl. 50/3, 248/2.j; Dima 2019, 29,
fig. 8/1.
96 Cristian Dima

7. Yoke fitting
a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/dwelling 1/SV-X,
acropolis
b. Description: The top of the piece is decorated with a pine cone-
shaped button. It is fixed on an elongated horseshoe-shaped semi-circu-
lar strip, provided with a fastening rivet at the end on the right side. The
third element, the bar made of iron and caught in the inner spring of the
strip, has a circular ring at the end.
c. Type: Titelberg – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze, Iron.
e. Dimensions: 11,8 × 5,5 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15167.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman.
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 147, pl. 50/2, 248/1; Dima 2019, p. 29,
fig. 8/3.

8. Yoke fitting
a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/ dwelling, on the
acropolis of the fortified settlement.
b. Description: The upper part of the piece is in the shape of a pinecone
delimited by two moldings. It is fixed on an elongated horseshoe-shaped
semicircular strip, provided with rivets at the ends. The third element,
the bar made of iron is partially preserved only at the top.
c. Type: Titelberg – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze, Iron.
e. Dimensions: 7,6 × 5,9 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI- Roman/ 15176.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman.
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 147, pl. 50/4, 248/4; Dima 2019, p. 29,
fig. 8/2.

9. Yoke fitting
a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/dwelling, on the
acropolis of the fortified settlement.
b. Description: The piece is horseshoe-shaped, with slightly widened
and rounded ends, provided with a rivet or bronze nails.
c. Type:-
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 7,1 × 6,1 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15168.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 50/5, 248/5; Dima 2019, p. 29,
fig. 8/5.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 97

10. Yoke fitting/plaque

a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/dwelling, on the
acropolis of the fortified settlement.
b. Description: Plaque in an oval shape, hollow on the inside. It is pro-
vided on both sides with a semi-circular attachment, partially kept at
the top.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 4,1 × 2,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15178.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman.
i. Bibliography:: Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 17/2, 247/15; Dima 2019,
p. 30, fig. 8/7.

11. Yoke fitting/plaque

a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/ dwelling, acropolis of
the fortified settlement.
b. Description: Plaque in an oval shape, hollow on the inside and similar
to the piece with no. of
inv. 15178. It is provided on both sides with a semi-circular fastening
attachment, partially kept at the top.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze
e. Dimensions: 5,2 × 2,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15178.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI- Roman.
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 17/1, 248/6; Dima 2019, p. 30,
fig. 8/6.

12. Yoke fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/dwelling, acropolis of
the fortified settlement.
b. Description: The piece, made of bronze, has slightly widened ends
and a curved middle.
c. Type: –
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 5,1 × 1,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15165.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI-Roman.
i. Bibliography: Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 50/1, 247/13; Dima 2019,
p. 30, fig. 8/8.
98 Cristian Dima

13. Yoke fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Brad, Bacău County/dwelling, acropolis of
the fortified settlement.
b. Description: Piece similar to the previous one, this being caught by
a support made of bronze and iron, with two rivets and a fragmentary
grip ring.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze, Iron.
e. Dimensions: 7,1 × 6,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MI-Roman/ 15196.
h. Photo/Drawing: MI-Roman.
i. Bibliography Ursachi 1995, p. 148, pl. 50/7, 247/14; Dima 2019, p. 30,
fig. 8/9.

14. Linchpin
a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Pietrele lui Solomon, Hunedoara
County/ Sacred Area.
b. Description: Linchpin made of an iron stem and a statuette represent-
ing a solid silver cat fixed on the top of the rod.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Silver, Iron.
e. Dimensions: 14,3 × 4,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR-Deva/ 1196.
h. Photo/Drawing: M. Mândruţău.
i. Bibliography: Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 48; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Glodariu 1989, p. 197, no. 5; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 158; Florea 1998, p. 212,
pl. 83; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 216–217, fig. 239.

15. Linchpin
a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
nearby of dwelling tower no. 2.
b. Description: The piece has a semicircular head that continues with
a nail that looks broken. The head is provided with a protrusion, which
could have the role of fixing on the axle.
c. Type: Linchpin fit semicircular head and straight nail (Schönfelder);
Type II Hanneman.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 12,5 × 5,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/ V 13869.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig 59/18.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 99

16. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
dwelling tower no. 2.
b. Description: Piece made of cylindrical bronze, with a section similar
to the letter L.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 11,2 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 13701.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 192/2.

17. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
dwelling tower no. 2.
b. Description: Piece made of cylindrical bronze, with a section similar
to the letter L.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 11,2 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 13702.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 192/1.

18. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti- Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
funerary context?, south of dwelling tower no. 3
b. Description: Piece made of cylindrical bronze, with a section similar
to the letter L.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 11,2 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 1998, p. 50; Glodariu et alii 1999,
p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208, fig. 192/3.
100 Cristian Dima

19. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
dwelling tower no. 2
b. Description: The piece is cylindrical in shape, widened at one end.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 7 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca /V 13703.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 193/2.

20. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/ the
long trench between dwelling towers II-III.
b. Description: The piece is cylindrical in shape, widened at one end.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 6,4 × 3,7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca /V 34447.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181, fig. 193/1.

21. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
the long trench between dwelling towers II-III.
b. Description: -
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca /IN 383 (V 0.219).
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

22. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Circular piece made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip
are not welded, leaving a free space between them, between them and a
circular perforation on the opposite side of the slot.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5,2 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/ VD 1516.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/218/ro
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 101

23. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
plateau of the hillfort.
b. Description: Circular piece made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip
are not welded, leaving a free space between them and a circular perfo-
ration on the opposite side of the slot.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 4.3 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca//V 23040.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127.

24. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
plateau of the hillfort.
b. Description: A cylinder-shaped piece made of an iron strip. The ends
are not welded, leaving a free space and a perforation on the opposite
side of the slot.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. f. Dimensions: 4 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / V 23041.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127.

25. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
plateau of the hillfort (?).
b. Description: The piece of iron in the shape of a cylinder perfectly
welded and made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded,
leaving a small gap between them and a circular perforation opposite
the slot.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 6 × 3,4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / V 23055.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127, fig. 74/12.
102 Cristian Dima

26. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
tower No. 5 (?).
b. Description: The piece of iron in the shape of a cylinder welded and
made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded, leaving a
small free space between them and a circular perforation on the oppo-
site side of the slot.
c. Type: 3 Hanneman, A Vissy.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 4 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/ V91.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

27. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
tower no. 5 (?).
b. Description: The piece of iron in the shape of a cylinder welded and
made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded, leaving a
small gap between them.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / V89.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

28. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The piece of iron in the shape of a cylinder perfectly
welded and made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded,
but are bent outwards, leaving a small space between them.
c. Type: 2b Hanneman.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 6 × 3,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / V 23055.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127, fig. 74/12.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 103

29. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The piece of iron in the shape of a welded cylinder.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / V 23259.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: -

30. Cart fitting – Wagon box piece

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of an iron bar, with bent ends, on one side rect-
angular for fixing on a wooden bar (hound) and on the other side circular.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 15 × 0,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/V 11135.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

31. Cart fitting – Wagon box piece

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of an iron bar, with bent ends, on one side rect-
angular for fixing on a wooden bar (hound) and on the other side circular.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 12,5 × 0,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/V 11141.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

32. King pin

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
between dwelling towers 1-2.
b. Description: Piece made of iron in the shape of the letter T. The lower
end of the piece is slightly widened and has a circular hole.
c. Type: Type 2.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 38,8 × 4,4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca / IN 981.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 57/7.
104 Cristian Dima

33. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
funerary context.
b. Description: -
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Inf. R. Mateescu.

34. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
funerary context.
b. Description: -
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Inf. R. Mateescu.

35. Clamps
a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
funerary context
b. Description: Several clamps that are part of a cart.
c. Type: –
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.– 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 1998, p. 50; Glodariu et alii 1999,
p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 105

36. Fixing rivet

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
ends. The lower end is perforated in the shape of a washer, with the role
of fixing the piece in the wooden elements.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 7,5 × 2,3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 58/11; Gheorghiu
2005, p. fig. 176/7.

37. Cart fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with three
circular perforations. The upper end is widened and bent.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 14 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/19.

38. Felloe clamp

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
tower no. 5
b. Description: Piece made of an iron plate, with the central part curved
and decorated with an incision. Two circular holes can be seen on the
preserved end of the piece.
c. Type: Stradonice – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8,3 × 4,5cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/ V88.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/5.
106 Cristian Dima

39. Felloe clamp

a. Place/discovery context: Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Hunedoara County/
tower no. 5.
b. Description: Piece made of an iron plate, with the central part curved
and decorated with an incision. At the ends of the piece you can see two
circular holes.
c. Type: Stradonice – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Iron
e. Dimensions: 11,6 × 5,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/ V92.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/2.

40. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze, with a guide ring in the shape of a
pelt. The broken tube is very arched at the mounting with the workpiece
collar. The fixing plate is decorated with two ribs on either side of the
specific triangular decoration.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 6,6 × 5,4 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU –Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Rustoiu 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/3; Dima 2019,
p. 25, fig. 3/1.

41. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze, with a guide ring in the shape of
a pelt. The broken tube is very arched at the mounting location with the
workpiece collar. The fixing plate is decorated with two ribs on either
side of the specific triangular decoration.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 6,6 × 5,4 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU –Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Rustoiu 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/4; Berciu, Popa
1970, p. 281, fig. 12/5; Dima 2019, p. 25, fig. 3/2.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 107

42. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze, with a guide ring in the shape of
a pelt. The broken tube is very arched and the fixing plate is no longer
preserved.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 5,4 × 3,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU –Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Rustoiu 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/5; Dima 2019, p. 25,
fig. 3/3.

43. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze, which consists of a circular guide
ring of the brake to which it is attached to the support on the yoke. The
latter is arranged perpendicularly inversely to the guide ring, having a
slightly rectangular shape.
c. Type:-
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 5,3 × 3,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU-Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Berciu, Popa 1970, fig. 12/9; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 157,
fig. 97/1; Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 191/8; Dima 2019, p. 28–29, fig. 7/1.

44. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Button made of bronze in the shape of a pine ornamented
with several moldings. The piece was probably part of a Hoppstädten
Type rein distributor.
c. Type: Hoppstädten – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 3,8 × 2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU-Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965.
i. Bibliography: Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965, fig. 33; Berciu, Popa
1970, fig. 11; Glodariu 1974a, p. 237; Dima 2019, p. 29, fig. 7/3.
108 Cristian Dima

45. Fixing rivet

a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece of iron, which consists of a bar with two ends: one
semicircular, and one perforated in the shape of a washer, with the role
of fixing the piece in the wooden elements.
c. Type:-
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 14 × 4,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU-Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965.
i. Bibliography: Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu 1965, fig. 28/5.

46. Bronze tube

a. Place/discovery context: Craiva – Piatra Craivii, Alba County.
b. Description: Piece made of a twisted bronze wire, inside which the
bar made of iron is probably missing.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 7,2 × 1,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1st century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU-Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: Rustoiu 1996a.
i. Bibliography: Rustoiu 1996a, p. 163, fig. 100/11.

47. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: A bronze piece in the shape of a cylinder, provided with
three ribs.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 15 × 5cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C.Popa.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333, pl. 152/2; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 109

48. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: A bronze piece in the shape of a cylinder, provided with
three ribs.
c. Type:
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 15 × 5cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.

49. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Cylinder-shaped bronze piece, broken on the left side,
with three ribs.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 15 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.

50. Nave hoop / washer?

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Bronze piece, in a conve × circular shape, with a round
perforation inside.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd and 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.
110 Cristian Dima

51. Nave hoop / washer?

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Bronze piece, in a conve × circular shape, with a round
perforation inside.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze
e. Dimensions: 12 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa
2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.

52. Linchpin
a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Bronze piece, which consists of a bar of about 1 cm. At
the top it splits in two and forms a double loop. At the bottom of the
double loop, the linchpin is provided with a safety button for fixing it
in the axis.
c. Type: linchpins with glasses-shaped head and straight pin- Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Popa.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125;; Popa
2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008, p. 158–163; Popa 2011, p. 326–333, pl. 151/4;
Teleagă 2014, p. 305–311; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.

53. Metal tyre fragment

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Fragmented piece of circular iron, provided in the mid-
dle with a groove.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 35 × 4 cm
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Rustoiu
2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 111

54. Metal tyre fragment

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Fragmented piece of circular iron, provided in the mid-
dle with a groove.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 67 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU -Alba Iulia.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Rustoiu
2009, p. 33–34; Popa 2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–329.

55. Metal tyre fragment

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular necropolis.
b. Description: circular piece of iron, fragmentarily preserved, with the
role of protecting the wooden felloe of the wheel. It has a groove in the
middle.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 11,7 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 84; Sîrbu, 1994, p. 124–125; Popa 2004,
p. 100; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Popa 2011, p. 326–333; Teleagă et alii
2014, p. 305–329.

56. Metal tyre fragment

a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular necrop-
olis/ T2 – Tumular necropolis.
b. Description: Circular piece of iron, fragmentary preserved, with a
groove in the middle.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 28 × 4 cm
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Sîrbu 1994, p. 124–125; Rustoiu
2008, p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Teleagă 2014, p. 305–311.
112 Cristian Dima

57. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Fragmented piece, with the fixing plate decorated with
initiated lines and circles that were filled with enamel. The triangular
collar is attached to the mounting plate. The mounting bracket is located
at the bottom of the part, but the guide ring is missing.
c. Type: Kapel/Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12 × 6 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008,
p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Dima 2019, p. 27, fig. 5/2.

58. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Cugir, Alba County/ T2 – Tumular
necropolis.
b. Description: Fragmented piece, with the fixing plate decorated with
initiated lines and circles that were filled with enamel. The triangular
collar is attached to the mounting plate. The mounting bracket is located
at the bottom of the part, but the guide ring is missing.
c. Type: Kapel/Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12,1 × 6 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNU- Alba Iulia
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Crişan 1980, p. 82–84; Popa 2004, p. 100; Rustoiu 2008,
p. 158–163; Rustoiu 2009, p. 33–34; Dima 2019, p. 27, fig. 5/3.

59. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Divici, Caraş-Severin County.
b. Description: Fragmented piece, with the fixing plate decorated with
initiated lines and circles. The triangular collar is attached to the mount-
ing plate.
c. Type:: Kapel/Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12,3 × 6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002.
i. Bibliography: Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, fig. 1/7; Dima 2019, p. 27,
fig. 5/1, 6.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 113

60. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The piece has a broken ring at the bottom, forming an
arched tube with the ends attached to the collar. It is decorated with a
rhomboidal motif consisting of two triangles separated by a groove.
c. Type: B Menke/Kappel – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 11,5 × 5,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MM- Bucureşti 19422.
h. Photo/Drawing: D. Pârvulescu.
i. Bibliography: Gramatopol 1982, p. 265; Ferencz Bodó 2000, p. 175;
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231; Dima 2019, p. 23, fig. 2/3.

61. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Feţele Albe,
Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The circular piece made of an iron strip, provided with
a fixing pin inside.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5,8 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR- Deva/42122.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Bodó.
i. Bibliography: https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/323/ro

62. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Feţele Albe,
Hunedoara County.
b. Description: The circular piece made of an iron strip.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 14,7 × 3,7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR – Deva/52487
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/356/ro
114 Cristian Dima

63. King pin

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ Metallurgical Workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece in the shape of a massive, long iron bar. The upper
end is conve × and the lower end has a rupture.
c. Type: Type 1.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 65 × 4,7 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/ V 225
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127 fig. 57/16.

64. Bolţ
a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: The piece has the shape of a massive and long iron bar.
The upper end is domed and the lower one has a circular hole.
c. Type: Type 1.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 74 × 4,7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/ V 226.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127 – fig. 57/15;
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80, fig. 15. https://dacit.utcluj.ro/
scandb/#/model/444/ro

65. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: A cylinder-shaped piece of welded and made of an iron
strip with a perforation.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8 × 5,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, Fig. 74/7.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 115

66. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: A cylinder-shaped piece of iron welded and made of
an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded, leaving a small gap
between them and a protrusion on the opposite side of the slot for fixing.
c. Type: 3 Hanneman, A Vissy.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 6,5 × 5,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR-Deva/ D69/26511.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 74/8.

67. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: piece of iron in the shape of a cylinder perfectly welded
and made of an iron strip. The ends of the strip are not welded, leaving a
small gap between them and a circular perforation on the opposite side
of the slot.
c. Type: 1 – Hanneman, C – Vissy
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 4,2 × 3,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No: MCDR-Deva D68/26910.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig.74/10.

68. Cart part – Hound part

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of a rectangular bar, finished at one end
with a wide, broken plate with two holes. At the other end was a long
bent rod.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 34 × 23,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca/V 18050.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/22.
116 Cristian Dima

69. Pole axle

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia/ metallurgical workshop – VIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of a bent rod in the shape of the letter “T”.
The lower end is slightly widened and has a rectangular hole.
c. Type: Type 2.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 34 × 13 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT-Cluj-Napoca /V 17905
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 57/5. https://dacit.
utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/426/en

70. Pole axle

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of a bent rod in the shape of the letter “T”.
The lower end is slightly widened and has a rectangular hole.
c. Type: Type 2.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 36 × 10 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca/V 17910.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 57/6.

71. Pole pin

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ Vth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of a bent rod in the shape of the letter “T”,
with the lower end missing.
c. Type: Type 2.
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 16,5 × 9,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca/V 18195.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 117

72. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ IVth terrace.
b. Description: The piece consists of a tronconic tube welded on a cir-
cular plate, with mounting holes on the wooden hub.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8 × 11 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR- Deva/26510.
h. Photo: https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/348/ro
i. Bibliography: Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180; Beceanu 2003, p. 131–135,
fig. 5.

73. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ blacksmith workshop – Căprăreaţa.
b. Description: The piece consists of two main parts: a frustoconical
tube and a round plate. Several nails were kept in both, with the help of
which the piece was fixed to the hub of the wheels or to the wheel itself.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 20 × 13,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 18524.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu 1975b, p. 112, fig.13/3; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
1979, p. 127–128, fig. 74/14; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66, fig.15.

74. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Fragmentary piece in the shape of a frustoconical tube
that was part of a wheel set.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 11,6 × 8,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18067.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
118 Cristian Dima

75. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Fragmentary piece in the shape of a frustoconical tube
that was part of a wheel set.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 10 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT –Cluj-Napoca/V 18068.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 127.

76. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ workshop – Căprăreaţa.
b. Description: The piece consists of two main parts: a frustoconical
tube and a round plate. Several nails were kept in both, with the help of
which the piece was fixed to the hub of the wheels or to the wheel itself.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 18,5 × 10,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 23015.
h. Photo/Drawing: M. Mândruţău.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu 1975b, p. 112, fig.131/; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
1979, p. 127–128, fig. 74/6; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180, fig. 193/7;
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 66, fig.15.

77. Whell fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Fragmentary iron piece in form of a round plate with
perforations for rivets.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 12 × 5,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18070.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 119

78. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Fragmentary iron piece in form of a round plate with
perforations for rivets.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8 × 5,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18071.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

79. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/blacksmith workshop– Căprăreaţa.
b. Description: The piece consists of two main parts: a frustoconical
tube and a round plate. In both were preserved several nails, with the
help of which the piece was fixed to the hub of the wheels.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 18,5 × 13 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca /V 22615.
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu 1975b, p. 112, fig.13/2; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
1979, p. 127–128, fig. 74/13; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180, fig. 193/5.

80. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: The piece made of iron in the form of a plate. The piece
was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 4,5 × 4,2 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18072.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: unpublished.
120 Cristian Dima

81. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: The piece made of iron in the form of a plate. The piece
was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 4,7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18073.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

82. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/blacksmith workshop – Căprăreaţa.
b. Description: The piece consists of two main parts: a frustoconical
tube and a round plate. In both were preserved several nails, with the
help of which was fixed to the hub of the wheels.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 18,6 × 11,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 22614.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu 1975b, p. 112, fig.13/4; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
1979, p. 127–128, fig. 74/15; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180, fig. 193/8.

83. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: The piece made of iron in the form of a plate. The piece
was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 7,5 × 7,3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18074.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 121

84. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: The fragmentary piece made of iron in the form of a
plate with perforations for the fastening rivets. The piece was part of a
wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8,5 × 4,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18075.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

85. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace
b. Description: The fragmentary piece broken into four pieces, made of
iron in the form of plates. The piece was part of a fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: -
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18076.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

86. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Fragmentary piece broken into two pieces, made of iron
in the form of plates. The piece was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 3,2, 4,3 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18077.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
122 Cristian Dima

87. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Broken fragmentary piece made of iron in the form of a
plate. The piece was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 6,5 × 4,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18078.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

88. Wheel fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Broken fragmentary piece made of iron in the form of a
plate. The piece was part of a wheel fitting (gasket).
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 5 × 3,3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V18079.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.

89. Nave hoop

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Circular piece made of an iron plate. Such parts were fas-
tened to the wheel hubs of which, in order to give them more resistance.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 13 × 3,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 17936.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/211/ro.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 123

90. Nave band

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ metallurgical workshop – VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Circular piece made of an iron plate. The ends of the
strip are not welded, but are bent outwards and provided with a circular
hole.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 9,3 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/V 17902.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, Fig. 74/4.
https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/index.html#/model/440/ro.

91. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ the western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: M. Mândruţău.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

92. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: M. Mândruţău.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.
124 Cristian Dima

93. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

94. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

95. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 125

96. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

97. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

98. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing:-.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.
126 Cristian Dima

99. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

100. Metal tyre

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ western civilian quarter.
b. Description: Circular piece with several round perforation with the
role of protecting the felloe of the wheel with the help of nails, some of
them still well preserved.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 103 × 3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: -
i. Bibliography: Glodariu et alii 2000a, no. 60; Glodariu et alii 2002,
p. 149–150; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2016, p. 80.

101. Fixing rivet (?)

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
ends. The lower end is missing and the upper one is semicircular in
shape, probably for fixing a wooden bar.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron
e. Dimensions: 8,1 × 5 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT –Cluj-Napoca/V 18080.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 127

102. Fixing rivet (?)

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ workshop, VIIIth terrace.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
ends. The lower end is missing and the upper one is semicircular in
shape, probably for fixing a wooden bar.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8,2 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT –Cluj-Napoca/V 18081.
h. Photo/Drawing: R. Mateescu.
i. Bibliography: Unpublished

103. Fixing rivet

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County/ Căprăreaţa, blacksmith workshop.
b. Description: Piece of iron, which consists of a bar with two ends, one
semicircular and one perforated in the shape of a washer, with the role
of fixing the piece in the wooden elements.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 8,5 × 3,3 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT –Cluj-Napoca/V 22583.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu 1975b.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu 1975b, fig. 13/5; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979,
fig. 58; Gheorghiu 2005, fig. 176/6.

104. Cart fitting (?)

a. Place/discovery context: Grădiştea Muncelului – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of iron, which consists of a bar with two
curved ends.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 22,5 × 2,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT –Cluj-Napoca.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/24.
128 Cristian Dima

105. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County/
dwelling Tower 4.
b. Description: The piece has a pelt-shaped guide ring. The collar is
arched at the mounting location. The fixing plate is decorated with two
ribs on each side of the triangular decoration.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12 × 5 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca / V 394.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Dima.
i. Bibliography: Daicoviciu 1954, p. 88, pl. XVI/1; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 157,
fig. 97/3; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 231, fig. 1/2; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 180,
fig. 191/9; Dima 2019, p. 25, fig. 4/2.

106. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Bronze piece with pelt-shaped guide ring. The collar is
arched at the mounting location. The fixing plate is decorated with two
ribs on each side of the triangular decoration.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 6 × 4,3 cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC..
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR-Deva/ 52407.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Bodó.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 175, Pl. II/2; Rustoiu, Ferencz
2002, p. 231, fig. 1/4; Dima 2019, p. 25, fig. 4/1.

107. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County/
metal detection.
b. Description: The upper part of the piece consists of a guide ring that
rests on a semicircular curved rectangular fixing plate. The ring is sepa-
rated from the fixing plate by a rhomboidal ornament with a horizontal
groove in relief. The semicircular support that serves to hold the yoke
piece is partially kept under the fixing plate.
c. Type: A – Menke; Bechtheim – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12 × 4,5 cm
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIR- Bucureşti.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Borangic.
i. Bibliography: Dima 2019, p. 23, fig. 2/2.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 129

108. Bronze Tube

a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece made of twisted bronze wire, with an iron bar
inside.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze and Iron.
e. Dimensions: 9,7 × 1,7 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR- Deva/ C57.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Bodó.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 174, Pl. III/2.

109. Bronze Tube

a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Piece of bronze, in the form of a tube, on the surface of
which there are four groups of two ribs each.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 8,5 × 1,5 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MCDR- Deva/52442.
h. Photo/Drawing: C. Bodó.
i. Bibliography: Ferencz, Bodó 2000, p. 173–174, Pl. III/1.
https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/model/535/ro

110. Ornamental yoke fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County/
B tower.
b. Description: Perforated bronze piece decorated with vegetal motifs,
fragmentary preserved. It consists of a tip finished in a pine with deep
profiles, fixed on a strip with several circular perforations for the rivets
on the yoke, incorporating lanceolate vegetal motifs. The other side of
the curved part is no longer preserved.
c. Type: Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 12,3 × 4 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT – Cluj-Napoca/IN 4470.
h. Photo/Drawing: Gheorghiu 2005.
i. Bibliography: Daicoviciu 1954, p. 88, pl. XVI/1; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 157,
fig. 97/3; Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002, p. 232, fig. 3/3; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 181,
fig. 191/5; Dima 2019, p. 30, fig. 9/1.
130 Cristian Dima

111. Antropomorphic applique

a. Place/discovery context: Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hunedoara County.
b. Description: Applique made of bronze with the representation of a
female bust. The face is carefully worked with large eyes that currently no
longer retain the inlays probably made of glass paste, long and thin nose,
small lips and forehead framed by an elaborate hairstyle. The left arm, pre-
served almost entirely (the hand is missing), is raised and bent at the elbow,
while the right arm has been broken since antiquity. The piece was most
likely fixed on a support by means of three handles provided with small
holes, two arranged at the top, kept fragmentary and another at the base.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 14,7 × 13 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca/ V369.
h. Photo/Drawing: MNIT- Cluj-Napoca.
i. Bibliography: Daicoviciu 1954, p. 118, fig. 38; Sîrbu 2006, fig. 66/2;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 214, fig. 240. https://dacit.utcluj.ro/scandb/#/
model/409/ro

112. Linchpin
a. Place/discovery context: Măgura, Bacău County.
b. Description: The part consists of an ellipsoidal head which extends
into the shaft fixing nail and which is curved. From the top of the piece
starts a hook that twists to the lower end of the ellipsoidal head and has
kept two links in a chain of attachment.
c. Type: Hanneman 2.
d. Material: Iron
e. Dimensions: 23,2 × 5,6 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: CMIA – Bacău.
h. Photo/Drawing: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979.
i. Bibliography: Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, fig. 59/8.

113. Cart/yoke fitting

a. Place/discovery context: Poiana, Galaţi County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze decorated with antithetically sym-
metrically positioned horse heads. In the middle it has a perforation in
which a metal piece was probably fixed.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 5,3 × 4,1 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Vulpe et alii 1951.
i. Bibliography: Vulpe et alii 1951, p. 202, fig. 22/2; Dima 2019, p. 31,
fig. 10/1.
Dacian conveyance vehicles in archaeological finds 131

114. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Sighişoara – „Wiettemberg”, Mureş County.
b. Description: The piece has an ellipsoidal guide ring with a button
at the top. This ring is attached to a rectangular and curved mounting
plate, decorated with four parallel grooves, and the mounting bracket
was made of a rounded crossbar.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 6,5 × 4,9 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: -
h. Photo/Drawing: Hored Seraphin 1972.
i. Bibliography: Hored, Seraphin 1972, p. 78, fig. 61/8; Rustoiu, Ferencz
2002, p. 231; Dima 2019, p. 28.

115. Bronze tube

a. Place/discovery context: Tilişca, Sibiu County.
b. Description: Piece made of bronze, in the form of a tube, on the sur-
face of which there are si × groups of two ribs each.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 11 × 2,1 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MB- Sibiu
h. Photo/Drawing: Rustoiu 1996a.
i. Bibliography: Lupu 1989, pl. 23/6; Rustoiu 1996a, fig. 100/12.

116. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Tilişca, Sibiu County/ dwelling no. 3.
b. Description: A cylinder-shaped piece made of an iron strip. The ends
are not welded, leaving a free space.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 6,2 × 4,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MB- Sibiu
h. Photo/Drawing: Lupu 1989.
i. Bibliography: Lupu 1989, pl. 19/20.
132 Cristian Dima

117. Nave lining

a. Place/discovery context: Tilişca, Sibiu County.
b. Description: A cylinder-shaped piece made of an iron strip. The ends
are not welded, leaving a free space.
c. Type: -
d. Material: Iron.
e. Dimensions: 3,6 × 4,8 cm.
f. Chronology: 1st century BC – 1nd century AD.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No.: MB- Sibiu
h. Photo/Drawing: Lupu 1989.
i. Bibliography: Lupu 1989, pl. 19/21.

118. Terret
a. Place/discovery context: Vadul Crişului, Bihor County/ metal detec-
tion, no other pieces associated.
b. Description: Bronze piece with pelt-shaped guide ring. At the base of
the ring, where it joints the collar it has a small perforation. The collar is
arched at the mounting location. The fixing plate is decorated with two
ribs on either side of the specific triangular decoration. The fixing clamp
is preserved as well.
c. Type: Menke B/ Orešak – Schönfelder.
d. Material: Bronze.
e. Dimensions: 7,4 × 6,2cm.
f. Chronology: 2nd century BC – 1st century BC.
g. Storage Location/Inv. No: MȚC-Oradea.
h. Photo/Drawing: Asoc. Dacia Crisius, Oradea (inf. C. Borangic).
i. Bibliography: Unpublished.
 5.
COMERCIAL ROUTES AND
RELATION IN THE INTRA-
CARPATHIAN SPACE

As previously mentioned, the trading relations of the Dacian civilisation with the Greco-Roman
world have been much more addressed in the historiography of the Second Iron Age compared
to the topic of the local trade owing both to the specificities of import products, of higher quality
in contrast with those locally produced, and the need to occasionally justify the importance of a
Barbarian kingdom versus the classical world’s civilisation. Furthermore, identification of import
products compared to those local was enough to support extant trading relations between the
Geto-Dacian civilisation and the Greco-Roman world, while trading routes were commonly distin-
guished through the analysis of import products and the foreign coin distribution. Evidently, prod-
uct imports from any part of the world means a trading relation which involves exchange, mirrored
occasionally by coin-based trade, other times by product exchanges. Despite numerous studies
tackling the exploitation of natural resources and local production, attempting to justify a rich and
extensive economic activity, the products offered by the inhabitants of the intra-Carpathian area in
exchange for products arriving from the Greco-Roman world were by far much less fathomed. Since
Vasile Pârvan, it was mainly believed these trading relations were direct to a great extent, while the
Greco-Roman world need not the products resulted from Dacian exploitations and production of
artefacts, by far inferior to the products of the civilised world, hence the main products offered for
exchange by the Dacians must have been represented by “products generally supplied by less devel-
oped regions in the vicinity of the Greco-Roman world: cattle, furs, skins, wool, wax, honey but also
slaves”562.

5.1. Features of the trading routes

Trading routes are defined as representing the route which a commercial product travels until it
reaches the beneficiary. The complexity of trading routes is given by the type of traded merchandise,
the processes it goes through starting from the raw material phase to the raw product, production

562
Pârvan 1926, p. 609; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 195; Glodariu 1974a, p. 106; Crişan 1995, p. 360.
134 Cristian Dima

centres that merchandise the product, the traders and outlets. From the view of transport type, trad-
ing routes may be divided into several classes:
A first type is represented by trading routes designed for the transport of raw materials. The
start point of such a trading route is represented by the exploitation area of the raw material, while
the destination point is represented by the beneficiary of the raw material, which may be either the
production workshop or a trading site whose function is to redistribute such raw material.
A second type of trading route is designed for carriage of finished products. The start point of
such a route is represented by the production centre, while the destination point is represented by
goods outlets, which may either be a trading site or a well established area where the exchange of
products usually occurs. Another destination point is precisely the beneficiary of the finished prod-
uct, when the product is ordered directly by the beneficiary at the production workshop.
In the third type of trading routes may be included the transport type of finished products or
raw material from a trading site to a different outlet or the direct beneficiary. Thus, the role of a trad-
ing site is to intercept finished products or raw materials originating from various areas, even export
products, and redistribute them to markets or direct beneficiaries.
Beside the features provided by the type of conveyed products, one must also consider the
“identity” of those involved in the products’ exchange, hence this genre may be categorised based
also on who the supplier, carrier and beneficiary are.
Within such typology, a first type would be represented by transports on trading routes carried
out and ensured by traders. These are complex in what both the carried goods as well as identifica-
tion of the routes practiced by the trader are concerned. Since a trader carries a variety of merchan-
dise necessary to a larger number of communities, his possibilities and practiced routes are diverse,
depending on the demand of the communities whom these are designed to. Obviously, regarded
strictly, some routes may be established by identifying outlets and the beneficiary of these products.
A second type is represented by direct exchange of products from the supplier to the beneficiary,
case in which both the supplier and beneficiary may be the carriers of the goods. Such transport
could include conveyance from one exploitation quarry of building materials (stone) to the location
where the construction would be set up.
In conclusion, the route identification of any sort of trading path must consider both the car-
tographic location of the start and destination points as well as the geographic possibilities so that
a path would be as less time consuming as possible, with as less as possible resources or efforts.
Moreover, a trading route must avoid areas that would endanger the safety of carried products, be it
looting or natural dangers. Thus, for instance in spring time, valleys that could flood certain roads
had to be avoided. Similarly, narrow valleys had to be avoided in case of unexpected attacks, espe-
cially when valuable products were carried. Evidently, in these cases, it is possible that each trans-
port convoy would be accompanied by a military unit, yet even then, safest roads had to be chosen.

5.2. Exploitation areas

One of the origin points of trading routes is the location where are exploited the natural resources
used for consumption or as raw materials for construction or use in products of various types. From
there, depending on the nature of the exploited resource, the road may run towards a production
centre or directly towards a beneficiary. For instance, from a stone quarry, the material would be
regularly directly dispatched the beneficiary of the product or the builder, at any rate where the
construction would be set up. In case of iron mining, the once reduced iron ore and transformed
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 135

into raw iron in the form of iron bloom, would be directed either to a neighbouring blacksmithing
workshop or for exchange, being used in the workshops of other communities.
Thus, most accurate identification of all exploitation areas of natural resources becomes highly
important for the study and understanding of trading routes. Once these resources are identified, chem-
ical composition analyses and comparison with analyses of finished, residual or half-finished goods
from areas nearby the exploitation are recommended for ferrous and non-ferrous ores. The set up of
databases containing all points where finished products, slag, residues, traces of workshops were discov-
ered in parallel to a database of exploited resources might connect exploitation areas and the production
centre and thus identify trading routes. In the case of other exploited natural resources, like salt, dating
by modern methods is necessary in order to establish when such exploitation was in use. Nevertheless, it
is difficult to ascertain most natural resources exploited in the intra-Carpathian area, remains of Dacian
exploitations being rather problematical, as the majority of specialists argue, because of subsequent
exploitations, which significantly reduced the traces of those operated by the Dacians.

5.2.1. Areas with ferrous and nonferrous ores’ exploitation

Dacian date exploitation of ferrous and nonferrous ores is poorly documented archaeologically,
however the large quantity of products, to which adds a significant quantity of iron blooms reduced
for working or export, indirectly evidence exploitation of such ores. The lack of archaeological traces
of exploitations was related to mining in the later periods, namely Roman, medieval or modern,
which would have destroyed Dacian exploitation remains563. Regarding iron ore deposits, the miss-
ing Dacian date mining traces was also related to the large number of such deposits, in quantities
which could cover the demand of the time, without being necessary to excavate in certain galleries
more in depth, the making of pits or short ditches on the direction of ore amassments being suffi-
cient enough564. As shown in the presentation of the natural resources from the area of study565, iron
deposits are present in significant numbers, however the lack of systematic excavations in deposit
areas, to which adds the small number of comparative analyses between deposits and finished prod-
ucts, hinder the secure identification of exploitation areas, while the connection between these and
workshops where ferrous and nonferrous metals were worked is difficult to pinpoint.
It is believed that iron ores were reduced nearby the mining area. The difficult transport of the
ore, out of which significant residue quantities resulted subsequent to reduction, was thus avoided.
Documenting secure exploitations was therefore made via the finds of reducing or ore frying kilns,
occasionally discovered beside the mined ore. The number of such finds is yet small and also miss-
ing comparative analyses of metalliferous composition566.
For the intra-Carpathian space, such exploitations deemed secure and documented more or
less by the presence of ore reducing kilns567 were identified in the area of the Eastern Carpathians at
Doboşeni568 and Herculian569 in Covasna county, Cetăţuia570, Mădăraş571 and Cozmeni572 in Harghita

563
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 14; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 11–20
564
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 20.
565
See Chap. 2.
566
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 16.
567
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 16–17.
568
Székely 1959, p. 231–233; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 23; Crişan 2000, p. 40; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
569
Székely 1981, p. 32–33; Crişan 2000, p. 43; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
570
Crişan 2000, p. 31, 38; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
571
János, Kovács 1967, p. 45–46; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24; Crişan 2000, p. 52; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
572
János, Kovács 1967, p. 45–46; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 25; Crişan 2000, p. 36; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
136 Cristian Dima

county, at Șercaia (Braşov county)573 in Țara Făgăraşului. To these add four points in the Dacian
Kingdom’s capital area, Sarmizegetusa Regia, identified at “Dosul Vîrtoapelor” – “Sub Cununi”,
Strâmbu Hill, Tâmpu Hill and Bătrâna Mountain574.
Regarding the so-called “secure exploitations”, documented by remains of iron ore reducing
kilns ascribed to the Dacian period, a few clarifications are in place. The archaeological sondages
performed at Doboşeni yielded the traces of two ore reducing kilns, circular in shape, with a base
diameter of 80–90 cm and a height between 60–100 cm. On the bottom of both kilns was discov-
ered a disc-shaped fired clay plate cut straight on one of the edges. Through the disc a blowing pipe
must have been inserted, acting as bellows. Inside the kilns were also discovered iron slag fragments
and potshards dated to the Dacian period and a grounding stone, while nearby were found piles of
limestone rocks, lime and charcoal575. The discovered potshards were dated to the Dacian period
based on two fragments of pots with everted rim, similar to Dacian “tazza”, however their presence
inside the kilns raises some questions, which also applies to the limestone rocks, lime and charcoal.
The find of Herculian was yielded by a landslide. In the collapsed earth were identified the
remains of several kilns, iron slag, chalybite and iron pipe pieces with iron slag depositions, used
as bellows. The lower part of two kilns would have remained in situ, these having a diameter of
160 cm, respectively 60 cm, while on one of the kiln’s bottom was discovered a layer of charcoal and
iron slag. Nearby were also found kiln remains, clay pipe pieces, iron slag and stones. For the lack of
pottery, dating was made based on a grinder fragment and a parallel with the finds of Doboşeni, to
the 3rd – 2nd century BC576. Although iron mining in the area is obvious, ascribing it to the Dacian
civilisation is disputable.
At Cetăţuia, in the area where P. János seemingly conducted a sondage which led to the find of a
pottery firing kiln, were also discovered certain fragments of an iron ore reducing kiln. Among the
discovered materials also counted iron slag, an axe, an iron hammer and two pottery cups, as well
as handmade or wheel-thrown potshards. The pottery material was chronologically framed to the
period of the 3rd – 2nd century BC and 1st century BC – 1st century AD577. It is not clearly speci-
fied whether the iron ore reduction kiln was found within the sondage or only nearby it, nor are
given specific data on this kiln, so that the find, which is still unpublished in more detail, remains
uncertain.
The finds at Cozmeni at “Lovászkert” are represented by potshards, slag balls and in three points,
limonite deposits, all found in the farming layer. The potshards are not chronologically framed,
while traces of an iron ore reducing kiln are represented only by the slag balls and limonite depos-
its578, hence that these finds would be rather framed in the class of uncertain Dacian date exploita-
tion. The same conclusion may be reached for the finds yielded by fieldwalks carried out at Mădăraş.
There, the kiln or kilns for iron ore reducing are only supposed through the presence of iron slag
in the farming layer. This is associated with a few pottery fragments ascribed, non-securely, to the
Dacian civilisation579, to which add adobe clods580. The presence of certain slag pieces precisely in
an area where iron ore deposits were identified is no sufficient evidence of iron ore reducing kilns or

573
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17.
574
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17.
575
Székely 1959, p. 231–233, Pl. I/8; Pl. VI.
576
Székely 1981, p. 32–33.
577
Crişan 2000, p. 30; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
578
János, Kovács 1967, p. 45; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 25; Crişan 2000, p. 36; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
579
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24.
580
János, Kovács 1967, p. 46; Crişan 2000, p. 52; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 137

Dacian date deposit exploitations in the area, while the few discovered potshards and the presence
of the adobe clods are also insufficient for such ascribing, as already underlined581.
Such finds of uncertain exploitation traces have also been documented in the area of the Eastern
Carpathians and relatively recently discussed based on new information provided by the archaeo-
logical repertoires of Harghita and Covasna counties582. The find of a workshop at Bezid (Mureş
county)583, where ore would have been reduced and iron worked, could suggest that iron deposits
were mined somewhere in its immediate vicinity, however the location cannot be specified with
certainty. The workshop was discovered subsequent to the archaeological investigations conducted
in a 27 × 1 m sized trench, where remains of iron slag, a clamp and several potshards, chronologi-
cally framed by the excavator to the post-Roman period (the 4th century AD) surfaced. In a perpen-
dicular trench was identified a circular hearth built of stone slabs, while several potshards around
it were ascribed to the Dacian civilisation. Based on these data, the excavator believes that the iron
ore reducing kiln and blacksmithing workshop is chronologically framed to the post-Roman period
(the 4th century AD), while the fire hearth would belong to the Dacian period584. Such chrono-
logical framing was later disputed, being believed that the material discovered in the blacksmith-
ing workshop suggests a date to the Dacian period585, however the pottery forms illustrated by the
excavator as originating from the workshop do not seem specific to the Dacian environment, but to
a later milieu586. To these uncertain chronological framework elements also adds the interpretation
that a workshop was present only on the basis of iron slag, while an extant iron ore reducing kiln
is only inferred, as is was neither discovered in the excavation nor dated by Z. Székely to the 4th
century AD as presented later587. Similar are the finds of iron slag associated with Dacian pottery
yielded by fieldwalks at Caşinul Nou588, Cârţa589, Dăneşti590, Delniţa591, Misentea592, Sîncrăieni593 and
Sântimbru594, Tomeşti595 in Harghita county, which may record a metallurgical activity, however it
is difficult to establish with certainty whether these were metallurgical workshops or ore exploita-
tions. Still uncertain are previous mentions of iron ore reducing kilns, without yet further details
regarding any associated finds, like those at Biborţeni596 (Covasna county). The metallurgical activ-
ity cannot be denied by any means for the Eastern Carpathians area, as evidenced by the few finds
of metallurgical workshops and the existing iron ore resource, however the scale of such activity
in this area cannot specified, while the trading activity must be addressed cautiously. The presence
of Dacian date fortifications in this area must be closely connected to the exploitation of these
resources, which most definitely contributed to the economic development of the fortified settle-
581
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24.
582
Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155–158.
583
Székely 1962, p. 336–337; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 25; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
584
Székely 1962, p. 337.
585
Daicoviciu 1972, p. 13, note 23; Crişan 2000, p. 26.
586
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 25. (arguing that the two pottery fragments illustrated by Székely 1962, fig. 7/11–12
belong to the 4th century).
587
Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 157, note 10.
588
János, Kovács 1967, p. 43; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 25; Crişan 2000, p. 27; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
589
János, Kovács 1967, p. 44; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24; Crişan 2000, p. 77; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
590
Róska 1942, p. 59; Crişan 2000, p. 37–38; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
591
János, Kovács 1967, p. 47; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24; Crişan 2000, p. 39,60; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
592
Crişan 2000, p. 57, 101; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
593
Crişan 2000, p. 68–69, 134, Iarolslavschi 2005, p. 156.
594
Crişan 2000, p. 72–73, 139; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
595
János, Kovács 1967, p. 49; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 24; Crişan 2000, p. 77; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 155.
596
Székely 1981, p. 32; Crișan 2000, p. 24; Iaroslavschi 2005, p. 156.
138 Cristian Dima

ments from the east of the intra-Carpathian area. Thus, it may be assumed that an extensive activity
of trading exchanges with the davas on the Siret river for instance was existence, settlements there
being in frequent contacts with the Greek colonies on the Black Sea coastline. The presence of a sig-
nificant quantity of Greek products in the eastern intra-Carpathian area further confirm the local
trading relations with the davas across the Eastern Carpathians.
The presence of an iron ore reducing kiln in a blacksmithing workshop at Șercaia (Braşov
county) does not indicate with precision the location of the ferrous ore mining, yet likely, similarly
to some of the other cases presented above, the source must have been sufficiently close for exploita-
tion and transport in the workshop. The workshop of Șercaia contains in inventory several traces of
iron ore reducing, iron slag. The kiln survived partially and was built in clay, having a rectangular
base, from where walls gradually rounded becoming a conical “chimney”. One of the kiln wall frag-
ments, collapsed around it, had an orifice designed for the mouth in order to direct airflow with the
aid of bellows. On the kiln hearth was discovered in situ an oval iron bloom with diameters of 27,
respectively 38 cm597.
A similar case seems to be found still in Braşov county, in a Dacian date settlement investigated
at Copăcel598. In one of the excavated trenches (S III) were discovered many slag pieces and a vitri-
fied silica bloom, similar to that of Șercaia, an iron ore reducing kiln being also supposed based on
the above.
Coming to the Center of the intra-Charpatian area in the Dacian fortress of Piatra Craivii were
found the remains of a kiln interpreted either as forging kiln or as kiln for iron ore reducing. Its
hearth, sunken, survived better, while its walls were collapsed, around the hearth laying large slag
quantities, charcoal and an iron bloom with a diameter of 20 cm599. The presence of the iron bloom
and iron slag in large quantities may be indications of an iron ore reducing kiln600, yet the presence
of some tools for iron working, like sledge hammers or chisels discovered around the hearth, to
which add an anvil, hammers and chisels discovered on the same terrace601, rather reference a forg-
ing kiln and the location of a workshop.
I. Ferenczi noted in a study regarding the metallurgical activity from the Șureanu Mountains
area that the choice of this area for the construction of the Dacian fortresses and settlements must
have taken into account, at least to an equal extent, the conditions provided by the geographi-
cal appearance of the land and development possibilities of metallurgical centres, supplied by raw
materials from there602. Exploitation traces of this iron ore rich area are in this case too indirect,
owing to how mining was carried out in the Dacian period. The secure exploitation locations were
established still according to the presence of iron reducing kilns or present iron slag, however com-
parative metallographic analyses in order to accurately identify their sources were not performed.
Best known such sources exploited in the Dacian period were identified at “Dosul Vîrtoapelor – Sub
Cununi”, Strâmbu Hill, Tâmpu Hill and Bătrâna Mountain603, to which add those of Ohaba Ponor,
Federi and Ponorici in Hunedoara county604.
Still on Tâmpu Hill there is an important iron ore source, while on Tâmpu Valley, once with the
597
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17; Glodariu, Costea 1983, p. 19–20.
598
Costea 1981, p. 171; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 51.
599
Wollmann 1971, p. 284–285.
600
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 49.
601
Wollmann 1971, p. 285.
602
Ferenczi 1979c, p.93–94.
603
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 303; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 21; Iaroslavschi 2004, p. 57;
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 57–58
604
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22–23; Iaroslavschi 2004, p. 57.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 139

development works of the forestry railway, several iron blooms with diameters ranging between
35–40 cm and 40 kg in weight605 were discovered together with burnt earth and iron slag. Samples
from such a bloom were analysed from the view of its chemical composition, however the resulted
data were not compared with finished products606. No archaeological excavations were conducted
in the supposed iron exploitation on the Tâmpu Hill, however trace identification was attempted via
the non-invasive LIDAR technology, which seems to confirm archaeological remains in the Tâmpu
Hill area607.
Previous research conducted in the points known under the name of “Dosul Vîrtoapelor” and
“Sub Cununi” appears to indicate that iron ore reduction traces were discovered608. Are mentioned
both Dacian date pottery fragments, yet construction remains with mortar, tiles, shingles and
Roman pottery. Still there were discovered the two inscriptions dated under governors M. Statius
Priscus and L. Aemilius Carus609.
Regarding the deposits from the Strîmbu Hill area, it seems that some of the performed chemi-
cal analyses revealed a quantity of 27% Fe and 23% Mn. The area lies nearby the Rudele Hill where
inhabitancy traces were archaeologically outlined. These, together with the Melea and Tâmpu
remains, were originally deemed sheepfolds, owing to their temporary nature, while later were
related to iron exploitations in the area610.
It was mentioned that the iron ore discovered at Sarmizegetusa Regia in the 19th century came
from Bătrâna Mountains611. Information is based on data acquired during the 1803–1804 archae-
ological campaigns, published by S. Jakó612, whereby, among the finds at Grădiştea de Munte is
mentioned in a table at number 48, “iron ore from Bătrâna Mounatins”. The information, although
insufficiently scientifically grounded, and although the publishers were familiar with geology613,
was adopted and used as secure in several academic works614. The discussed iron traces from
Sarmizegetusa Regia were yielded by the early 19th century archaeological campaigns and con-
firmed by the 1950 research on terrace VIII, where were also found the remains of eight kilns, some
supposed to have been used for bronze working, while other for ore reduction615. Iron ore reduction
within the settlement and not nearby the exploitation was explained by the metal demand around
the Daco-Roman wars, when increased efforts were required for its supply616. Based on the informa-
tion from the same report of the 1803–1804 investigations which recorded the presence of iron ore
resources in areas closer than the ore of Bătrâna617, E. Iaroslavschi doubts the ascribing accuracy of
the Sarmizegetusa Regia618 iron provenance. Regardless the exploitation source of these ores, for the
605
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 101, pl. I/1–2.
606
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, tab. 1,2.
607
Inf. I. Oltean.
608
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22.
609
CIL III 1415, 1416; IDR III/3, 275, 276.
610
Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 386–391; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 121; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 153–161; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Glodariu 1989, p. 61; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 18.
611
Glodariu, Iaroslvaschi 1979, p. 17.
612
Jakó 1973, p. 627.
613
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 49; Iaroslavschi 2004, p. 56.
614
Glodariu 1975b, p. 116; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17–18; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 12, 98;
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 41, 194, 214; Popa 2011, p. 303.
615
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 297–302; Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 164–173; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 21–22;
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 49.
616
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22.
617
Jakó 1973, p. 636–637.
618
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 49.
140 Cristian Dima

lack of analyses, we may believe that their mining occurred at Bătrâna Mountains. Recently, it has
been specified that mining traces on this mountain are visible both in the field and on aerial photos
in the form of ditches, some over 50 m, oriented in various directions, visible south-west of Bătrâna
Mountain and the south-western and southern slope of Negru Hill, or the north-eastern ridge of
Șteaua Mare Mountains, as well as the point termed Gropşoara located south-east the Negru Hill,
on whose top also lie the forts of Comărnicel619. The author mentions that for the lack of archaeo-
logical research, ascribing the exploitation to the Dacian period is uncertain, yet the presence there
of a marching camp could confirm such hypothesis.
Information regarding iron ore mining also come from the Ohaba Ponor area, namely at Federi
and Ponorici, where several iron slag pieces were found620. It was believed in the case of the ferrous
ore resources from the Poiana Ruscă area, known and exploited in Roman times621, there is insuf-
ficient information to argue these were also mined in the Dacian period622. Nevertheless, at Teliuc,
are mentioned small kilns, interpreted as traces of pre-Roman exploitation623. Other raw iron ore
reduction traces were identified in the Ghelari area during recent investigations, however ascribing
them to the Dacian period is not secure624. One of the few studies which also involved comparative
analysis of the possible mining areas in the Ghelari and Teliuc areas and artefacts from the fortified
Dacian settlement on Sânpetru Hill (Hunedoara) bring new data on some of the exploitation areas
and their relation with finished products. Said research chemically tested both the iron ore discov-
ered in the area of the mines at Ghelari and Teliuc and the iron slag, blooms and finished products
from the settlement on the Sânpetru Hill and the Hunyadi Castle Garden cemetery625, doubled by
analyses of slag from Iron Age date features626.
An important aspect resulted from the analyses is represented by the differentiations among the
slag pieces, some having smaller percentages of silicates, which seem to frame them in the class of
iron forging activity residues. Other slag may come from either the iron ore reduction or the forge
slag, some of the iron ore reduction slag having very high iron oxide content (Fe₂O₃), suggestive of
the kiln’s low output, specific to the classical antiquity627.
The analysis of an iron bloom discovered in a Dacian date feature from the archaeological site
of Huniady Castle Garden – Hunedoara, evidences on one hand the thermochemical iron enrich-
ing process and on the other, that ore from the immediate vicinity, specifically Ghelari and Teliuc
(Hunedoara county)628 was worked.
The case study accomplished within the metallographic research focused on a few samples from
finished products identified in a house feature on Sânpetru Hill. The spectral analysis was per-
formed on only three of the samples, the remainder being covered by a thick oxide layer. Analysis
and observations centred on interpreting the values provided by some of the residual elements con-
tained by tested samples. One of the resulting conclusions was these products were obtained from
iron ore by reduction, having a high iron percentage, over 98%, and a carbon percentage with val-
ues comprised between 1.1–1.6 percentages, interpreted as the applying of a carburising coating in
619
Popa 2011, p. 304. Fig. 155/1–2.
620
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 205; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 23; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 51.
621
Floca, Valea 1965, p. 165–166.
622
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 18.
623
Floca, Valea 1965, p. 165–166; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 50.
624
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 246.
625
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 243–256.
626
Ioan 2007, p. 11–13.
627
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 249.
628
Ioan 2007, p. 11–13; Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 249.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 141

order to ensure iron strength. The conclusion on the origin of the iron ore shows it comes from the
Poiana Ruscă Mountains (Ghelari, Teliuc), representing the main source of ferrous ores for Dacian
date sites in Hunedoara county629.
Upon the examination of all the aspects above, it is worth noting the insufficient quantity of evi-
dence regarding iron ores mining, even though indirectly, such activity is undisputable. The lack of
archaeological research in the supposed exploitation areas and of comparative analyses between the
iron ore of the supposed mining sources and finished products, residual materials, make the picture
and relation between source and product difficult to note.
Moreover, it must be underlined that some kilns discovered in metallurgical workshops were
interpreted as iron ore reduction kilns, even if it was argued on several occasions that such kiln
types, as general rule, are present in the ore mining area and not within the settlement or workshop.
Even more, in other cases, only the iron slag existing in the workshop is provided as argument in
favour of an ore reduction kiln. For the lack of analyses attesting iron slag composition, these could
belong to both forging activities as well as those of reduction, thus the nature of certain fragmentary
kilns discovered within workshops remains uncertain.
Consequently, the methodological guidelines of the metallographic study performed for some
samples taken from the Sânpetru Hill settlement area are noteworthy. The authors recommend that
identification of ferrous resource deposits should rely on the analysis of rare (residual) elements as
the most efficient and quick solution. It is further recommended that databases be correlated and
developed in order to identify and study other ferrous deposits from the Poiana Ruscă, Șureanu,
Făgăraş or Metaliferi Mountains.
Regarding non-ferrous Dacian date exploitation areas, information is considerably reduced
compared to ferrous ores. Most likely, the raw material for goldsmith workshops was predominantly
obtained by harnessing the alluvial deposits. In this respect, it is worth reporting that in valley areas
with alluvial depositions lay either fortifications like at Ardeu, Piatra Craivii, Cugir, Căpâlna, or
settlement clusters like those in the area of the Costeşti – Cetăţuie citadel or the settlements in the
Sibişel valley area.
It is believed that gold originating from alluvial deposits is the purest, reaching occasionally
a value of 99.80%. In such alluvial exploitations, the washed sands contain beside gold also other
metals like silver, copper or iron630. The association of these metals in alluvial deposits could suggest
that in areas where ancient golden washers are reported, native copper or silver was also collected631.
Nevertheless, it is not excluded that in some cases non-ferrous seams had been exploited, yet
unrecorded archaeologically. The location of certain fortifications like that of Piatra Craivii or as
believed in the case of a part of the fortifications in the Șimleu area, which played the role of block-
ing access to the Apuseni Mountains area, could evidence that these exploitations were possibly also
used in the Dacian period. Beside the area of the Apuseni Mountains, rich in non-ferrous deposits,
especially copper, also counts the Eastern Carpathians area. The find in the Dacian settlement of
Râşnov of a bronze bloom632 to which adds a rock with a high content of chalcopyrite from the
Dacian settlement of Copăcel633, could be arguments supporting the reduction of copper ores.
Given the nature of both dress and weaponry objects manufactured by goldsmith workshops,
it was assumed their production was designed for high status individuals of the Dacian aristocracy.
629
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 250–251.
630
Ferenczi 1979, p. 94.
631
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 13.
632
Costea 1970, p. 22; Rustoiu 1996, p, 61.
633
Costea 1988, p. 107–109; Rustoiu 1996, p, 61.
142 Cristian Dima

Most likely, they also ensured the raw material necessary for the making of the ordered objects. A.
Rustoiu’s argument in the support of this idea is the “monopoly” over precious metal exploitations
in pre-Roman Dacia. Regarding how precious metals were assigned, some finds suggest that silver
distribution among the members of the Dacian aristocracy was uneven. This is mirrored both by
the Stîncuţa hoard634, containing silver ingots made by melting silver coins, yet also the pieces made
with a lower quality metal alloy core and a good quality metal cover, discovered both in the intra-
Carpathian area, rich in silver resources as well as in the extra-Carpathian area, suggesting that
certain aristocracy members had limited access to silver resources, artisans being forced to apply
such technical procedures635.

5.2.2. Exploitation areas of building materials. Stone

Stone is an indispensable building material, not only for civil constructions in rural areas or
more modest settlements, the majority built mostly in wood in the discussed period, but in the
construction of the Dacian hill-fortresses and fortified settlements, tower-houses, sanctuaries or the
paved road at Sarmizegetusa Regia. If for a series of citadels outside the Șureanu Mountains area,
construction works were carried out, with few exceptions, of local un-worked stone, in the case of
the fortified area around the Dacian kingdom capital, circumstances are different.
One of the location criteria of citadels and fortified settlements was believed to be linked to
the strategic importance of the area from both a defensive point of view and that for barring main
access pathways to the intra-Carpathian area or areas from the Apuseni or Șureanu Mountains
where resources lay. Therefore, it was inferred that building material resources were less important
that the strategic factor, a fact argued by the use in most part of the fortifications’ construction of
materials existing in immediate vicinity, fortification elements being traditionally made of earth
vallum, ditch, palisade, coarsely worked or un-worked stone walls bound with earth636.
Local stone was generally used in order to build the numerous Dacian fortifications, existing
building stone quarries being few and rather difficult to substantiate for the Dacian period especially
because of Roman date quarrying, which seemingly destroyed any trace of Dacian exploitation, yet
also due to later date exploitations. Worked limestone blocks were used for the construction of cita-
dels and fortified settlements in the Șureanu Mountains, tower-houses, certain sanctuaries nearby
the citadels and the construction of the paved road at Sarmizegetusa Regia. For grand structures,
like temples and sanctuaries in the Dacian kingdom capital, andesite was used637.
Except for the fortification at Cioclovina-Ponorici, built in limestone extant in the area, the
other structures from the area of the capital at Sarmizegetusa Regia, used stone carried from dif-
ferent stone quarries. The main limestone quarries would have been those at Măgura Călanului,
while the andesite was originally believed to be quarried north the Mureş river, on Măgura Uroiului
(Hunedoara county)638.
First attempts to identify the stone source for the construction of the citadel at Grădiştea de
Munte date to early 19th century639. A. Bögözi identified in an 1805 report the stone source at Totier
(Totia, Hunedoara county), located in the vicinity of the Măgura Călanului Hill640. Later, both A.
634
Rustoiu 1996b, p. 78; Rustoiu 2002, p. 67.
635
Rustoiu 1996b, p. 79; Rustoiu 2002, p. 67.
636
Glodariu 1986, p. 92.
637
Glodariu 1983, p. 41; Glodariu 1986, p. 99.
638
Glodariu 1986, p. 99.
639
Cetean, Peţan 2017, p. 808–809.
640
Finály 1916, p. 17; Jakó, 1973, p. 630.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 143

Fodor and G. Téglás maintained that stone blocks from the Sarmizegetusa Regia area originate from
Sântămăria de Piatră, where hill Măgura Călanului lies641. Still G. Téglás shows that Băniţa citadel
walls too are built in oolite limestone blocks, resembling the Sântămărie de Piatră fortress642. By
early 20th century, identification of Măgura Călanului643 as the limestone source for the worked
blocks relied on certain older, early 20th century determinations by geologist G. Halaváts, repub-
lished by F. Schafarzik644 in the case of the citadels at Grădiştea de Munte and Luncani – Piatra
Roşie. In the same period, G. Finály quotes A. Koch regarding identification of the stone source at
Măgura Călanului645, although it was believed that the Hungarian author based his information on
data from Halaváts646. This source was used for the Costeşti – Cetăţuie and Costeşti – Blidaru647 cita-
dels. Also, based on Hungarian geologist G. Halaváts’s research it was believed that the limestone
blocks in the Dacian citadel of Căpâlna648 originated still from Măgura Călanului, as apparently
confirmed by E. Stoicovici649 subsequent to certain analyses.
The field location of the limestone exploitation on Măgura Călanului is accomplished much later
by I. Glodariu and I. Mârza, the quarry being situated on the hill’s structural surface, encompass-
ing an area more than one kilometre long on east-west direction and between 500–800 m on the
north-south axis650. It is mentioned that during this research an ancient road was identified, located
under the Măgurii hill on the southern slope, being 8–10 m wide and running westwards toward the
citadels in the Șureanu Mountains. The remains of this “well preserved road” followed the contour
lines from west to east, avoiding the steep slopes and cutting distance between the exploitation and
construction locations. Another road descended on the western side joining the first.
Subsequent to this research and for the lack of other rejecting these results, it was generally
agreed that for all citadels built in worked stone from the Șureanu Mountains area, except for
Cioclovina-Ponorici, as well as the other building types, tower-houses, paved road, a number of
temples, the main and single mentioned source is the Măgura Călanului quarry. More recently,
certain studies carried out for limestone quarries question the exclusive use of the limestone source
at Măgura Călanului for the limestone blocks. One of the investigations is based on macroscopic
yet not microscopic tests of a total set of 15 samples taken from the area of the Dacian citadels at
Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Costeşti – Blidaru and Sarmizegetusa Regia compared
to samples from point Costeşti-La Părete651, performed within a larger scale research project652. The
mentioned point has no clear coordinates in the field, being mentioned as situated by the bound-
ary between the places of Ocolişul Mic and Costeşti, however at a more careful geographical map
examination, the area from where samples were collected may be only approximately determined.
The research results do not seem conclusive, while the arguments are unclear and specify that sev-
eral sources may be in existence, yet not necessarily the source from where materials were collected.

641
Fodor 1844, p. 303; Kuun et alii, 1902, p. 20–21; Cetean, Peţan 2017, p. 808–809.
642
Téglás 1884, p. 30.
643
Glodariu 1986, p. 99.
644
Schafarzik 1908, p. 240; Glodariu 1986, p. 100.
645
Finály 1916, p. 42.
646
Glodariu 1986, p. 100.
647
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 10; Glodariu 1986, p. 100; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 53; Mârza 1995,
p. 201.
648
Halaváts 1915, p. 355; Glodariu 1986, p. 100.
649
Glodariu 1986, p. 101, note 31.
650
Mârza 1995, p. 202.
651
Lăscoiu 2014, p. 718–719.
652
Cetean, Peţan 2017, p. 803–826
144 Cristian Dima

The author provides no further arguments for an existing quarry at Costeşti point “La Părete”, men-
tioning only that the local inhabitants would have used the stone there in order to obtain building
materials (although in most cases, the natives used stone from citadels and tower-houses) and that
the transport of the stone blocks could have occurred by hill ridge, descending into the valley not
being necessary.
Another study carried out within the same research project evidences by more detailed analyses
that the ashlar used for building the citadel of Luncani-Piatra Roşie is not sourced only from the
Măgur Călanului quarry653. The still incipient research allowed identification of five limestone types
used in this fortress of which, subsequent to analyses and comparisons, it resulted that only two
come from Călan, likely the same spot654, however the origin of the other limestone types remained
unidentified.
Regarding the source of the andesite used in the construction of some of sanctuaries at Grădiştea
de Munte as well as other cult function structures, it seems it was not that identified by G. Téglás655
at Măgura Uroiului. In the monograph discussing the citadels and Dacian settlements from south-
western Transylvania, despite the fact that the andesite from Grădiştea de Munte is assumed to
originate from Măgura Uroiului, it is contended based on information from previous research and
the lack of more recent, that largest andesite stone quarries, likely exploited during the existence
period of the Dacian kingdom as well and the Roman province, lie nearby Deva, one being located
on the southern slope of Bejan Hill and the other at point Pietroasa. Moreover, the authors main-
tain that opened stone quarries at these points were also influenced by the difficult crossing of the
Mureş river, the quarry at Uroi, underlining the necessity of petrological analyses656. These supposi-
tions later materialised in field investigations and a petrological and mineralogical study of andesite
elements from Sarmizegetusa Regia and their comparison with geological sources from the Deva
area, concluding that the best petrographic correspondence is with the andesite from the Pietroasa
– Bejan Hill and Deva quarries657. Despite the fact that the Cluj – based geologist convincingly
proves that the Pietroasa quarry is a secure source, presenting as erroneous that of Măgura Uroiului,
the latter cannot be neglected as andesite source in the Dacian period, possibly for other edifices,
given the existing archaeological features and Dacian date material discovered by this hill base658.
Furthermore, andesite from both the Bejan Hill and Măgura Uroiului was extensively exploited in
the Roman period especially in the area of the Roman fort at Micia659.
Although the building stone for the Dacian fortifications and towers in the area of the Șureanu
Mountains could come from other sources as well, for the lack of their identification and missing
sets of more complete sets of petrological analyses and their correlation with a database of possible
sources, the single secure exploitations are only those at Măgura Călanului, Bejan Hill and likely
Măgura Uroiului.

653
Cetean, Peţan 2017, p. 803–826.
654
Cetean, Peţan 2016, p. 823.
655
Kuun, Torma, Téglás 1902, p. 183.
656
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 54.
657
Mârza 1997, p. 822.
658
Bălos et alii 2004, p. 250–251; Pescaru et alii 2005, p. 287–288; Pescaru et alii 2006, p. 281–282; Pescaru et alii 2007,
p. 286–287; Pescaru et alii 2008, p. 248–249; Luca 2008 et alii 2008, p. 178; Pescaru et alii 2009, 181; Bălos et alii 2010,
p. 114; Pescaru et alii 2011, p. 106; Băeştean et alii 2013, p. 113; Băeştean et alii 2014, p. 84–85; Băeştean et alii 2015,
p. 122–123; Barbu, Bărbat 2017, p. 187- 216.
659
Wollmann 1973, p. 111; Rusu 1977, p. 539; Wollmann 1996, p. 257; Luca et alii 2008, p. 178; Barbu, Bărbat 2017,
p. 187- 216.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 145

5.2.3. Salt exploitation areas

About salt exploitation during the Second Iron Age in the area inhabited by the Dacian civili-
sation there is little direct information, by contrast with later periods, Roman and medieval or
19th century information. Knowledge of main salt exploitation areas in the Roman period provide
though a series of indirect data, which associated with present settlements and/or fortified settle-
ments in the area may specify a series of important data on the subject of Dacian date salt trade.
Salt exploitation, even for the lack of a significant quantity of direct evidence, cannot be excluded
from the economic activities of the Dacian civilisation, given both the rich salt resources from the
intra-Carpathian area and the evidence of such preoccupations both prior the Dacian inhabitancy
and after. Salt was exploited since pre-history, with a series of evidences dating salt mining archaeo-
logical features from early Neolithic, documented with the Starčevo-Criş communities at Lunca
– Poiana Slatei (Neamţ county), the depositions of the Cucuteni culture and later in the Bronze
Age, with the Costişa – Komarov culture, still in the settlement of Lunca660. In the late Bronze Age
intra-Carpathian area, salt mines seem to be closely connected with the large deposits of bronzes of
Uioara de Jos, Aiud and Șpălnaca (Alba county), associated with the salt resources from the Ocna
Mureş area, while the Guşteriţa deposit with the salt at Ocna Sibiului (Sibiu county)661.
Until not long ago, the single archaeologically recorded salt exploitation believed to date to
the Dacian period was discovered at Valea Florilor (Cluj County). There, in the salt massif, several
shafts were found during the railway development works, one of these, with a few wooden tools
and a wooden spout (charging box) in inventory, with closed ends and provided with perforations
which according to some authors, were designed to direct fresh water jets towards the salt rock. It
seems that the circular shaft walls were lined with trellis. Since metal objects are missing, the dat-
ing element of this find to the classical period was a tuff grinder, which according to the excavators,
can be dated neither earlier than the Second Iron Age nor later because of the typological differ-
entiations of this artefact compared to grinders of the earlier periods or those of Roman date662.
More recent research on wooden made artefacts discovered in this shaft, have indicated a different
date via the C14 method, namely the late Bronze Age663. Regarding the stone grinders, the authors
explain there is on one side insufficient information ensuring the find of all pieces in a single lot to
which adds the incomplete publishing of the items, while on the other, the sampling of the C14 dat-
ing elements and the age of the tree of which the tools were made664. Either the grinder parts lay in
the same shaft at a different depth from the wooden tools which could be dated to the Bronze Age,
or they were identified in another shaft, it cannot be denied that this salt massif was exploited also
later than the Bronze Age, in the period of the Dacian civilisation or later, in the Roman period.
Evidently, given these new circumstances, the wooden tool and spout finds from Maramureş,
Valea Regilor – Solotvino, may no longer be used as parallels for the artefacts of Valea Florilor in
term of their dating to the Dacian period665, however, the two Dacian phases of the Solotvino settle-
ment may be related to the salt resource exploitation during this period. Also, it is worth noting that
the Free Dacians666 mined salt in the Roman period in other areas from Maramureş.
More recent research in salt exploitation areas established through a series of C14 dating that
660
Wollman, Cigudean 2005, p. 97.
661
Wollman, Cigudean 2005, p. 98.
662
Maxim 1971, p. 457–463; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 45.
663
Wollman, Cigudean 2005, p. 100–101.
664
Wollman, Cigudean 2005, p. 101.
665
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 44; Rustoiu 2003, p. 202.
666
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 44.
146 Cristian Dima

salt was mined in the Bronze Age, yet also during the Second Iron Age, the post-Roman period and
the Middle Ages. For instance, the archaeological site of Băile Figa (Bistriţa-Năsăud county), where
salt mining remains were discovered, among which also such a wooden spout, was originally dated,
based on parallels with Valea Florilor, still to Dacian times667. Later, subsequent to the 2005–2008
archaeological excavations, in most of the investigated trenches were found potshards dated to the
Eneolithic, the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages. Dating made on wooden samples confirmed the
chronological framing of the pottery material, which belongs to the Bronze Age, the post-Roman
period and the Middle Ages, while a sample was dated to around 250 BC, to the Second Iron Age668.
The latter, unconfirmed by other archaeological finds is related to salt mining in the Transylvanian
Celtic horizon669, while Celtic pottery finds at Săsarm – Valea Slatină (Bistrţa-Năsăud county)670
further confirm such assumption. Nonetheless, there are no salt exploitations recording such activ-
ity in the Dacian period with certainty.
A series of archaeological and coin finds yielded by salt resource areas, some exploited during
the Bronze Age, the Roman and post-Roman periods or the Middle Ages, seems to be indicative of
salt mining in the Dacian period as well. Thus, it is believed that the emergence and development
of settlements and fortifications nearby salt resource areas in both the intra-Carpathian and extra-
Carpathian areas, like those identified at Târgu Ocna (Bacău County), Ocniţa (Vâlcea County) or
Sărăţel (Bistriţa-Năsăud county)671 are in fact supportive of such supposition. To these add certain
coin hoard and isolate coin finds in areas with salt massifs or salt springs, these being related to salt
trading. Such coin finds were identified at Sînpaul and Jigodin (Harghita county), Sîngeorzu Nou
and Ocniţa (Bistriţa-Năsăud county), Sînpetru (Braşov county), Ocna Sibiului and Apoldu de Sus
(Sibiu county), Deva, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sacalasău (Bihor county), as well as in other from the
extra-Carpathian area672. In general, based on above data, most unsecure, the extensive salt trade
is rather supposed than directly evidenced in the Romanian historiography. The beneficiaries of
this salt trade would have been either the south-Danubian areas or the western areas of the Great
Hungarian Plain, in the same manner it occurred in the period of the Celtic horizon673.
For the lack of salt mining or salt sources archaeological evidence recording this product was
traded in the Dacian period, it is difficult to estimate the scale of salt exploitations or trade. Most
definitely, since salt resources could be exploited on the surface in the intra-Carpathian area, these
were at least locally traded in the Dacian period, while discussing possible trading routes between
salt resources and its outlets is fully justified.

5.2.4. Exchange products resulted from farming, livestock husbandry, hunting and fishing
Among best known occupations, starting with the Neolithic until nowadays, agriculture and
livestock husbandry played a key role in the economy of any community. To these add to a certain
extent also hunting and fishing. Easy procurement of products through such activities, yet also
the lack of other prompted exchanges between communities since prehistory, thus resulting the
trading occupations and later, true economic activities which gave impetus to the development of
several populations, via both technological and cultural exchanges. Starting from Antiquity, there
667
Chintăuan, Rusu 1988, p. 268–269; Cavruc, Harding 2011, p. 113.
668
Cavruc, Harding 2011, p. 114.
669
Medeleţ 1995, p. 285–301; Ferencz 2007, p. 67–69; Rustoiu 2015b, p. 10–13.
670
Cavruc, Harding 2011, p. 120
671
Glodariu 1974a, p. 107.
672
Glodariu 1974a, p. 107–108.
673
Medeleţ 1995, p. 290–292;Glodariu 1974a, p. 108; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 46; Rustoiu 2003, p. 202–205.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 147

also emerge certain preoccupations which exceed main food related human needs, like attending
the sick or intellectual and philosophical concerns etc. The growth of the Greek colonies and later,
Roman towns throughout the Roman empire, as well as the development in Roman times as of the
4th century BC of a rich road network, first in Italy then, during the Augustean period, all over the
empire, facilitated the expansion of trade and exchange relations674.
In the case of the Second Iron Age civilisation from the Carpathian-Danubian space, written
records are missing, however the archaeological sources testify to main occupations of the Geto-
Dacians. A series of occupations practiced during the Second Iron Age may be inferred upon
analysis from nutrition and food supply view (agriculture, livestock breeding) and raw materials
procurement standpoint (livestock husbandry or hunting). Thus, analysis of food remains, both
of animal and agricultural origin, may bring evidence regarding the main trades of said period.
Moreover, bone remains and animal skins, as raw material for various products, may contribute
as well to outlining a picture of the occupations that maintained and ensured the crafting activity.

5.2.4.1. Farming
Iron tools specific to agricultural works are rare in the archaeological finds from areas where
such activities could be practiced. Instead, paradoxically, a series of farming tools were discovered
in several workshops from the Șureanu Mountains area, nearby the capital of Sarmizegetusa Regia.
One may assume these were likely produced there in order to be offered for exchange to the popu-
lace from agricultural areas, in the Mureş river flood land. The practice of agriculture on the terraces
from the area of the Dacian citadels is unlikely, on one hand because of the landscape and climate,
and on the other, of the social status of the area inhabitants. This social class differentiated from
the commoners who mainly dealt with farming and livestock husbandry. The lack of farming tools
from rural settlements on valley plains suitable for agriculture may be related to a certain extent
to the lack of systematic excavations there, yet also to other reasons underlying such discrepancy
between the few farming tools identified in rural settlements and the large number of such tools in
the workshops’ area. On one side, pending military conflicts with the Roman armies may be taken
into account, as the importance of certain finished products that could be used as weapons might
have justified their collection from settlements. On the other hand, such circumstances could be
the result of certain traditions according to which such objects were brought back to the citadel,
however, this cannot be proven for the lack of literary sources.
Among the tools identified in both workshops and some civil settlements, the latter less archae-
ologically investigated, stands out the animal pulled plough, recorded by the find of components
like coulters, ploughshares and links. The plough using iron ploughshare and coulter emerged rela-
tively late, reaching Dacia likely under Thracian influence by late 2nd century BC – early 1st century
BC675. With a higher frequency than plough parts, in Dacian settlements are also discovered iron
draw and ridging hoes, which substituted it especially in sloping areas where these were difficult
to use, yet also because certain communities were not able to easily acquire the plough. The large
number of hoes discovered in the Dacian citadels’ area from the Șureanu Mountains suggests they
were also used in the set up of the inhabitancy terraces676. Crop harvesting, especially of grains
was carried out through the use of various cutting tools, most numerous being the iron sickles,
their shape being relatively similar to those of today. Among the tools discovered in the area of
the blacksmith workshops also count scythes, some with a blade resembling sickles yet of larger
674
Laurence 1999, p. 80.
675
Crişan, Pupeză 2012, p. 89.
676
Crişan, Pupeză 2012, p. 90.
148 Cristian Dima

sizes. The inventory of some of the iron tool deposits includes rakes, all discovered exemplars being
6-toothed. It is believed they were used in agriculture, however it is not excluded these might have
also been used in metallurgy, for setting charcoal on the kiln hearth677.
Regarding the cropped or harvested agricultural products, these are composed of cereal crops,
vegetables and fruit. In many investigated fortified settlements and citadels grain and leguminous
seeds were discovered, which do not also lack from spaces designed for their deposit. The most
frequent grain found in the Geto-Dacian world is the millet678, followed by wheat679, rye or barley680
. The most consumed vegetable was the lentils, which emerges in archaeological finds from several
Dacian settlements, like Bâzdâna, Căpâlna, Grădiştea – Brăila county, Grădiştea de Munte, Piscu
Crăsani – commonly mixed in the same vessel with other grains or leguminous plants in order to
be used together, likely as a concoction (mush). Peas and tare are rather rare in finds, only three
sites where such plants were recorded being known to date, namely Cârlomăneşti, Grădiştea de
Munte and Bâzdâna. As far as the broad bean is concerned, its cropping started in the Carpathian-
Danubian area only in the Iron Age, being discovered in rather large quantities at Piscul Crăsani
and Grădiştea de Munte681. Chick peas were identified in the Dacian settlement at Cetăţeni, being
frequently used in the nutrition of ancient times. Also, spinach is present in several settlements, like
Brad, Căpâlna, Costeşti, Grădiştea de Munte and Piscu Crăsani682.

5.2.4.2. Herding and livestock husbandry

Livestock husbandry in the area inhabited by the Geto-Dacians may be easily inferred, neverthe-
less difficult to prove archaeologically, similarly to other crafts like leather working or woodwork-
ing, which do not leave many direct archaeological traces, yet may be indirectly proven through
specific crafting tools, iconographic depictions etc. The archaeological evidence recording livestock
husbandry as an occupation springs from the study of the zoological remains present in waste pits,
ritual pits or funerary features, where animal bones were placed subsequent to the funerary feast
or sacrifices. The archaeozoological study identifies the main species of consumed animals, both
domestic and wild. Moreover, archaezoological studies are oriented to the examination of bone
artefacts, in this case however, many of the bone objects are imported and are in no obvious con-
nection with animal breeding in the discussed area. Unfortunately, there are few such studies per-
formed for the Second Iron Age civilisation, with more data existing for the Banat area683, in the sites
of Huniady Castle Garden and Sânpetru Hill – Hunedoara684, Sighişoara – Witenberg685, Porolissum
– Măgura Moigradului686, Șimleul Silvaniei687 and some of the settlements in eastern Transylvania.
For the extra-Carpathian area, namely the Wallachian Plain, archaeozoological samples from the
sites at Cârlomăneşti (Galaţi county), Radovanu, Piscu Crăsani688 and Pietroasele-Gruiu Dării

677
Crişan, Pupeză 2012, p. 91.
678
Suciu 2009, p 119.
679
Suciu 2009, p 119.
680
Suciu 2009, p 121.
681
Suciu 2009, p 122.
682
Suciu 2009, p 123.
683
El Susi 1996a, p. 511–524.
684
El Susi 2007a, p.; El Susi 2007b, p. 117–128.
685
El Susi 1996b.
686
El Susi 1999, p. 387–396.
687
El Susi 2000, p. 299–315.
688
Udrescu 1985, p. 61–66.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 149

(Buzău county)689, Grădiştea (Brăila county)690 were eamined, while for Moldova, Lunca Ciurei
(Neamţ county) and some small settlements east of the Carpathians dated after the Roman con-
quest, in the regions inhabited by the Free Dacians691.
For the Dacian settlement of Mereşti were analysed 659 bones which belonged to 5 domestic
species: bovids, swine, ovicaprid and caballine as well as 5 wild species. Domestic species represent
a percentage of 87.55 % and even though the number of bovid bones is higher than in swine, by
number of individuals the domestic pig is more numerous, double compared to bovid individuals.
16.98% are represented by ovicaprid individuals, while horses are represented by a single individual.
In terms of age categories, in bovids the largest number of slaughtered individuals is aged over 3.5
years, only one individual being sacrificed until the age of 6 months.
Out of a partial lot of 1450 bone fragments originating from the Dacian level of the Sighişoara
– Wietenberg settlement, from both pits and houses, swine weigh 40% in domestic exemplars, fol-
lowed by bovids and then ovicaprids. It is worth noting that 51% of the bovids were slaughtered
over 3 years of age, their use being thus confirmed for also other purposes than meat consumption,
mainly for draft692.
In the site of Hunyadi Castle Garden a number of 404 bone fragments were analysed from the
archaeological stratum and ritual deposits investigated there. From the view of domestic animals’
representation, most bone fragments yet also most individuals belongs to bovids, with a percentage
of over 50%, followed by swine and ovids in relatively equal proportions. Also, similarly to the other
presented cases, domestic cows were slaughtered mostly after 3 years of age693. Circumstances are
slightly different in the case of the archaeozoological fragments from Sânpetru Hill, located nearby
the site at Castle Garden, where a lot of 533 animal bones were analyses, from stata and pits. 32% of
the total animal bone percentage consists of swine, while only 16% are bovids and 9% ovicaprids.
The percentage of domestic animals identified in this site is of 82.7%.
From above data it results that bovids are firstly represented, although in some cases, they are
overtopped by swine. Cattle breeding were firstly important for draft in transport activities, yet
also farming works. Cattle were more important for milk consumption and cheese making, being
slaughtered at a mature age, at smaller ages only in case of surplus. Their skin was used in footwear,
harness pieces and military equipment, while bone remains could be used in bone and horn arte-
facts’ production.
In terms of importance, swine and ovicaprid breeding closely followed, swine being though
appreciated more and playing a significant role in Geto-Dacian nutrition by the ensured meat
quantity and relatively easy breeding means. Swine breeding was important especially in lowlands,
nearby settlements, where their breeding, especially in summer time, was facilitated by extant ber-
ries; beechmast, acorn, wild apples and pears as well as other vegetal remains. An important role in
the Geto-Dacian animal economy is played ovicaprids, especially as raw material for garments, then
for dairy products and less for meat consumption.

5.2.4.3. Hunting and fishing

Hunting was a food or raw material source, being recorded by a series of archaeological
finds dated to the Second Iron Age. A series of weaponry pieces were likely used in both military
689
Dupoi, Sîrbu 2001.
690
Hrişcu, Bejenaru, Udrescu 1997, p. 97–105.
691
Haimovici 1987, p. 144–153.
692
El Susi 1996, p. 511–515.
693
El Susi 2007a, p. 101–116.
150 Cristian Dima

confrontations and hunting. Nevertheless, most and detailed information about hunting is supplied
by analyses performed on bone material, the ratio of wild animal bones being below 10%694. Among
identified species count: red deer, boar, bison, roebuck, brown bear, fox, rabbit and beaver, the first
two species being hunted by the Geto-Dacians most. Lances, spears and arrows are the weaponry
pieces also used in hunting. Such objects were discovered in large numbers in Dacian settlements
and citadels. They are of a diversified typological variety, yet only some were used for hunting. It is
believed that metal arrows with leaf-shaped tip as well as those conical, of red deer antler, were best
suitable for hunting, these being able to make the animal bleed695.
With respect to fishing, bone material is a rare find in Dacian archaeological contexts owing to
the small sizes of fish bone, however not inexistent. Nonetheless, some fish bone material also sup-
plied the raw material for the production of certain artefact categories, mainly beads, as proven in
the case of the Dacian fortification of Ardeu696. The record of the fishing activity is complemented
by the presence in various contexts of fishing hooks made in iron or bronze. Fishing hooks evi-
dence this occupation of the inhabitants of certain Dacian settlements and fortifications and do not
exclude the use of other utensils like the fish net or the tunnel net. Fishing hooks were used as com-
ponents of fishing rods. In the Brad settlement were discovered 10 fishing hooks, of various sizes,
some with the body made out of a blade round in cross-section, widened by one extremity, while the
other is thinned and bent upward697. Other types of fishing utensils were seldom identified. Worth
mention is a possible iron harpoon found at Brad, made of a rectangular bar, provided with bilateral
barbs698, alike those at Poiana699.

5.3. Local production centres

5.3.1. Metallurgy and precious metal working
The relations between ferrous and nonferrous ore source and metallurgy workshops as well
as the relation between this type of production centre and the beneficiaries may establish trading
routes possible to identify to a certain extent. Evidently, concerning the artisans working precious
metals, the relation with the orderer may occur in the same spot, several artisans arriving the areas
where the orderers lived in order to manufacture and respond to their orders. The presence of all
sorts of tool in the workshops from the Orăştie Mountains areas as well as the large number of iron
blooms is indicative of extensive production activities, which serviced not only the neighbouring
areas, being most likely produced in large quantities for trade. Thus, knowledge of metal ore exploi-
tation sources must be accompanied by identification of production centres, while the chemical
composition analyses would pinpoint how these were connected. Since the latter are missing, only
spatial predictability and archaeological landscape analyses could answer questions concerning the
path followed by the trading routes between the source and centre or between the centre and the
beneficiaries.
In the case of the Dacian civilisation, identification of metallurgic or goldsmith workshops was
in many cases achieved based on insufficient evidence, hence the uncertainty of any drawn up cata-
logue of finds. In very few cases, workshop buildings were investigated via archaeological systematic
694
Ferencz 2012, p 29, with references.
695
Ferencz 2012, p. 30.
696
Ferencz 2012, p. 47.
697
Ursachi 1995, p. 124.
698
Ursachi 1995, p. 124.
699
Vulpe, Teodor 2003, p. 144.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 151

excavations, whose lack was often explained by the fact that since these were made in wood, their
remains were more difficult to identify archaeologically700. Habitually, evidence for locating the
activities is represented by identification of forging kilns or melting kilns, the presence of metal slag,
of raw iron blooms or ingots, as well as the presence of moulds and tools specific to metal working,
crucibles and melted metal pouring spoons701.
The difficulty to identify workshops and later classify them made certain specialists establish
criteria allowing for a better understanding of the metallurgic activities. With respect to the black-
smithing workshops from the area inhabited by the Geto-Dacians, a first classification attempt
grouped workshops in two large classes: secure forging workshops (even though most often, the
workshop was mixed) and likely workshops702. Although the presentation of some blacksmithing
workshops which ensued from this framework does not accurately say which are secure and which
are likely, the term “secure forging workshops” likely references those contexts in which remains of
forging kilns were identified, like the case for instance of the workshop on terrace VIII703. An often
mistake when cataloguing iron objects making workshops was noted in the definition and accurate
identification of kiln types (reducing or forging), the academic literature containing either black-
smithing workshops with ore reducing kiln or ore reducing workshops where predominate metal
working tools. Thus, identification of iron objects production workshops must take into consider-
ation the presence of elements like forging kilns, iron blooms, discarded objects, iron slag, specific
tools (anvils, tongs etc.), while the presence in an archaeological context of only an ore reducing
kiln without other such associations cannot be deemed as indicative of a production workshop. The
presence of ore reducing kilns within workshops together with forging kilns and other elements
suggestive of an extant workshop may be related to the vicinity of the ore source, since in the case of
considerable distances with transport difficulties, ore reduction occurred nearby the source.
In order to identify bronze and precious metal workshops, one of the first typological classifica-
tion approaches proposes to distinguish among secure workshops, represented by those in which
the workshop building was archaeologically identified, and those likely, a class in which frame cer-
tain isolate finds of moulds, crucibles, discarded objects, ingots and specific tools (anvils, metal
pouring spoons, tongs etc.)704. Another class, disputed by some of the researchers705, is represented
by travelling workshops. These could be supposed based on isolate finds of crucibles as evidence of
metallurgic activity, the remainder of toolkits, of smaller sizes in case of bronze or precious metal
objects workshops, being easily transported by the artisan706.
V. Sîrbu, subsequent to the publishing of the workshop at Grădiştea (Brăila county), put forward
a new classification of the workshops, recording both bronze exploitation and working and dividing
them into three classes707. In the first class are included bronze obtaining workshops, which should
lie nearby copper ore sources, outside settlements and within which ore reducing kilns or pits for the
reduction of copper bearing ores, working residues, bronze ingots, specific tools etc should be iden-
tified708. Such workshops were not yet identified, like the case of copper bearing ore exploitations. In
700
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 297–302; Glodariu 1975, p. 107–109; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 37; Glodariu 1983,
p. 32.
701
Rustoiu 1996, p. 53–61; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 36–41; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 58.
702
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 37.
703
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 297–302; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 39.
704
Cociş 1983, p. 142.
705
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1996, p. 53.
706
Cociş 1983, p. 142.
707
Sîrbu 1992, p. 41.
708
Sîrbu 1992, p. 41.
152 Cristian Dima

the second class were framed workshops for obtaining and working bronze, whose inventory should
contain kilns or pits for the reduction of copper bearing ores, working residues, ingots, crucibles,
moulds, specific tools, half-finished and finished objects etc. Among secure finds that could be
catalogued in this type count the workshops at Grădiştea de Munte709, Copăcel710 and Săvârşin711. In
the last class are included bronze working shops, in which should be included all ategories of above
mentioned items, except the copper bearing ore reduction kilns and their residues. As secure were
included in this class the finds at Băniţa712, Barboşi713, Bîzdâna (Dolj county)714, Brad715, Căţelu Nou
(Ilfov county)716, Cetăţeni717, Costeşti – Cetăţuie718, Poiana719, Popeşti720, Radovanu721, Răcătău722,
Sighişoara723, Tilişca724 and Căpâlna725, those in the intra-Carpathian area being discussed in detail
below. The author believes that the notion of “travelling workshop” used by S. Cociş in his typology,
is difficult to establish through archaeological finds, even though the presence of travelling artisans
is very likely, however specific archaeological data are missing for their attestation726.
A classification according to the type and context of the finds divides workshops in three catego-
ries. In the first were framed archaeological contexts in which the building where the metallurgic
activities occurred, together with the inventory specific to this trade. The second group includes the
finds of tool deposits in Dacian settlements and citadels beside elements suggestive of the metal-
lurgic activity. Their archaeological context is either not well known, or the depositions were aban-
doned in pits. A last class comprises the archaeological sites in which bronze processing indications
could be identified727.
All these classifications, based on the specificities of the more or less known archaeological con-
texts attempt to bring forth a series of evidences of metallurgic activities for the lack of very clear
archaeological record. Each have interpretation issues and the ascribing cannot be certain but in the
case of the first class for S. Cociş’s typology and that of A. Rustoiu, respectively the second class sug-
gested by V. Sîrbu. A series of archaeological excavations of contexts able to supply such evidence
of present workshops were carried out in a period when context and feature records exhibit a series
of gaps, while many of the results of certain investigations were presented only partially, some of
the excavations not being completed, all this making the accurate identification of the workshops
difficult. To these most likely adds the artisans’ concern to hide both the raw material and a part of
the products in deposits during the pending military confrontations.

709
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 108–109.
710
Costea 1981, p. 169–174; Rustoiu 1992, p. 61.
711
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Sîrbu 1992, p. 41; Rustoiu 1992, p. 57
712
Macrea et alii 1966, p. 32; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
713
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 71.
714
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42
715
Ursachi 1995, p. 122–123.
716
Cociş 1983, p. 139; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
717
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 61.
718
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p.38.
719
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 64.
720
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 54.
721
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
722
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
723
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 78, 84; Rustoiu 1992, p. 72.
724
Lupu 1989, p. 71–73; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 68.
725
Glodariu, Moga 1989, p. 98, 115; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 58; Sîrbu 1992, p. 41.
726
Sîrbu 1992, p. 41.
727
Rustoiu 1996, p. 53–54.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 153

The presence in Dacia of artisans originating from the Greco-Roman world, active in the work-
shops nearby the citadels and fortified settlements is suggested by historical and archaeological
data. Cassius Dio’s reports show that in the aftermath of the AD 86 confrontations, Domitian “had
given large sums of money to Decebalus on the spot as well as artisans of every trade pertaining to
both peace and war”728. In previous periods, extensive relations with the Greek cities by the Black
Sea coast, especially after their conquest by Burebista, allowed a large number of artisans to enter
the Dacian Kingdom. The construction of the worked stone fortifications in the Șureanu Mountains
or of the tower-houses according to the Hellenistic technique via these artisans is undisputable,
however in the Dacian citadels’ area also reached traders who sold there their products designed
for markets, as mirrored by archaeological finds. Once the province of Moesia was established
and the Danube line conquered, the economic relations with the Roman world intensified, these
being archaeologically mirrored by the presence of a considerable number of imported items. As
soon as import products arrived in the area, it was also reached by artisans from the empire, who
later resided for a longer or shorter period of time there, possibly also setting up workshops where
demand existed. Archaeological evidence in this respect may be identified based on the analysis of
techniques applied in certain workshops or by the presence of specific tools, one of the domains
attesting the presence of foreign artisans being the manufacture of brooches, certain details being
also indicative of the origin area of these artisans729. A higher density of such foreign artisans is
archaeologically confirmed especially in the Șureanu Mountains, in the workshops area around the
royal capital, through various coin stamps, specific tools with Greek letters etc. A workshop where
an artisan arriving from the Roman empire conducted his business may be the one excavated in the
Dacian citadel of Ardeu, where a statuette of Mercurius, a cult piece obviously foreign to the Geto-
Dacian spirituality was found730. Among the items specific to metallurgy, this artisan seems to have
worked also hard animal materials.

5.3.1.1. Blacksmithing workshops

As seen above, the nature of the Dacian metallurgic workshops was mainly mixed, differentia-
tion among workshops where only non-ferrous metals were worked and workshops which worked
only iron being rather difficult to make. Furthermore, in several cases, for instance the workshop
identified in the Dacian citadel of Ardeu, the artisan did not deal only with the working of metal
objects, but worked to the same extent bone and horn/antler objects731. Nevertheless, metallurgic
workshops working to an equal extent also pottery products were not identified, potters ranking
likely on a lower social class compared to metallurgy artisans, whose workshops lay nearby fortifica-
tions and aristocratic houses. Even though in both the case of blacksmithing workshops and those
working precious metals, their nature was mixed, in several either blacksmithing or precious metal
working prevails. Blacksmithing workshops are relatively present throughout the territory inhab-
ited by the Geto-Dacians. In the area of the royal capital of Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa
Regia, at least three metallurgic workshops could be archaeologically identified, of which two may
be ascribed to prevalent blacksmithing activities, while the third seems to be rather a workshop
where bronze was specifically worked732.
The first workshop in the Dacian capital, designed for blacksmithing, was identified on terrace
728
Casius Dio, LXVII, 7, 1, 4.
729
Rustoiu 2002, p. 78–79.
730
Ferencz et alii 2004, p. 43–35.
731
Frencz 2012, p. 47.
732
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 108–109.
154 Cristian Dima

VIII located between the citadel and the sanctuaries, on the eastern side excavated in the 50’ies733.
The workshop, beside other civil buildings, was likely built in wood, with shingled roof, yet its sizes
could not be specified. The traces of a hearth, likely of a circular forging kiln were found in a cor-
ner. The workshop inventory is composed of 15 iron blooms and tools specific to blacksmithing,
exhibiting use traces734. 70 objects belonging to iron instruments and tools are mentioned to have
been discovered grouped in four piles, among those specific to the blacksmithing activity being also
identified farming or woodworking tools, a pair or compasses, borers, billhooks, files etc735. The
find of certain deposits containing several iron object types on this terrace, of which stands out that
consisting of 180 iron objects, must be still related to the blacksmithing activity unfolded on this
terrace736.
Another workshop was discovered in 1970, at point “Căprăreaţa”, in the area of the western civil
settlement. The forge hearth was identified inside the workshop, while its inventory was composed
of blacksmithing tools like an anvil, sledgehammers, hammers, tongs, bellow mouth plates and
bellow unclogging tools, ingots, half-finished and finished pieces, yet also a few cart parts. A huge
quantity of approximately 1 raw iron ton in the form of blooms was discovered on one of the ter-
races in the workshop’s vicinity. The blacksmithing workshop likely operated over the course of the
1st century AD, being set fire during the Daco-Roman wars737.
Subsequent to more recent systematic excavations conducted in the Dacian citadel at Ardeu,
a mixed, blacksmithing prevailing workshop was discovered. In the workshop were identified two
heating installations, a forging kiln and a hearth. Based on its inventory, it results there were worked
and/or repaired both iron and bronze objects, several finished or half-finished items as well as two
crucibles, specific tools and utensils, to which also add bone and horn/antler objects, either in a
finished or unfinished state738 being identified.
The find of a kiln deemed either for ore reducing739 or forging kiln740 at Piatra Craivii, to which
add an iron bloom, slag and blacksmithing tools as well as anvils or hammers could be rather sugges-
tive of a workshop where iron objects were made and repaired than the ore reduction activity, iron
sources being few in the area. It may assumed that the raw material was supplied from elsewhere,
from areas richer in iron resources, in the form of raw iron blooms, yet also that many objects were
made by re-forging other, like the case of certain fragments discovered in the Ardeu citadel.
Still a blacksmithing workshop designed for repairs is supposed in the area of the Dacian citadel
at Costeşti – Cetăţuie subsequent to the find of slag traces and blacksmithing tools. It is believed
that a workshop making iron products must have been in operation in the civil settlement from the
citadel area, less researched741.
In the Dacian fortified settlement of Tilişca are assumed to exist several workshop-houses, their
sizes being relatively similar (6.5–7 × 3.5–4 m, 6 × 3 m)742. In their inventory is noted the presence
of iron slag and in certain cases, even of specific tools (two anvils), yet the absence of forging kilns
733
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 297–302; Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 164–173; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 21–22;
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 62.
734
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 299–302; Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 168–169; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 39.
735
Daicoviciu et alii 1952, p. 299–302.
736
Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 168–169.
737
Glodariu 1975, p. 107–134; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 39; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 62.
738
Ferencz et alii 2004, p. 43–45; Ferencz et alii 2010, p. 28–30; Ferencz et alii 2011, 17–18; Ferencz et alii 2014, p. 18.
739
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 38.
740
Wollmann 1971, p. 284–285.
741
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p.38.
742
Lupu 1989, p. 40–53.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 155

make their ascribing uncertain. It is possible that in the so-called workshop-houses certain iron
tools were repaired, yet even such interpreting is unsecure.
Previous finds from the “Sub Cununi” area (Hunedoara county), on the Anineş valley, mention
the identification of a large anvil and slag traces that might be connected to a metallurgic work-
shop743. Still a 19th century research reports for the area of the Dacian fortress at Băniţa, by its base,
the find subsequent to railway works carried out there, of blacksmithing tools among which ham-
mers, tongs and chisels, which have though disappeared, while other details are unknown744.
A workshop specialised in both iron ore reduction and metallurgy seems to have been in opera-
tion in the Dacian settlement at Șercaia. In this case, observations could be made regarding both
the plan and size of the edifice where iron ore reduction occurred. Namely, it is a half-oval shape
construction, sized 4.75 × 4 m, whose clay floor exhibited strong burning prints. Inside the work-
shop were found three hearths, three kilns and ten pits, framed by the excavators to three develop-
ment phases. Among the recovered items count crucibles, iron slag, copper and the casting scrap of
a Republican denarius of Marcus Antonius, as well as iron and bronze sheet waste, much ash and
whetstone used for metal objects’ finishing, casting or sharpening745.

5.3.1.2. Bronze working and goldsmithing workshops

Similarly to blacksmithing workshops, goldsmithing workshops were also mixed. In workshops
bronze was worked and both bronze and silver and gold jewellery and dress accessories were manu-
factured. Also, the goldsmithing activity is documented in a series of settlements and especially
Dacian citadels by the presence in respective sites of specific tools, moulds, crucibles, waste or half-
finished items746. The presence within citadels and fortified settlements of goldsmith workshops and
the evidence on the production of prestige objects in precious metals illustrate the relation between
the goldsmith and the aristocrat. The clustering of such workshops mainly in the Șureanu Mountains
area is impacted by the raw material and the orderers of the precious metal products747. The raw
material was likely purchased precisely by the orderers, who either controlled certain resources or
were involved in trade relations with other members of the local aristocracy who held control over
certain precious metal resources.
Artisans worked in workshops iron and bronze and silver, dividing blacksmithing tools from
those used in non-ferrous metals working being difficult to make. Some tools were used by both
blacksmiths and goldsmiths. It is assumed that a series of tools and smaller size utensils were used in
the working of small bronze and silver objects. The presence of certain tools specific to blacksmith-
ing in workshops where bronze and silver were worked is an argument for ascribing them to both
domains748. Specific tools discovered in Dacian workshops were typologically framed according to
shapes and sizes749. Among the main tools discovered in workshops count anvils, hammers, tongs
yet also a series of auxiliary utensils which served for cutting, drawing or decorating. Such objects
like cutters, chisels, mandrels and punchers were broadly used in blacksmithing workshops, having
the same functionality as in non-ferrous metal working. Among iron auxiliary utensils also counted
the die plates used to obtain bronze or silver threads of various diameters. Also, in workshop inven-

743
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 106.
744
Téglás 1884, p. 31; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 37.
745
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17; Glodariu, Costea 1983, p. 19–20; Glodariu 1983, p. 32–33.
746
Rustoiu 2002, p. 65.
747
Rustoiu 2002, p. 68.
748
Rustoiu 2002, p. 83.
749
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 96–103.
156 Cristian Dima

tories also counted iron crucibles, spoon-shaped, serving for melting and casting the tin necessary
for bronze alloys.
In the workshop located on the southern slope of Grădiştea Hill, on one of the artificially
made terraces were identified eight kilns, some with rectangular shaped stone walls, while other
with circular clay walls. Kiln walls were set up on top of a gravel base which rose above the
ancient level by 0.20 m, base on which the plastered clay hearths were made. Inside and around
them were discovered iron and copper slag, copper and bronze traces and much charcoal, while
a rather large number of finished and half-finished metal items were recovered from there750.
The workshop provided indications for both the local bronze working (kilns, slag drops and slag,
bronze sheet) and especially iron working (raw iron, iron blooms, pieces of iron sheet and black-
smithing specific tools, like mandrels, chisels, a file and an anvil were found), however it cannot
be established with certainty whether the iron blooms and tool were also processed and made
there, or the blooms were only secondary worked and changed into ingots751. Also, it is believed
that all these features were housed within rectangular wooden barracks with rock stone by the
base. Although the outline of these constructions could not be archaeologically identified, their
presence was suggested by the find of a large number of nails and bolts, sometimes set in a line,
together with clasps, cramp irons and charred wooden planks752. The workshop dates, similarly
to other features from Grădiştea de Munte, over the course of the 1st century and early 2nd cen-
tury AD753.
The presence in tower B from the citadel at Luncani – Piatra Roşie of a series of iron and bronze
objects, a small anvil754, two clay moulds for bronze casting755 to which add a series of finished bronze
objects or bronze waste, suggest the presence of goldsmithing workshop in this tower756. Such inter-
pretation is not yet certain given that no crucibles or bronze melting fire installations were identi-
fied in this context, thus it being difficult to frame in any of the above typologies. Nevertheless, for
the lack of clearer archaeological documentation, the possibility of an operating workshop there
cannot be excluded.
From the citadel at Băniţa come several crucibles with bronze traces, 9 moulds, a jeweller’s anvil
and some other tools and materials recording the activity of a bronze processing workshop even
though the proper workshop building was not identified757.
Also, a workshop may be presumed in the Costeşti – Cetăţuie citadel based on the find of sev-
eral tools and materials: an iron hammer used in goldsmithing, an iron die plate, sheet pieces and
bronze rivets758.
On terrace V in an area exterior to the hill fortress of Piatra Craivii was found another inventory
which could prove the operation of a local goldsmithing workshop: three anvils, two iron ingots,
three hammers, scales pans and a link mould. From the same terrace were also retrieved several
bronze pieces, some half-finished759.

750
Daicovicuu et alii 1955, p. 207; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 38; Cociş 1983, p. 140; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 62.
751
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 39.
752
Daicovicuu et alii 1955, p. 208.
753
Rustoiu 1996, p. 55.
754
Daicoviciu 1954, pl. XII, fig. 1
755
Daicoviciu 1954, pl. XIV/6–7.
756
Rustoiu 1992, p. 51.
757
Macrea et alii 1966, p. 32; Cociş 1983, p. 142; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 58.
758
Rustoiu 1992, p. 58.
759
Cociş 1983, p. 140; Glodariu 1984, p. 251–251; Rustoiu 1992, p. 58–59.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 157

From the Dacian citadel of Tilişca, the fortified enclosure, come 14 bronze moulds, matrixes
and three fastening nuts for minting Republican denarii, as well as a small anvil760.
In the fortress at Căpâlna were discovered several goldsmith utensils, among which two ham-
mers, a pair of tongs, an anvil, several crucibles, an iron spoon and scrap, which are also traces of
an operating workshop761.
Other settlements recording a series of likely workshops due to the identified crucibles and silver
and bronze working prints are those at: Arpaşul de Sus (Braşov county)762, Sighişoara Wietenberg763,
Șimleul Silvaniei764 or Ardeu765.
Because they are located on the Mureş river, an important trading route, these are worth men-
tioning even though lying outside the Carpathian Arch. It is very likely these workshops were sup-
plied with raw material coming from resources in the Apuseni Mountains.
Constructional details of a bronze processing workshop could be archaeologically identified in
the last level of the settlement at Pecica. The building was yielded by the 1960–1961 archaeological
campaigns on the acropolis from the north-western half of the plateau. It is a rectangular building
whose limits could be established based on the yellow clay seal composing the floor, which survived
in most part, sized approximately 6 × 7 m. The building inventory evidences that metallurgical
activities were performed there and consisted of three moulds for bronze bars’ casting, hackamores
for bits and links, five crucibles and tools specific for bronze working (two massive anvils, eight
bronze chisels and two vices). Also, there was discovered a hammered coin stamp, many bronze and
iron brooches and a silver brooch, bronze pendants and appliques etc766.
In the Dacian fortress of Săvârşin was discovered a circular-shaped kiln with earth made walls.
From around the feature come ingots and fragmentary bronze blooms767.

5.3.2. Pottery workshops

Pottery is one of the most often encountered material in all types of archaeological investi-
gations, starting with the Neolithic. For the Second Iron Age, potshards outweigh other artefact
categories in finds as well. Knowledge of pottery production centres and their production scale
may provide significant information on how pottery products were distributed to the neighbour-
ing areas as well as the extension of such distribution. As in a series of production centres from the
Greco-Roman world or even the Celtic world, knowledge of the Geto-Dacian production centres
could clarify the issues of the local distribution, at centre level and its periphery. Despite extensive
concerns regarding the Geto-Dacian pottery, awareness of its production centres is deficient, very
few pottery workshops being identified.
With special focus on the intra-Carpathian area, pottery studies generally aimed at establishing
pottery form typologies, firing types, pottery decoration and ornaments, their chronology, pottery
imports from the Greco-Roman or Celtic worlds etc.768. Upon the overview of the historiography
discussing the civilisation of the Second Iron Age in the intra-Carpathian area, it may argued that
760
Lupu 1989, p. 71–73; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 68.
761
Glodariu, Moga 1989, p. 98, 115; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 58.
762
Cociş 1983, p. 139; Rustoiu 1992, p. 60; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
763
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, p. 47, 78; Rustoiu 1992, p. 60; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
764
Rustoiu 1992, p. 60.
765
Mărghitan 1976, p. 17–18; Rustoiu 1992, p. 60.
766
Crişan 1978, p. 56.
767
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Rustoiu 1992, p. 57.
768
Crişan 1969; Florea 1998; Pupeză 2012, p. 273–327.
158 Cristian Dima

although it was attempted to typologically identify the distribution area of certain pottery types,
details about origin areas could not be specified almost exclusively, while systematic approaches of
pottery workshops or clay sources are quasi inexistent.
Given the existing ratio between metal materials discovered in the intra-Carpathian area and
the number of identified production workshops, there is obvious difference between pottery prod-
ucts and production compared to the remainder of Dacian artefacts. Despite the numerous pot-
tery material discovered, paradoxically, the number of identified workshops is very small. Starting
from this premise, the classification criteria769 set up for the identification of Dacian date pottery
workshops relied on principles similar to those used in the case of metallurgic or goldsmithing
workshops770. Accordingly, pottery workshops were divided into: 1. Secure workshops; 2. Likely and
possible workshops; 3. Possible yet unlikely workshops.
The first class would be represented by finds where prints of the workshop building were archae-
ologically identified, while inventories included kilns and appurtenances as well as specialised uten-
sils and discarded pieces resulted subsequent to the technological process771. In the current state of
research, no such archaeological find could be framed to the 1st century BC – 1st century AD Dacian
space, the constructions specific to pottery workshops being entirely unknown despite significant
production deemed local. The single workshop framed by the author of this classification and dated
to the 3rd – 2nd century BC is from the Biharea settlement (Bihor county). The inventory of the
sunken room contained objects specific to pottery activities, while pottery kilns, provided with two
chambers and midway wall lay outside the workshop on a stream bank, where only potshards were
found772. To this would also add the pottery workshop discovered at Șura Mică (Sibiu County).
From descriptions provided by the excavators, it results that a pottery firing kiln was investigated
nearby a semi-hut (no. 16)773. The kiln would be typologically framed in type 2A–3, with the grid
supported by the combustion chamber walls774. It was dated between the 2nd – 1st century BC as
also suggested for the nearby semi-hut, while the collected inventory, without specifying whether
it originated from the kiln area or the partially investigated hut, is composed of handmade and
wheel-thrown pottery, fragmentary polishers (or extensor), a blue glass fragment, a bronze chisel
and animal bones775. It is worth noting that together with the remaining features from the settle-
ment, the workshop lay in-between the Râşloave streams, the positioning of workshops in water
source areas, alike at Biharea, being important for their well functioning. This seems to have been
similarly important for another pottery workshop, novel, yielded at Spini (Hunedoara county) by
the rescue excavations performed prior the construction of the Orăştie-Sebeş highway. The work-
shop, a sunken, modest semi-hut, had in inventory several Dacian date potshards, chronologically
framed to the 1st century BC – 1st century AD sequence, while to its exterior were identified three
pottery firing kilns776, typologically framed, alike that of Șura Mică, in type 2A–3777. According to
information from the excavator, a ditch was dug out to convey water from the Mureş river to the
workshop area.
A second class (likely and possible workshops) includes elements discovered isolate, which
769
Pupeză 2012, p. 275–278.
770
Glodariu, Iaroslaschi 1979, p. 37; Cociş 1982–1983. P. 142; Sîrbu 1992, p. 41; Rustoiu 1996, p. 53–65;
771
Pupeză 2012, p. 275.
772
Dumitraşcu 1979, p. 297–303; Pupeză 2012, p. 275.
773
Glodariu et alii 1979, p. 151; Glodariu 2006, p. 251–256.
774
Matei 2007, p. 282; Pupeză 2012, p. 275.
775
Glodariu et alii 1979, p. 151, fig. 1–2; Glodariu 2006, p. 251–256.
776
Inf. C.I. Popa.
777
Matei 2007, p. 282, 297.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 159

could likely belong to a workshop. These are represented by pottery kilns or waste resulted subse-
quent to the technological process778. Finds of pottery kilns in the Geto-Dacian area, rather rare as
well, belong almost entirely to this class given their relative isolate character. These pottery kilns
were framed in two main types779: 1. Single chambered; 2. Double chambered. Rare among finds,
single chambered kilns are similar in function with simple pottery firing pits. These may be in dif-
ferent shapes, with outward curved walls, vertical or biconical. The fire was lit in a pit adjacent to the
kiln wall with which it communicated via a wide, circular opening, which allowed heat to diffuse
inside, where pottery was piled up780.
Much more frequent in finds are two chambered kilns built according to a more elaborate sys-
tem. In a first chamber, generally set by the kiln base, fire was lit. It communicated with the exterior
via a channel or an opening through which fuelling wood was inserted. Typologies concerning
these pottery firing kilns were drafted by several specialists. Such indications are useful in terms
of how the pottery firing kilns were built and how the technological process occurred, three types
being identified from this view: kilns with grid supported by the fire chamber walls; with midway
wall; with central pillar781.
For the intra-Carpathian area, except the pottery workshops framed in the first class, pottery
firing kilns of various types were discovered scarcely. Two such kilns were investigated at Deva,
on Petru Maior street782 and in the Bejan area783, typologically framed in type 2A–2, respectively
2A–3784. In the area of the Șureanu Mountains citadels, these kilns were identified only at Costeşti –
Cetăţuie785, type 2A–1786 and at Feţele Albe787, type 2A, without being framed in any versions788. In
the area of the Dacian settlements from the eastern intra-Carpathian area were identified two kilns
framed in version 2A–1789, at Sânsimion-“Cetăţuia” (Harghita county) and Sântimbru (Harghita
county)790.
In the last class enter isolate finds of tools specific to pottery activities, some without secure
context. Most numerous finds from the Geto-Dacian area are specific to the last class of possible, yet
unlikely workshops. Most representative tools that record pottery making activities are represented
by the so-called polishers or stretchers, however it is difficult to relate these items with a specialised
workshop. The presence of certain tools in houses, the simplicity of some of the pots and their per-
ishableness, the relatively low firing temperatures were arguments for regarding pottery making as
a both specialised and domestic activity. Domestic pottery making did not necessarily imply kilns,
firing being possible also in simple pits. Such a pit used for pottery firing may be that discovered
at Arpaşu de Sus791. In the shape of a double cone, with a diameter of 1.5 m, the pit was provided
with two sideway orifices and had a charcoal layer in the lower part. In such biconical or cylindrical

778
Pupeză 2012, p. 275.
779
Matei 2007, p. 279–296.
780
Matei 2007, p. 283; Pupeză 2012, p. 275.
781
Bichir 1966, p. 498–509; Comşa 1979, p. 171–184; Matei 2007, p. 279–296.
782
Floca 1971, p. 263–270.
783
Lazăr 1979, p. 637–642.
784
Matei 2007, p. 286.
785
Ferenczi 1977b, p. 73–79.
786
Matei 2007, p. 286.
787
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 138.
788
Matei 2007, p. 286.
789
Matei 2007, p. 286.
790
Crişan 2000, p. 93.
791
Macrea 1957, p. 146–147.
160 Cristian Dima

shaped pits, pots were set on their bottoms, fire being maintained above. At a certain point, the pit
might have been covered with earth while firing continued in the enclosed space792.
Most finds that may be framed in above mentioned classes are present in the extra-Carpathian
space, where economic activities related to the production of pottery products are much better
documented archaeologically. In the intra-Carpathian space, owing to the large number of forti-
fications, especially those in the capital area, the archaeological research less targeted areas where
pottery production could be attested. Past the likelihood or unlikelihood of finds from the Geto-
Dacian area, two specific situations that could play an important role in the small number of identi-
fied workshops must be mentioned.
The classification suggested for the identification of Dacian pottery production workshops is
functional for defining main specificities of a Dacian workshop based on both parallels with metal-
lurgic workshops yet especially the analysis of archaeological contexts and inventories. However,
this classification is nonoperational if the goal is to identify new workshops, for this purpose being
defined aspects related rather to the chosen location so that such pottery workshops could func-
tion from the standpoint of raw materials, the necessary elements for the technological process and
distribution opportunities of the pottery products.
In general, in terms of geographical location, a pottery workshop could operate neither at large
distances from the clay source, especially in soils rich in kaolinite, illite, smectite, the latter respon-
sible for raw material plasticity nor at great distance from the sand source, indispensable ingredient,
especially used as degreaser. The water source had to lie nearby, being necessary in both the produc-
tion process and in case of fire, a very likely situation given by the kilns present in the workshops.
In most cases known for other periods, workshops lay outside the settlements, for avoiding fires
and the proximity of access ways. The need for trading space, fully available by settlement peripher-
ies, is an additional reason to located workshops by the entrance into or exit from the settlement,
occasionally even in gates’ area. Some production centres lay even on important trading routes,
like the case of the Spini workshop. Evidently, there are cases when workshops were located within
settlements, the result of either inhabitancy growth and extension or certain key economic necessi-
ties. Depending on said factors, workshops could be situated by the edge of the settlements or even
outside, closer to water or raw material sources. Hence, their archaeological identification becomes
more difficult and could be one of the reasons for which the number of Geto-Dacian settlements
where pottery kilns were identified is small compared to the hundreds of points with pottery finds
(see Tab. 1). It is also very likely that some of the numerous archaeological points known only
via fieldwalks represented such production centres. In the current state of research, none of the
secure or likely workshops identified seem to have a very high production capacity, however the
archaeological research of the settlements located by the base of the Dacian fortifications or situ-
ated and reported on the terraces or meadows of the main watercourses, could offer a response in
this respect. It is also likely that the distribution of pottery products from one settlement to another
occurred in parallel to the distribution of farming-food produce.

5.3.3. Bone and horn/ antler objects manufacturing workshops

In the Dacian milieu, numerous bone and horn artefacts are known, especially in dava type set-
tlements from the extra-Carpathian area, namely Poiana, Răcătău or Brad. In the intra-Carpathian
area, evidence of bone and horn processing has been recently published for the Dacian citadel of
Ardeu, from a mixed workshop. Bone objects known throughout the Geto-Dacian space, including
792
Crişan 1967, p. 113–117.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 161

both the intra and extra-Carpathian area, are relatively diversified, several artefact types like hunt-
ing weapons (red deer antler arrowheads), tools (piercers, awls), tool and weapon accessories (han-
dles, tubes for storing needles, sockets), dress and jewellery items (buttons, beads, hairpins, combs,
pendants)793 being discovered.
Specialised workshops making objects of hard animal matter are evidenced by existing raw
materials, half-finished products, scrap or discarded items794. Such a workshop for bone objects’
manufacture was investigated on the acropolis of the Dacian citadel at Ardeu, several finished or
half-finished items being identified. The Ardeu workshop is not specialised only on bone and horn/
antler working, being a mixed workshop in which the metallurgical activity is prevalent, according
to the remainder of the archaeological inventory and the presence of the forging kiln. Most likely,
the workshop produced different types of items and repaired others, the artisan servicing the local
demand of the citadel inhabitants. Other bone and antler/horn artefacts were discovered by the
fortress base in a likely burial feature795. In both the workshop and the context by the base of the
Ardeu citadel, yet also the archaeological layer, bone artefacts are diverse, counting red deer ant-
ler handles, hafts, arrowheads, bone dice, beads etc. to which add bovid and ovicaprid horns with
working traces. It is not certain whether all these were made in the Ardeu workshop, the bone dice
being assumed to be an import piece796.
In the Luncani – Piatra Roşie fortress, tower B, was discovered an antler/horn tool (awl). The
presence in this tower of tools suggestive of a goldsmithing workshop797 would justify from one
point of view the possibility that a mixed workshop operated there, processing bone and antler/
horn artefacts, however such ascribing is uncertain for the lack of knowledge of the complete inven-
tory798, stratigraphy and dating of the artefacts discovered in tower B.
It is worth noting that bone and antler/horn items are missing, with few exceptions like the
aforementioned at Luncani – Piatra Roşie, from the area of the Dacian citadels in the Orăştiei
Mountains, despite the fact that in other fortifications, that of Ardeu for instance or the davas on
the Siret river, these are well represented. Other bone and antler/horn objects were discovered in
some of the ritual and burial features recently investigated in the site at Huniady Castle Garden799.
In the archaeological site of Sighişoara – Wietenberg were discovered a few pieces made in horn/
antler, like red deer antler combs800.
At least in the case of the intra-Carpathian area, for the time being, it is impossible to speak of
either large scale working of hard animal materials or a presumed trade with such products. It is
likely this was a local production designed for reduced consumption of such products. Nevertheless,
the large number of finds in the extra-Carpathian space may at least suggest that production was
also meant for areas in the vicinity of these davae on the Siret river. The small number of such
objects in the intra-Carpathian Dacian environment may be also related to a lack of systemisation
and few analyses performed on osteological materials.

793
Beldiman, Sztancs 2012, p. 43–46.
794
Beldiman, Sztancs 2012, p. 43–46.
795
Ferencz 2012, p. 51; Beldiman, Ferencz, Sztancs 2013, p. 113–129.
796
Ferencz 2012, p. 51; Beldiman, Ferencz, Sztancs 2013, p. 113–129.
797
Rustoiu 1992, p. 51.
798
It is very likely that during the excavations, bone artefacts or bones were discovered in this context or in the other
investigated, which were not though analysed or possibly not even collected. The monograph publication of the
archaeological materials was done selectively, special items prevailing.
799
Sîrbu et alii 2007, p. 19–54; Beldiman, Sztancs 2012, p. 43.
800
Horedt, Seraphin 1971, fig. 64/35–36, 38; Ferencz, Beldiman 2012, p. 58–59.
162 Cristian Dima

5.3.4. Glassware
In the Dacian environment, glassware, yet also other glass made objects, are firstly import prod-
ucts, later duplicated by the local artisans. Glass was imported in the form of wares designed for com-
mon use, via the “bottled” products in these recipients, yet also in the form of raw material, raw glass
acquired from workshops located in the Mediterranean area or the Near East, where sand for glass
production was present. Such raw material was intended for the workshops in the Sarmizegetusa
Regia area for glass artefacts801 production. The lack of both unique forms and elements recording
with certainty extant glass items’ manufacturing workshops led to the conclusion that all glass wares
from pre-Roman Dacia are imported products802. Furthermore, their unequal diffusion on the ter-
ritory inhabited by the Geto-Dacians was related to transport difficulties, idea also adopted for the
distribution of amphorae present in few numbers in the intra-Carpathian area803. Nevertheless, it was
noted that in the Dacian kingdom’s capital glassware was massively present, in a 50% percentage of
total artefacts identified in the Geto-Dacian area, which is explained by the capital’s importance as a
power, political, military and religious centre yet also the wealth of the aristocracy who afforded the
purchase of such products regardless of transport hindrances804. The find of a glassblowing tube on
terrace VIII, in the blacksmithing and goldsmithing workshops’ area, led to the discussion for the first
time of the idea that some of the glass products from the capital of the Dacian kingdom were locally
made, as duplicates of imported glass recipients. The find of melted glass scrap and a supposed cru-
cible for preparing glass paste in association with the blowing tube completed the hypothesis of glass
working also by the local craftsmen805, some possibly skilled in such trades. Technologically, glass-
wares were originally made by mould pressing, later with the aid of blowing tubes, mould blowing or
free blowing. In the Geto-Dacian area, glasswares were discovered in many of the fortifications and
less within settlements. Nevertheless, the entry of glass imports in pre-Roman Dacia was uneven,
trade with such artefacts being oriented to settlements of a certain status and a certain livelihood
standard, where inhabitants were wealthy enough to afford such objects806. Without contradicting
such view, one must take into consideration that the majority of the products of the type are found in
powerful trading and production centres, where a series of crafting workshops were recorded, some
playing the role of markets for wider areas and which could be distribution points for other citadels
and fortifications of such goods. Furthermore, one must also consider the content of these wares and
their purpose, many being purchased not for the product itself but for the content.
In the settlements from the Șureanu Mounatins area mainly discovered were tableware or drink-
ing ware sets: beakers of various shapes and sizes, cups, dishes, bowls. Wares designed for common
use were made of good quality paste, often transparent or with slight colour hues, some resem-
bling what today is called colourless glass. There were also identified wares made of coloured glass,
obtained by introducing metal oxides in the vitreous paste composition during the last working
stage. Unguentaria and flasks mirror the special status of the area inhabitants, speaking of another
trade type, namely of the “luxury liquids”. It is assumed that unguentaria were used for the transport
and storage of liquids of pharmaceutical or cosmetic nature, while perfumed oils originated, alike
the recipients, from the Greco-Roman world, where these were made on large scale807.
801
Mateescu-Suciu, Gheorghiu, Găzdac 2016, p. 99–128.
802
Iaroslavschi 1981, p. 166.
803
Glodariu 1974, p. 29–30,
804
Iaroslavschi 1981, p. 168.
805
Iaroslavschi 1981, p. 173.
806
Mateescu-Suciu, Gheorghiu, Găzdac 2016, p. 100–112.
807
Mateescu-Suciu, Gheorghiu, Găzdac 2016, p. 100.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 163

Much glassware was discovered during the 70–80’ies archaeological investigations at Ocniţa. A
part of these was discussed in a recent study and mainly consists of tableware: cups, bowls, beakers
and flasks. Despite the small number of analysed wares, the authors show there existed a variety of
forms and techniques in this settlement, which would represent at smaller scale a synthesis of main
tableware forms and glass working techniques specific to the chronological interval comprised
between the end of the 1st century BC and early 2nd century AD. Among the artefacts counted
wares made by pressing in/on moulds, by mould blowing and free blowing, wares made of stained
glass as well as wares with multifaceted decoration808.
Also, in the Dacian dava of Brad were discovered several glass fragments, among which glass-
ware and beads. All glassware fragments are represented by import items representing the pack-
age of “fine” products – perfumes, ointments – carried from the southern area, these also being
products demanded by the local aristocracy. Out of the 32 glass fragments presented in the citadel
monograph, the majority were dated to the 1st century AD, with the mention that the local popu-
lace was not familiar with the procedure of glassware making, their presence being owed to imports
from eastern workshops, which supplied most part of glassware809.
Circumstances are relatively similar in the dava at Poiana, even though the number of glass
pieces is considerably higher, fact most likely due to this settlement’s status, playing a visible trad-
ing role compared to the remainder of the settlements on the Siret riverbank. After the Dacian
kingdom’s capital of Grădiştea de Munte, the Dacian settlement of Poiana covers a percentage of
18% of total glassware fragments yielded by the area inhabited by the Geto-Dacians810. This further
confirms the Poiana settlement’s function of commercial emporium for a wide surrounding area,
operating as an exchange centre811. Beside these glasswares present in the settlement of Poiana,
other study discussed a lot of which 1 ware shape could be restored. A discovered alabstron frag-
ment, modelled of sandy clay core was dated to the last production phase of this technique. A simple
bowl, of Hellenistic tradition, made by mould casting, duplicated metal vessels of the period. 17
pieces belong to ribbed bowls, of which six fragments come from bichrome bowls made in “mottled”
dark blue glass. There were also identified small bowls, simple, bowls with thin ribs or bowls with
external border or “modiolus” jar type. Among beaker types count those with “lotus sprouts” in
relief, grooved cups, beaker with multifaceted decoration or beakers with flat base and everted
rim. A significant number of fragments come from unguentaria or balsamaria, of which stands out
an unguentarium decorated with polychromous parallel stripes made in a technique of interlacing
chromatic components812.

5.4. Trading sites, outlets, customs

The sources of classical Antiquity often highlighted the importance of commercial exchanges
between various communities. Trade made possible both access to some products necessary for
everyday life, brought from areas where these were abundant to areas where these were missing, and
trade based on special products, which does not underline a need, but rather a taste for luxury and
aesthetics. Trading exchanges between various communities and access to a wide range of products
made necessary the existence of outlets where demand met the supply. In the relations between
808
Popescu, Iosifaru 2012, p. 74–88.
809
Ursachi 1985, p. 225.
810
Glodariu 1974a, p. 77; Vulpe, Teodor 2003, p. 95.
811
Glodariu 1974a, p. 77; Vulpe, Teodor 2003, p. 95.
812
Vulpe, Teodor 2003, p. 99.
164 Cristian Dima

the Barbarian and Roman worlds, such places where traders can exchange products are sometimes
mentioned by the ancient sources. Tacitus reports that some of the Germanic peoples were allowed
to trade even within the Roman province of Raetia, while others only in special places, outside the
border and under strict surveillance. Dio Casius describes such places where exchange was estab-
lished to occur on certain days and in certain locations813.
For the Dacian space, there are no known sources attesting particularly set up places for the
exchange of any sort of goods, but these must have existed, especially in order to allow access to
certain products to a larger group of potential buyers. The situation must be similar to fairs known
later in the Middle Ages, which may be found in rural settings even today. Thus, for local exchanges
and not only, by which the inhabitants of rural environment could purchase and also sell certain
products, there must have existed such specially set up places, perhaps under the control of one or
several warlike chieftains. Of course, such temporarily held markets are difficult to identify archaeo-
logically, as they left not many traces. It is very likely that such outlets were also boosted by inten-
sified commercial links with Dacian settlements, which also gave impetus to emerging boroughs
along some access roads814. It is very likely that some isolated coin finds, which cannot be connected
with any identified Dacian settlement, were the result of such outlets. Their location in the near
vicinity of more or less important trading routes represents an additional argument for the record
of such places designed trade exchanges.
Still as outlets were defined those Dacian settlements either fortified or not, which developed
and eventually became more or less important centres where exchange activities occurred, based
either on currency or product exchanges. Termed trading sites, these are connected with either
the resources in the area (iron, precious metals, salt) which these settlements controlled or the
agro-food products that could be offered in exchange. To these added the imported products to
which these trading sites had faster access by their position on a trading route or by its end, which
could be later sold there815. Just as in some fairs or “nedei” known in the Middle Ages and today816,
it is believed that during the Dacian period, in analogy with other Barbarian civilisations outside
the Greco-Roman world, the sale of local products and imported products in these trading sites
occurred when special events were held (religious or lay practices), some taking place in a specific
period of the year817.
Such trading sites are recorded by the large number of products discovered, which cannot justify
just a local need. These are both imported products and a large number of local products present
in settlement, resulted from the local production of different kinds of workshops. Another aspect
which provides information about the role of a settlement and its definition as a trading site or
centre is represented by high amassment of coin, result of exchange of products against currency.
Commonly, trading centres known in the Dacian world are represented by fortified or non-for-
tified settlements, namely those settlements known as “dava” type settlement. Apart from these, we
must underline that in the context of trading exchanges, any developed settlement or even a citadel
could be a good outlet for both imported products and local products, however such cases are often
difficult to detect. Owing to limited archaeological research, it is difficult to clearly define or delimit

813
Tacitus, Germania, 41; Tacitus, Historia, VI, 65; Dio Casius, HistoriaeRomanae, LXXII, 11, 15.
814
Crişan 1995, p. 362.
815
Glodariu 1974a, p. 118–119.
816
The fair of Negreni, Fair of Floci, the “Nedeea” at Costeşti etc. An important “Nedea” was held in the area of the
Șureanu Mountains in the point known as Poiana Omului. It represents an important crossroads allowing access from
Luncani valley, Alun valley, Luncani Plateau, Târsa, Prihodişte and even Sarmizegetusa Regia.
817
Glodariu 1974a, p. 119.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 165

features of fortified or non-fortified settlements, although many historiographical attempts tried to

do precisely that818. A first definition focused especially on fortified constructions, while differen-
tiating criteria took into account the role, purpose and nature of the fortification regardless of the
number and size of fortification elements, as well as the fortified area819. Fortified or non-fortified
settlements, in the perimeter of which there are several buildings with role of houses, workshops of
all sorts, where various economic exchange activities between producers and inhabitants of the area
or neighbouring areas occurred, were generally framed as “dava” type settlements, term defined
in many ways, yet which largely includes above mentioned features820. This kind of settlement was
given many names, some more suitable, such as proto-urban settlement821.
In the context of trading routes, it was noted that citadel lay in the vicinity of these entry path-
ways of products designed for exchanges. For instance, we have already noted that salt trade during
the Second Iron Age period, the salt distribution system worked similarly to that from the early
Middle Ages and included both customs checkpoints and storage facilities822. Although such an
assignment is uncertain, especially because of insufficient knowledge of the salt trade scale and the
lack of archaeological evidence regarding ore exploitations823, it must be noted that most specialists
remarked that fortifications were positioned in trading route areas or in areas rich in resources, thus
ascribing them a role of control over the trade in area and over resources824. From this view, such a
fortification had access to the goods sold on trading routes, and by the control over its resources, the
customs-fortress could represent an important element in the exchange relations. It is impossible to
say to what extent this activity was controlled in Dacian times, but a series of rules must have been
in place.
For the intra-Carpathian area, many citadels and fortifications are reported and identified on
trading routes, like for instance on Mureş Valley, Criş Valley and Someş Valley. Very few benefited
from systematic research to attest either the presence of production workshops or the existence of
imported products, so that even in the presence of many coin hoards, most from chance finds, the
nature of trading centre cannot be appreciated for many of them. Due to the inconsistent archaeo-
logical research, unpublished archaeological material resulted from previous systematic research,
the lack of site monographs, neither in the case of those which benefited from the wider attention
of the archaeologists it is impossible to make secure specifications mirroring the character of the
fortified or non-fortified Dacian settlements that could have played a role in the trading activity.
As noted, the production activity in the Dacian period is recorded by a series of elements which
suggest both the presence of exploitations of natural resources, even to a little extent, and crafting
centres, workshops and especially resulted products or the products in raw state meant for work-
ing. However, the number of local production centres, metallurgical or pottery workshops is very
small compared to the local products known from archaeological finds and likely mirror a state of
research. With respect to the imported products too, known for the intra-Carpathian area, their
number does not seem to fully reflect the trade scale with the Greco-Roman world or other neigh-
bouring civilisations825.

818
See Dima 2007, p. 121–127 with bibliograpy.
819
Glodariu 1983, p. 50.
820
Sîrbu, Florea 1997, p. 136.
821
Florea 2006, p. 245–249.
822
Medeleţ 1995, p. 290.
823
Florea 2005, p. 49.
824
Glodariu 1974a, p. 124–125; Florea, Vaida, Suciu 2000, p. 223; Rustoiu 2003, p. 204; Pop 2006, p. 46.
825
Glodariu 1974a, p. 124.
166 Cristian Dima

Starting from the centre to the periphery of the Dacian world, we notice perhaps the most
important area known for the local Dacian production in the proto-urban settlement Sarmizegetusa
Regia, the capital of the Dacian Kingdom. The identification of a large number of metallurgical
workshops, higher than in any other Dacian settlement, the presence of a large number of raw
products resulted from the ore reduction and a large number of imported products confer a special
status to this production centre. Such status is doubled by that of royal capital and religious centre
of the Dacian world, which led to huge urban amassment mirrored not only on Grădiştii Hill, in
the western or eastern quarters, with over 200 anthropogenic terraces, but also in adjacent areas,
an impressive number of archaeological points clustering in a rather small area. As religious centre,
at Sarmizegetusa Regia arrived on various occasions a large number of pilgrims, hence the trad-
ers in the area could benefit from their presence. It is believed that the presence of priests, warlike
aristocracy and royalty represented an additional reason for the sale of luxury imported products
there, while merchants guaranteed that local agricultural by-products and products coming from
goldfield areas could also be purchased still there. The active trade carried out in the capital also
fostered the acquisition by local merchants of products for resale in other areas where the Greek and
Roman merchants did not venture826.
The presence of a large number of imported products in the fortresses nearby Sarmizegetusa
Regia, such as, in the least, Luncani – Piatra Roşie or Costeşti – Cetăţuie could attest the existence of
outlets there too. The scale of such a trade cannot be specified though, as many imported products
discovered in these areas could originate from exchanges of products in other contact areas with the
Greco-Roman civilization or why not, still from the trading centre in the capital city. Nevertheless,
the presence of foreign craftsmen is recorded for the remaining fortresses in the area, and they
might have sold such imported products.
Well-developed economically settlements located in the near vicinity of major commercial routes
might have played the role of trading sites responsible for redistributing the imported products, but
also as outlets. Their investigation is however deficient, known import products or production cen-
tres supplying exchange products being few. Much better documented, such trading sites were iden-
tified in the extra-Carpathian area, especially those lying on trading routes connected with the great
Greek commercial centres from the Black Sea shore, the number of imported objects being easily
detectable. Their position and extensive exchange relations firstly with the Greek colonies and then,
with the Roman province of Moesia, after the conquest, led to the development of Geto-Dacian set-
tlements in the area, which resulted in their establishment as major production centres evidenced by
the many products duplicating those of import. These products were distributed in the neighbour-
ing areas along with more expensive products brought from import, the trade with the Geto-Dacian
settlements west the Eastern Carpathians being well-documented archeologically827. In the case of
the intra-Carpathian area, as mentioned, such trading centres are suspected, yet less investigated. An
exception from this rule is the centre of Piatra Craivii, where the number of imported products is
relatively high, with a rich variety of objects828. The location of this settlement in the vicinity of the
Mureş river, in an area where the river is not navigable in any period of the year, made this citadel one
of the main beneficiaries of imported products from the Greco-Roman world and other Barbarian
areas. Most likely, many merchants chose to trade in this point where vessels stopped, rather than
venture in an expedition on land routes. Thus, the citadel of Piatra Craivii, by its traders, played
the role of a trading site distributing imported products to other major settlements. Control over
826
Glodariu 1974a, p. 125.
827
Glodariu 1974a, p. 120–121.
828
Plantos 2016.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 167

the area rich in precious metals to which adds control over salt distribution, makes the citadel of
Piatra Craivii one of the most important sites of the Dacian Kingdom, while its commercial relations
with the citadels from Șureanu Mountains must have been extensive during the kingdom’s period
of maximum economic flourishing. The fortified settlement of Tilişca must have also functioned as
distributor of goods, its location on a route which connected the Șureanu Mountains area with the
Eastern Carpathians, provided it an important position in merchandise traffic. Such route must be
assumed especially for the entry of Greek products and Greek artisans to the capital city of the king-
dom, while its control by the settlement of Tilişca is fully understood.
While discussing control over trading routes, one must consider control over the resources.
Thus, many fortified settlements or citadels lay in the vicinity of sources which could be exploited,
settlements might have held the status of customs: on one hand, in salt resources area (Piatra
Craivii, Tilişca, Solotvino), on the other, in areas rich in precious metalliferous ores or alluvial val-
leys (Piatra Craivii, Căpâlna, Tilişca, Ardeu etc.). The Dacian citadel of Cozia, not systematically
investigated, and the fortified settlements of Deva and Uroi, might be connected with stone quar-
ried from the Bejan and Uroi area, while their positioning in the vicinity of Mureş River could also
make them trading sites.

5.5. Trading routes in the intra-Carpathian area

5.5.1. Trading routes for the distribution of raw
materials and local metallurgical products
Trading routes concerning ore transport from exploitation sources to production centres or
those related to the distribution of finished products resulted from processing in workshops, can-
not be directly identified. The lack of chemical composition analyses that would accurately record
the relationship between finished products and the blooms or metallic ingots discovered in certain
workshops or the relationship between the latter and their exploitation area make identification of
such trading routes extremely difficult. The relatively low number of known ore exploitations or
metallurgical workshops also adds to the difficulty of such identifications.
From the presentation of main Dacian date iron source areas and potential iron ore exploitations
and identification of blacksmithing workshops evidence a relatively small area for which certain
mentions regarding iron distribution trading routes may be made. In spite of relatively numerous
historiohraphic mentions on the importance of siderurgical sites, as seen above, many exploitations
are not secure and their relationship with production centres not fully detectable.
The same applies for bronze and goldsmithing products since in the absence of accurate identi-
fication of exploitation areas, it is impossible to say which route made the connection with known
workshops. Moreover, production in bronze processing and goldsmithing workshops recorded
rather indirectly in the Șureanu Mountains area, seems local, designed for those who inhabited
the workshops’ area, while distribution of such local products to other areas in the vicinity or even
farther regions, is less likely and in any case, difficult to detect. In fact, it was already noted that
the presence of bronze processing workshops and especially goldsmithing workshops from citadel
areas, where demand for such products was higher, is ascribed to a direct relationship between
the manufacturer and the beneficiary/beneficiaries. However, it is possible that at least in the case
of such workshops from the Grădiştea Muncelului area, the most important trading centre, some
of the products were designed for local exchange. To these also add a few of workshops recorded
directly or indirectly in the vicinity of trading routes.
168 Cristian Dima

Although ferrous ore resources and many exploitation areas, the majority documented by field
surveys and chance finds of ore reducing kilns have been discussed on many occasions, no analy-
ses were made in order to determine the chemical composition of iron ores and their comparison
with finished products. The area is also known to be very rich in copper resources, however, no
exploitation traces of this ore and no bronze processing workshops have been identified to date.
Nevertheless, it was noted that among products offered for exchange by the communities inhabit-
ing the Eastern Carpathians area, both bronze and iron emerge, yet it is unclear whether these were
offered as raw materials in exchange for Greek and Roman products or as finished products. Thus,
in many fortified settlements or non-fortified settlements from the eastern intra-Carpathians area
is noted an abundance of products and especially currency originating from the Greco-Roman
world. It is believed that in exchange for luxury products and adornment objects, wines and oils,
the communities of the area offered the Greek and Roman traders salt, animals, leather, honey,
slaves, but also salt, cooper or iron. Such trading relationship did not exclude exchanges with the
local merchants, intermediaries in the exchanges of goods829. Likely, trade through local merchants
with the Geto-Dacian settlements past the Carpathians prevailed. The commercial relations of the
davas from the Siret River with the Greek cities on the Black Sea shore and their function of trading
centres redistributing imported products has already been noted, one of the distribution direction
of these products being the intra-Carpathian area, namely the Geto-Dacian settlements from the
eastern and south-eastern Transylvania830. Many adornment objects yet also military equipment
and the present copies of Greek vessels or imported pieces attest to a large extent such exchange
mediated by the settlements east of the Carpathians. Thus, it appears justified that the area west of
the Eastern Carpathians, rich in ferrous raw material and copper – evidenced for iron, at least, by
the many ore reducing kilns and possibly, copper ore reduction, as shown by the finds at Râşnov and
Copăcel – had offered raw materials to the settlements located east of the Carpathians in exchange
for certain necessary or luxury products or why not, in exchange for products made precisely of
these.
One reason for exporting beyond the Carpathians non-ferrous raw material is represented by the
lack of recording, with few exceptions, some uncertain831, bronze objects making workshops or gold-
smithing products in settlements east the intra-Carpathian area, and identification of such workshops in
the top dava settlements along the banks of Siret river, area from where ore resources are missing. Thus,
in the Dacian settlement from Brad were identified several bronze ingots (7), one lead ingot and two
iron ingots, moulds, half-finished bronze objects, casting crucibles with bronze traces, metal slag, attest-
ing the working of this metal, even if the workshop building itself was not identified in the archaeologi-
cal research832, circumstances encountered, as seen above, with very few exceptions in most settlements
where bronze working was recorded via extant specific utensils and tools. These artefacts record both
bronze and iron working at Brad and the “import” of raw material from areas rich in such resources. The
situation is similar also for the Geto-Dacian settlement of Poiana where half-finished jewellery, several
crucibles, blooms, ingots and tools for bronze working were found833. Still from the Eastern Carpathians
area, the workshops from the southern and south-eastern Getae area from Barboşi834, Bîzdâna835, Căţelu

829
Crişan 1995, p. 360.
830
Glodariu 1974a, p. 77.
831
see Chap. 5.3.1.
832
Ursachi 1995, p. 122–123.
833
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 64.
834
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 71.
835
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 169

Nou836, Cetăţeni837, Popeşti838, Radovanu839 and Răcătău840 must have been supplied with raw materi-
als. The presence of bronze pieces in settlements east of the Carpathian Arch, exhibiting typological
similarities with pieces produced in the workshops above (especially Brad and Poiana)841, may be
indicative of their distribution thanks to the commercial relations between these areas. The trading
routes between the davas on the Siret river and the settlements east of the intra-Carpathian area are
those of access through upland gorges such as on the Trotuş valley by the Oituz Pass or on the Bistriţa
valley by the Bicaz Pass and Rodna gorge, and perhaps the most important route crossing by the Bran
Pass on Dâmboviţa valley842.
The most important ironworks area in pre-Roman Dacia seems to be that of the Șureanu
Mountains, although iron ores were also mined of in the Poiana Ruscă Mountains, nonetheless, in
this state of research it is impossible to estimate its scale. In fact, neither for the Șureanu Mountains
area, nearby the capital city of the Dacian Kingdom is possible to provide a complete picture of iron
ore reducing and working phenomenon. As mentioned above, for bronze processing and goldsmith-
ing workshops perhaps only in the case of the capital city of Sarmizegetusa Regia it is possible to
assume iron selling, remaining workshops, known rather by indirect sources, seem to have produced
adornments and other objects only for the limited needs of the inhabitants of the nearby citadel.
In what iron production is concerned, circumstances are different. Although iron ore reduction
and working was also presumed for other areas, closer or farther from the capital city, it is impos-
sible to say, in the current state of research, that iron ore and objects were massively produced in the
workshops known at Grădiştea de Munte. The large number of iron ingots/blooms there indirectly
show that from sources where iron ores were exploited and reduced, these raw products were car-
ried to the Sarmizegetusa Regia’s workshops’ area. There, it is very likely that part of the raw mate-
rial was processed while another part was sold, however this cannot be proven with certainty in the
absence of comparative chemical composition analyses.
While tracking the trading routes from the exploitation source to the production centres’ area,
inasmuch as known, relatively short distance between these two points may be noted. It is not
excluded that one of the reasons for the settlement and growth of this great metallurgical produc-
tion centre of Sarmizegetusa Regia is explained precisely by the presence of these resources. For
instance, the distance between the secure exploitation from Bătrâna Mountain and Sarmizegetusa
Regia is about 12 km, and about 14 km to Tâmpu Hill.
In each of these cases, roads follow hill ridges, which are relatively smooth and easy to travel by
cart, some intersecting and running further to Grădiştea de Munte together, pathways becoming
more difficult in the area where descent starts from Muncel to Căprăreaţa, yet the slope does not
exceed 15º. These ridge roads, many validated by the case study in the following chapter, seem to
have been also most frequently used by the Dacians for the transport of goods, including the heavy
carriage of the building materials843. Transport of raw iron as blooms or ingots towards the work-
shops likely occurred by cart pulled by oxen, as evidenced by the cart parts discovered both in the
ironsmith workshop from Căprăreaţa and in the storage on Terrace VIII.

836
Cociş 1983, p. 139; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
837
Sîrbu 1992, p. 42; Rustoiu 1992, p. 61.
838
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 54.
839
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
840
Cociş 1983, p. 141; Sîrbu 1992, p. 42.
841
Crişan 2000, p. 136–140.
842
Glodariu 1974a, p. 114–115.
843
See Chap. 6.
170 Cristian Dima

As for the export of raw iron towards other production centres, either from the area of neigh-
bouring Dacian citadels or from farther Dacian settlements and fortresses and the export of this raw
material to other communities outside the area, the single evidence, for the lack of metallographic
analyses, is identification of iron production workshops in areas where no iron exploitations or iron
resources are recorded. Given the reduced presence of iron ore in the Metaliferi and Trascăului
Mountains, the bloom discovered in an assumed ore reducing kiln from Piatra Craivii844 could
record exchanges with areas where iron ore was exploited and reduced more extensively. To this
adds the blacksmithing workshop from Ardeu, even if no raw iron ingots were discovered there, it
likely only repaired iron products.
As for the transport of raw iron for working, not much information in analogy for later periods
was found. A piece of information from around 1820 specifies that raw material necessary for the
blacksmithies of Cugir and Sibişelul vechi was transported via carts from the mines of Topliţa and
Limpert in the Poiana Ruscă Mountains845.
The trade of iron products made in Grădiştea de Munte must take into consideration a wider
area, substantiated by chemical composition analyses. First beneficiaries of such products were
most likely the inhabitants of fortified settlements and tower-houses, beneficiaries of weaponry and
military equipment mainly. From there must have also come jewellery and other products manu-
factured in the bronze processing or goldsmithing workshops, and last but not least, the imported
products which arrived in this trading centre.
The next recipients of iron products produced at Sarmizegetusa Regia are those who needed
farming tools, in this case, farming by-products must have been exchanged with farming iron tools.
However, it was noted that farming tools were missing from rural settlements located in valley
meadows suitable for agriculture. This may be explained to a certain extent by the lack of systematic
research in such settlements. There must be also other reasons for such discrepancy between the
low number of farming tools in rural settlements and their large numbers in workshops’ area. On
one hand, pending military confrontations with the Roman armies could be considered, in which
case, finished products that could be used as weapons might have been justifiably collected from
settlements. On the other hand, such a situation could be explained by certain traditions, according
to which such objects were brought back to the citadel, however in the absence of literary sources,
these cannot be proven.

5.5.2. Conveyance and trading routes for stone distribution

Ever since early 19th century, from the first research undertaken in the area of the Dacian cita-
del complex in the Șureanu Mountains, it was argued that the stone used as building material for
fortification walls or cult structures originated from sources other than local846. If certain histo-
riograhical approaches attempted to identify the sources of origin of the various types of rocks
out of which building stone were made, information on how this raw material was carried and the
routes it took, is scarce.
Regardless of the functionality of some constructions in the Șureanu Mountains area and not
only, the obtaining the raw material for their erection lay with the orderer. There is no direct evi-
dence leading to the identification of the owner of the quarries, while assumptions related to a “royal
monopoly” on resources are poorly argued at the time being. More likely, such citadels operated
844
Wollmann 1971, p. 284–285; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p.38.
845
Veress 1910, p. 146; Ferenczi 1977c, p. 301, note 5.
846
See Chap. 5.2.2.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 171

under the leadership of an aristocrat, who owned a certain area and its resources, while resources
he needed and did not have were obtained through a trade relationship. It is possible that only the
fortification works and cult buildings in the kingdom’s capital area benefited from the joint effort of
the communities in the area, subjects of royalty, although the possibility of exchanges between iron
and stone resources should not be completely ruled out. The presence of a relatively high number
of citadels and fortified settlements in a confined space may no longer be interpreted nowadays as
the reflection of unitary and centralised systematisation, but rather as a representation of socio-
economic structures led by military aristocracy. Likewise, the presence of a number of isolated tow-
ers may no longer be interpreted as purporting a strictly military role, their location being rather
indicative of a well-defined social stratigraphy.
One may consider trade routes as the pathways on which stone was transported from its quarry-
ing location to the beneficiary of the construction. From this view, a number of elements impacting
the choice of optimal route must be taken into account. Firstly, all Dacian citadels as well as some
of the towers in their vicinity lie on barely accessible heights. Stone sources too, either the quarry
at Măgura Călanului or that on Pietroasa Mountain or Măgura Uroiului lie on uplands, even if not
as hard to reach. To these difficulties adds the distance between the stone source and the construc-
tion site, as well as the elevation differences in order to cover any possible route. Another aspect
that must be analysed is the transport load, the ability of a vehicle to carry a certain load, the type of
vehicle used, as well as the required draft force or the human resources.
G. Téglás raises a first issue in this regard, when discussing the origin of the limestone blocks
from the Dacian citadel of Băniţa. He characterises the limestone used for the construction of the
fortification as being similar to that of Sântămărie de Piatră, estimating though that the 80 km
distance to Băniţa would be difficult for transportation of limestone blocks even for 19th century
roads. Referring to how the stone blocks were carried to the fortress plateau, G. Téglás claims that
due to the very narrow access road to the acropolis, their transport might have been done only on
horseback, stating that blocks were cut in such a manner that they could be transported in pairs847.
The view of the Hungarian researcher seems farfetched today, because, even on short distances, a
horse is unable to withstand the transport of two limestone blocks much heavier than the animal’s
weight, especially since at the time, the size of such an animal was smaller than in other periods.
According to G. Téglás’ measurements, for the blocks discovered at Băniţa, he indicates a length of
60 cm, a height of 45 cm and a thickness of 40 cm, resulting a 0.108 m³ volume. Taking into account
an approximate 2300 kg / m³ density of the shelly limestone, a weight of 248.4 kg would result, so
the animal would have had to carry a total weight of 496.8 kg, an effort far too great for a horse. In
fact, horse use as a beast of burden for heavy loads is highly unlikely in ancient times, such opera-
tions rather involving the oxen.
Based on iconographic images and in the absence of other evidence, several authors discuss-
ing transport of goods during Antiquity in the Greco-Roman world, especially of heavy goods,
believed this occurred with the aid of carts pulled by horses, donkeys or mules. Today, however,
is widely accepted that oxen were used for such difficult operations848. The ancient written sources
do not report for the Dacian period any information about how transport occurred, but a series of
information can be related to how this heavy load transport was carried out in other contemporary
geographical areas. Some iconographic images and the little archaeological evidence also add. It
is believed, given the Hellenistic tradition in the construction of the Dacian fortresses from the

847
Téglás 1884, p. 30.
848
Burford 1960, p. 1–18; Sahotsky 2012, p. 5; van Tilburg 2007, p. 59, 73.
172 Cristian Dima

Șureanu Mountains, that conveyance also occurred via adopted Greek origin technologies. Thus,
transportation would have been made by means of “ramps”, wood cylinders, as well as oxen-pulled
carts849.
The building materials used for the Dacian fortifications in the Șureanu Mountains and the cult
buildings are diversified in shape, rock type and size. For fortifications, tower-houses and support of
terraces, materials consist of blocks of oolitic limestone (shelly limestone) with varying sizes, from
other sources, to which add wooden beams, earth and stones for the wall filling, which are from
local sources. For the shaped limestone blocks, as shown, the only certain source is the quarry from
Măgura Călanului, even though it was argued there were other possible sources, not yet identified in
the field. The sizes of these blocks vary, however, for the lack of publication of weight data any cal-
culations are only putative, based on the density of the oolitic limestone, although according to the
source of origin and petrographic composition this density varies. At a density of 2300 kg / m³, the
weight of a medium-sized block (0.65 × 0.45 × 0.35 m) was determined to be 253.575 kg850 (actually,
using the same data it is only of 235.462 kg). It was assumed that limestone block sizes decreased
once with the distance increase from the quarrying source location, which is mainly due to the costs
and difficulties of transporting this material. Still in order to diminish transportation costs, it was
shown that blocks were carved in the quarry851. For the Costeşti – Cetăţuie citadel, the sizes of the
blocks used for the fortification construction are very varied, with values between 0.25–1.10 m long,
0.50-0.60 m height and 0.45-0.55 cm thick852 and a resulting weight of approximately 130 to 834 kg,
computed at maximum values. For the Luncani – Piatra Roşie citadel, some of the block sizes are
mentioned, noting they are smaller than those from Costeşti, sizes being 0.62 × 0.48 × 0.32 m;
0.55 × 0.40 × 0.32 cm; 0.50 × 0.46 × 0.33 cm853 and weights between 167–219 kg. The same applies
in the case of the citadel from Căpâlna, block size varying in length between 0.40–1.05 m (mostly
0.60-0.75 m), thickness 0.26-0.32 and width between 0.40 – 0.46 m854, resulting a weight per block
between 95–355 kg. Regarding size and weight differences, it may be assumed these are given by
the distance between the quarrying site and the construction site, but these differences may also be
attributed to different construction methods and different craftsmen. Evidently, not all blocks from
the citadels were measured, but it should be noted that the distance between Măgura Călanului and
Căpâlna is considerably greater than the distance between Măgura Călanului and the Piatra Roşie
citadel, in the latter blocks not exceeding a 220 kg weight, however in the case of the Dacian citadel
from Căpâlna, there are blocks over 300 kg.
It may be noted that the effort to transport such blocks required great labour capacities, a
series of costs related to the employment of those engaged in such works, special equipment, ani-
mals and vehicles adapted to such transport on a trading route which is not on flat land. It was
estimated that total stone transported for the construction of the citadels, towers and terrace sup-
porting walls only for the citadels of Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Costeşti – Blidaru, Luncani-Piatra Roşie
and Sarmizegetusa Regia, reached a cubing capacity of 16000 m³, for a 5 meter high fortification
wall and an average thickness of 0.40 m. Another 4000 m³ for the other limestone constructions
in these citadels added to this value, resulting 20000 m³ quarried stone855, the equivalent of 46000

849
Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 33.
850
Borangic, Berzovan 2014, p. 113.
851
Glodariu 1986, p. 101.
852
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 10.
853
Daicoviciu 1954, p. 36–37.
854
Glodariu, Moga 1989, p. 36.
855
Glodariu 1986, p. 102; Iaroslavchi 1997a, p. 31.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 173

tons. Although the 5 meters height of the walls is not sufficiently supported currently, and these
values would be halved, the amount of transported stone is still be enormous and it would have
required a series of activities for the set up of transport routes, production of transportation means
as well as human and animal resources costs, involved in this long-term effort. The erection of cita-
dels and tower-houses, the so-called aristocracy palaces is testament to their economic power, of
control over resource-rich areas and last but not least, a reflection of their social status of warriors.
For instance, only the construction of the shaped stone level of a tower that served as a dwelling for
an aristocrat, it is possible to compute the amount of carried stone and approximately estimate the
needed efforts. Thus, for example, for the tower at Poiana Perţii where the sizes of both the inte-
rior and exterior rows are known (13.35 × 12.70 m, respectively 8 × 7.75 m)856, estimating a wall
height of at least 2 meters, a total cubing capacity of 167.2 m³ with a weight of 384.56 tons results.
Compared to the Roman limits of a 500 kg angaria857, 770 carts of worked stone would have been
required, pulled by at least two pairs of oxen858. Given the transport time of at least two days and
estimating a convoy of 10 leaving every two days, the transport time of the stone for a tower-house
would amount to 154 days.
In the case of cult buildings, the rectangular and circular sanctuaries, the stone used for column
bases and in some cases, column shafts, consisted of both limestone and andesite. Their weight far
exceeds the weight of the limestone blocks used for the construction of tower-houses or citadels,
many of which being indivisible units weighing more than 1 ton. The transport of these plinths and
column shafts was much more difficult and most likely required different transport vehicles and
handling equipment.
An andesite disc (plinth) of the large andesite sanctuary on terrace × was 2 – 2.25 in diameter
and 0.30 meters high859, and an estimated weight of over 3.5 tons860. Specifically, given their size and
estimating an overall andesite density of 2600 kg / m³, the weight would have ranged between 3 –
3.6 tons. As for parts of column shafts or trunks, surviving in a small number and having various
sizes, G. Téglás noticed when visiting Sarmizegetusa, 7 such andesite columns’ shaft fragments with
diameters between 1 m and 2 m and a height of 0.80 metres, mentioning that the andesite source
lay at Deva861. During the archaeological excavations conducted in WWII’s aftermath, 12 such col-
umn shafts and trunks sized between 0.31 – 0.82 m in diameter and a height of 0.92–1.18 m were
found, with an estimated weight of 180–1620 kg. The column trunks were 1.18–1.33 cm high, the
lower diameter being 0.81-0.85 cm and 0.75 m at the top, weighing between 1466 and 1740 kg. The
ten parts of the andesite “sun” weigh approximately 1.8 tons each, and the disk at its centre, with
a diameter of 1.46 m and a thickness of 0.30 m, weighs 1.3 tons. Such division of the cult monu-
ment should not be related only to worship practices, but perhaps even to transport difficulties.
Other constructional elements made still of andesite, the pillars of the small circular sanctuary for
example, are smaller in sizes: a height of 60–70 cm (the tops were destroyed, it seems in Antiquity,
856
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 184.
857
van Tilburg 2007, p. 81.
858
Xenophon, Κύρου παιδεία (Cyropaedia), VI.I.52–54: the 4th century BC source mentions Cyrus’s invention to
transport siedge towers with the aid of 8 oxen pulled cart to his wheeled cart. It is shown that this tower weighed around
3 tons, while the distributed weight on each yoke would have been less than 15 ancient “talanţi”, namely approximately
380 kg. Cyrus’s experiment shows the distributed weight made advance easier, specifying that an oxen yoke commonly
pulled a weight of 25 “talanţi”, namely 650 kg. Taking into account the slopes of the land in the area of the Șureanu
Mountains, it may be considered that for a 500 kg cart at least two oxen pairs were needed.
859
Daicoviciu et alii 1951, p. 108.
860
Antonescu 1984, p. 166.
861
Kuun, Torma, Téglás 1902, p. 20.
174 Cristian Dima

the suggested height being of 1 m), 20.5 cm wide and 15 cm thick, i.e. a 78–80 kg weight, these being
most likely transported with the aid of ox-drawn carts.
The limestone plinths also weighed much, those from the sanctuaries at Sarmizegetusa Regia
weighing between 700–1000 kg, while in other citadels from the Șureanu Mountains, for example a
plinth from Pietrele lui Solomon with a diameter of 0.75 m and a height of 0.42 m, weighed 427 kg.
With regard to transport vehicles, we noted in the previous chapter there are sufficient ele-
ments supporting the hypothesis of cart use in the heavy transport of building materials. Those
iron fittings that reinforce both the cart wheel and its axle discovered in the workshop from
Căprăreaţa and that on terrace VIII from Sarmizegetusa Regia (Cat. 72–88), presuming they were
assembled on solid wheels, could indicate the use of this cart type for the transport of lime-
stone blocks and some andesite construction elements. Depictions of oxen pulled carts are rare in
Greco-Roman iconography, as shown above, but there are some images that could argue the use
of oxen for heavy load transport. Two-wheeled Roman carts are rendered in scenes XLIX, LXII
on the Trajan’s Column (fig. 1–2), but their wheels are provided with spokes. The four-wheeled
Dacian cart from metope 51 / IX (fig. 5) on Tropaeum Traiani also has spoke wheels, but it does
not carry a heavy load, but three Dacian figures. Solid wheel carts are represented on the trium-
phal monument of Marcus Aurelius in scene XCIII (Fig. 8), where there are two such oxen-drawn
carts carrying a load of military equipment pieces, and scene CXI exhibits a convoy of two oxen-
drawn carts862.
Thus, it may be assumed they could be transported by means of a cart pulled by oxen, being
loaded two, three or four blocks up to a maximum weight of 500–600 kg. These carts should have
been pulled by 2, 3 or 4 pairs of oxen, and in the case of indivisible andesite blocks heavier than
1 ton, or perhaps even limestone blocks that reached 700–800 kilograms, other types of vehicles
may have been used, perhaps with more axles and wheels, pulled by several pairs of oxen, as in the
examples from the Greek world.
In the Romanian historiography, regarding the transport vehicles, besides carts pulled by oxen,
the issue of transport performed with the aid of sledges in winter times was also raised863.

5.5.3. Salt distribution trading routes

The Dacian date salt trade has been discussed several times in Romanian historiography, even
if evidence of such an economic activity is rather indirect, while archaeological traces are relatively
difficult to identify, especially in the absence of reliable identification of extraction sources. The lack
of this mineral from areas in the immediate vicinity, such as the Great Hungarian Plain, the southern
Danube territories of the Balkan Peninsula, except the seacoast, an important part of the area from
the north of the Black Sea, has led to the conclusion, archaeologically proven for some periods, that
even during the Second Iron Age there was extensive trade with salt864. For the Celtic horizon in the
centre of the intra-Carpathian space, it has been mentioned several times that their settling of this
area, especially between the Mureş and Someş river valleys, is related to the salt resources existing in
the area (Ocna Mureş, Bistriţa area), the Celtic communities likely also controlling the Mureş river
valley, especially for salt trade865. Even though regarding the 4th – 3rd century BC salt trade there

862
Petersen, Domaszewski, Calderini 1896, p. 93, pl. 120-A,B.
863
Glodariu 1986, p. 101: Glodariu 1983, p. 34; Borangic, Berzovan 2014, p. 113.
864
Pârvan 1926, p. 609; Daicovociu 1972, p. 195; Glodariu 1974a, p. 107–108; Medeleţ 1995, p. 290–292; Iaroslavschi
1997a, p. 42–45; Rustoiu 2003, p. 203–205.
865
Medeleţ 1995, p. 291; Sîrbu 2006b, p. 195; Ferencz 2007, p. 68–69.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 175

were also more cautious approaches866, a series of settlements from areas with salt deposits as well
as the more recent record of the salt exploitation at Băile Figa during the 3rd century BC867, provide
sufficient arguments for the trade and export of salt from the intra-Carpathian area to Pannonia.
If for areas in the Balkan Peninsula and those north-Pontic it is shown that main supply points
were located outside the Carpathian Arch, such as those from Ocnele Mari (Vâlcea County),
Târgu Ocna (Bacău County), Sărata Monteoru (Buzău County), for the western areas of the Great
Hungarian Plain and perhaps also the north-western areas of the Balkan area, main sources of sup-
ply lay in the intra-Carpathian area868.
The most important trading routes in the intra-Carpathian area supposed to have supplied with
salt these areas without such deposits, have been briefly described, as being both by land and espe-
cially by water, on the Mureş river (as the most important road route in this area), Someş or Olt
rivers. These routes are related to their later use as well, in Roman times, the Middle Ages and until
the 19th century.869.
The location of some settlements or presence of coin hoards in both the vicinity of salt deposits
and exploitations known from other historical periods, indirectly show such activity. Furthermore,
the location of certain settlements or fortifications near trading routes may also illustrate both the
main directions and the extent of trade in general. For the lack of archaeological evidence to certify
salt mining during the Dacian period, these settlements in salt resource areas seem to be the only to
record trade with this product. If the extent of salt trade in what concerns export to areas devoid of
this product could be indirectly proven by the presence of coin hoards or foreign exchange products
originating from other cultural sites, salt trade in border areas is more difficult to evidence. This
short-distance trade leaves little archaeological traces due to resembling material culture elements870.
The main trade route connected not only with the salt trade but also with a series of other prod-
ucts is the Mureş river valley. This watercourse is believed to have been navigable up to Alba Iulia,
where it is considered to have been used also in other times of the year not only during the spring
when flows were higher, as is the case with other watercourses. The importance of the Mureş river
for both trade and other types of transport has been highlighted several times in the literature by the
confusing mention of Strabo871, according to which this river flowed into the Danube872. Navigation
further upstream of Alba Iulia was less discussed for the period of classical Antiquity. The point
was well known in Roman times, as at Apulum a port was operating. It is highly likely that when
the river flow was higher, navigation went further upstream Alba Iulia, and in terms of salt trade, it
would be possible to establish at least a direct link with the salt resources from Ocna Mureş.
The Ocna Mureş area, still known today for its salt mines, has been exploited for several periods
of time, more or less archeologically recorded. For instance, the large bronze deposits by the end
of Late Bronze Age, which includes one of the largest from Uioara de Sus (Ocna Mureş), have been
linked to salt exploitation, speaking of the so-called “salt aristocracy”, which controlled both the
production and trade of salt873. In the period previous to the Dacian inhabitancy, it was assumed
that in the Celtic horizon, the known settlements of Aiud, Ocna Mureş, Micoşlaca or Uioara de Jos

866
Florea 2005, p. 49.
867
Cavruc, Harding 2011, p. 114.
868
Glodariu 1974a, p. 107; Medeleţ 1995, p. 285–287.
869
Glodariu 1974a, p. 111–112, 117–118; Medeleţ 1995, p. 290.
870
Rustoiu 2003, p. 203.
871
Strabon, Geografia, VII, 3, 13.
872
Glodariu 1974a, p. 111; Medeleţ 1995, p. 290; Ferencz 2007, p. 68.
873
Ciugudean 2015, p. 10, with references.
176 Cristian Dima

(Alba county) were associated with the presence of salt deposits and the proximity to the Mureş
river and its importance as trading route874.
Salt from Ocna Mureş was certainly exploited during Roman times. Some authors identified
there the ancient locality of Salinae875, even if there are views according to which it could have
been located at Uioara de Jos or Unirea (Vinţu de Sus) or Războieni (Alba county), all close to each
other876. The Roman road was partially identified in the area of Aiud, following the upper terraces
of the Mureş river up to Apulum, a series of Roman settlements being identified at Unirea, where
a mansio or a statio would have functioned on the imperial road, in Aiud, settlement identified
with ancient Brucla, Stremţ, Oiejdea, Tibru, Cricău, Bucerdea Vinoasă, Șard and Apulum (Alba
county). The side road is also represented on Austrian maps and follows approximately the route of
the Roman road877. Salt transport from the exploitation areas at Salinae could have occurred on this
road when the flow of Mureş did not allow the transport to Portus (Partoş), from where salt reserves
were dispatched to the Empire, however rafting must have also been used during spring, as later
done in the Middle Ages. The transport of goods, such as salt, with the aid of rafts in Roman times
is linked to an inscription discovered at Apulum that mentions a collegium nautarum, an inscription
set up by a slave in honour of his master Publius Aelius Strenus, patron of the fabri, centonarii and
navicularii878.
The exploitation and transport of salt from Ocna Mureş but also from Turda are attested even
later in the Middle Ages. Some documents talk about salt customs established at various points,
while others reference salt transport from the intra-Carpathian area to Moldova or the Great
Hungarian Plain. An interesting document seems to come from mid 16th century and represents a
report on the state of the salt mines and the transport of salt on the Mureş river. The report is drawn
up by H. Dernschwam, sent by the houses of Fugger and Thurzó, the managers of salt mining opera-
tions from Ocna Mureş and Turda. The document states that salt was transported from the exploi-
tation to Decea, where a storage space would be needed because salt needs to remain at that point
longer, until the river rises due to rainfalls and snow melting in the spring. The document also states
that salt was carried with smaller and larger rafts, and those who have rafts and transport salt with
their aid are called celerists. After Easter, when the river waters rise, rafts would be loaded at Decea
and leave Transylvania879. Salt transport could have also occurred by land and it was certainly car-
ried out when the need arose, but where possible water conveyance was preferred, which was also
cheaper and safer880. The same report mentioned above states that salt was transported from Turda
to Decea by cart, because the Arieş river flows in this area quickly and meanders a lot881.
For the Dacian period, it was assumed that a series of coin hoards discovered in areas with salt
resources could be linked, at least in part, to salt trade882. Although a number of coin hoards are
known, yet also some important settlements in areas with salt resources, this is not the case for
Ocna Mureşului, the only known Dacian date finds being a silver brooch and two silver bracelets,
of which one fragmentary883. In connection with the exploitation of salt from Ocna Mureş and its
874
Ferencz 2007, p. 57.
875
Wollmann 1996, 240.
876
Fodorean 2006, p. 246; Benea 2007, p. 43.
877
Fodorean 2006, p. 246–249.
878
Anghel, Suciu 2004, p. 367.
879
Strieder 1933, p. 271; Tătar 2016, p. 227–237.
880
Iambor 1982, p. 82.
881
Strieder 1933, p. 271.
882
Pârvan 1926, p. 609; Glodariu 1974a, p. 107–108.
883
Horedt 1967, p. 576; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 135.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 177

transport on the Mureş, could be placed the small coin hoards discovered at Decea, consisting of
15 Hunedoara type coins884, respectively 4 silver drachmas from Apollonia and Dyrrhachium885. To
these could be added, if we consider possible the transport on a land road that would follow the
route of the later Roman road, the hoard of 145 Roman denarii from Tibru886, the hoard of Șard
with twelve Roman denarii887. In addition to the possible exploitation of salt from Ocna Mureş, the
exploitation of salt in Turda can be added, the trading route following the path used in the Middle
Ages and likely in Roman times, on the Arieş river to the Mureş river, at Turda being also known a
hoard of Roman republican denarii888. Likely, salt that could be exploited in the Ocna Sibiului area
was transported up to the Mureş valley. All these possible exploitation areas could be responsible
for both the salt supply of areas from Pannonia and local consumption, being transported from the
Mureş, either on roads that followed the route of Cugir valley towards the area of Cugir citadel or
those on Apa Oraşului valley or Strei valley towards the citadels from the Șureanu Mountains. It
should be mentioned here that routes on all these valleys, tributaries of the Mureş, were followed
as long as river terraces and valleys were wide enough not to endanger transport, as water gushed
formed along these valleys. Near uplands, where valleys narrowed, routes took the direction of the
much safer ridge roads. On these routes also came from the Mureş imported products, while the
presence of citadels and fortified settlements along the middle and lower course of the Mureş river
must be linked to the trade control of both salt and other products, and possibly their customs
clearance.
Salt transport is also assumed to have taken place in the area between the salt sources from
Turda, Cluj, Dej towards Șimleu Plateau and then towards Pannonia, an assumption based espe-
cially on the large number of coin hoards from the area of Șimleu Plateau fortifications889. Neither
in this case are known many Dacian date finds near salt mines, and the assumption of the Dacian
exploitation from Valea Florilor is uncertain. In fact, for Cluj County, the number of secure finds is
very low, most of the known points, also few, being from chance and isolated finds. Several jewellery
and coin finds come from Turda, Cojocna, Bobâlna, Moldoveneşti, Someşul Cald, Crişeni-Berchieş,
Vişea, Buneşti (Cluj county), but they all represent isolated finds unconnected to any settlements890.
Interpretation based on coin finds related to a salt road until the Middle Ages891 could be justified
if in exploitation areas Dacian settlements closer to such sources would be discovered, but in the
current state of research for the Cluj area few finds confirm the existence of Dacian settlements.
Evidently, all this may be related to the state of research, reports of Dacian date archaeological finds
covering the area of the Someş rivers basin.
On this salt road, mentioned in the Middle Ages, salt was transported through Meseş Gates
pass, salt carts starting from Cojocna through Cluj and continuing to Românaşi, where a customs
point (Egreg) is recorded and then to Creaca, next to the Meseş Monastery, another customs point,
then entered Meseş Gates pass, monitored by the citadels of Moigrad and Ortelec and continued
through Zalău, Crasna, Zăuan, Șimleu, Măierişte, Zalnoc, Supuru de Sus, Tăşnad and to Sălacea
(Sălaj county), where there was a royal salt storage892. Another land road attested in the Middle Ages
884
Winkler 1958, nr. 199; Preda 1973, p. 303, no. 6; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 90.
885
Glodariu 1974a, p. 270; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 90.
886
Macrea, Berciu 1942, p. 169–202; Daicoviciu 1940, p. 317; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 191; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 48.
887
Glodariu 1974a, p. 294, no. 305; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 180; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
888
Glodariu 1974a, p. 108, no. 331.
889
Chirilă, Matei 1986, p. 108; Florea 1986, p. 756; Pop 2006, p. 13; Suciu 2009, p. 29–30.
890
Florea 1986, p. 757.
891
Chirilă, Matei 1986, p. 108, fig. 1.
892
Iambor 1982, p. 83.
178 Cristian Dima

started from Ocna Dej, through Bobâlna (Cluj county), Gârbou, Proptelec, Var, Jibou, Mirşid and
Meseş Gate pass (Sălaj county), from where it went on the road described above893. For the Cluj-
Zalău area, this route of the salt road, known by early Middle Ages, overlaps the Roman imperial
road, following the same points from Cojocna to Sălacea894. It is noteworthy that in addition to the
association of a possible salt road used in the Dacian period with coin and objects known objects
in the area of settlements and citadels in Țara Silvaniei, in the Bronze Age are also known a large
number of bronze deposits located on the Crasna valley or in the area of the Meseş Gate pass895.
In addition to this land salt road, perhaps more often used in the Middle Ages and maybe dur-
ing the Roman times, was transport on the Someş river, on which salt from Ocna Dejului and later,
from Sic was carried. From there, on the Someş through Satu-Mare it reached the Tisza and then
through Tokaj and Szolnok it continued to the steppe. Also on the Tisza came, from the north, salt
from Maramureş, from the Rona and Șugatag mines, exploited during the Middle Ages896. These
routes seem to have been used during the Second Iron Age, also documented on the basis of coin
hoards but also by the existing fortifications that controlled trade routes from the Someş basin897.
Thus, the Dacian fortification of Beclean, on the bank of the Someşul Mare river, was connected with
the possible exploitation of salt in the area, probably at Băile Figa and other salt waters, even though
for the Dacian period, salt exploitation there is not confirmed archaeologically898, as for the entire
intra-Carpathian space. From Beclean, salt transport could be done on the Someşul Mare valley up
to Dej and from there on the route described above to the Upper Tisza. Still with salt resources in
the area (Sărata, Sărăţel, Căian, Beclean, Ocniţa) could be connected the already confirmed Dacian
fortifications at Sărăţel and Viile Tecii, which would have played the role of surveilling the road to
the Mureş valley, to which add the hoard finds from the area at Stupini, Cepari, Sângeorzul Nou or
Năsăud (Bistriţa-Năsăud county), as well as the points, still unconfirmed by systematic research,
where Dacian date finds are mentioned899.
Salt transport from the deposits in the historical Maramureş, attested in the Middle Ages but
also in the Bronze Age, occurred as shown above, on the Upper Tisza. In Dacian times, starting
from the 4th century BC until the 1st century BC, a trade route for the transport of salt is con-
nected with a series of Dacian settlements on the Upper Tisza, a route which would have supplied
the Pannonian area during the 2nd – 1st century BC900. Thus, the identification of fortified Dacian
settlements in the Transcarpathian Ukraine at Solotvino and Malaya Kopanija to which adds the
Dacian site of Onceşti (Maramureş county), all located in areas with natural resources, not only
salt but also non-ferrous metals, were put in connection with trade control on the Upper Tisza,
where these settlements lay901. If over the course of the 4th – 3rd century BC, salt trade with the
Celtic area of Pannonia is not proven by finds recording such exchange, related to the occupa-
tion of salt resources in the intra-Carpathian area by the Celtic communities that monopolised salt
trade with Pannonia, circumstances changed once with the 2nd BC, when the Celtic horizon in
Transylvania ended. 2nd – 1st century BC imports of Celtic pottery from Solotvino and a fragment
of a Roman vessel seem to document connections with the middle Danube area. Moreover, a more
893
Iambor 1982, p. 83; Fodorean 2006, p. 99.
894
Fodorean 2006, p. 99.
895
Bejinariu 2018, p. 48.
896
Iambor 1982, p. 83.
897
Vaida 1997, p. 24; Florea, Vaida, Suciu 2000, p. 224; Suciu 2009, p. 30.
898
Florea, Vaida, Suciu 2000, p. 224
899
Vaida 1997, p. 23–25; Florea, Vaida, Suciu 2000, p. 224
900
Rustoiu 2003, p. 204.
901
Rustoiu 2003, p. 201–205.
 Comercial Routes and relation in the Intra-Carpathian Space 179

extensive commercial activity is attested at Malaya Kopanija, which with its development seems to
subordinate the older Dacian citadel of Solotvino through better positioning and control of all traf-
fic on the Tisza, especially the salt trade902.
For the eastern and south-eastern intra-Carpathian space, it is believed that one of the prod-
ucts designed for exchange was salt, which represented an abundant deposit in this area. It is con-
sidered that proper exploitations existed at Praid, Sovata and Sânpaul, even though not archae-
ologically evidence for the Dacian period. Roman date evidence together with the hoards of
Thasian and Roman coins from Mărtiniş and Sânpaul, as well as those from Corund, Măgherani
and Sălaşuri located on roads leading to Sovata and Praid, in Mureş county, confirm the salt trade
and its exploitation in the area903. Given that Moldavia has sufficient salt resources, it is less likely
that traders who left considerable traces of trade relations in this eastern part of Transylvania
would have ventured into this area for only salt resources. Much closer to reality is salt supply
of neighbouring areas that did not have access to such resources. As stated in a recent study, salt
exploitation was limited, even in areas where the resource was abundant. Such limitation is related
to pre-industrial type exploitation and is accessible in only specific areas904. The mentioned study
attempts to answer the issue addressed in this research as well, namely to specify the connection
between fortified settlements or fortified power centres with role of controlling the salt resources
traffic. The study uses an innovative approach for Romanian archaeological research by explor-
ing most likely routes via the understanding of the geomorphological specificities of the land by
visualizing a digital land model, using computer algorithms such as Slope Analysis and Slope
Direction905. This approach type represents one of the predictability methods used in modern
archaeology, but which, in the absence of digital models to eliminate forest panoply, has a number
of limitations906. Although the analysis proposed by the authors of the mentioned study could not
answer all issued addressed, from a methodological point of view, results were validated by using
Austrian military maps and the conclusion that ridge roads used in different periods, represented
the most favourable routes.
Transport on mentioned trading routes occurred both by water and land and depending on pos-
sibilities, water conveyance was preferred, as it was cheaper and safer. This water transport was done
only at certain times of the year, usually in spring when water flows increased. Although there is no
direct information about water transport during the Dacian period, it must be taken into account
at least on the basis of similar manifestations in other historical periods. Land transport was done
with the aid of beasts of burden, most likely by packsaddles placed on donkey or mule backs907, as
this was cheaper than transportation by cart, but the latter should not be excluded, as it involved a
number of advantages in terms of the quantity that can be transported.
It should be noted that these salt distribution routes, discussed above, are still unsecure, since
salt exploitations in the Dacian period are archaeologically proven only indirectly. The location of
citadels and fortified settlements along these routes, however, evidences a control system of these
roads and further mirror trade with local products, even if due to similar material culture they
cannot be noted. Regardless of the salt trade scale, this resource was requested at least for local
needs, so salt exploitation cannot be denied, despite the lack of archaeological evidence. For the
902
Rustoiu 2003, p. 204.
903
Crişan 1995, p. 360–361.
904
Kavruk et alii 2017, p. 383.
905
Kavruk et alii 2017, p. 387.
906
See Case Study Chap. 6.
907
Glodariu 1974, p. 108.
180 Cristian Dima

local consumption of modest settlements, exploitation of salt springs or waters was sufficient. This
type of settlement is noted at Șeuşa – “Cărarea Morii” (Alba county)908 and in other places from
Bistriţa-Năsăud area (Ocniţa, Șieu)909 or the east of the intra-Carpathian space (Praid, Sărăţeni
[Harghita county])910.

908
Paul, Ciută 1998, no. 93; Paul, Ciută 1999, nr. 141; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
909
Dănilă 1989, p. 164, 245.
910
Crişan 2000, p. 64, 67
 6.
CASE STUDY.
DACIAN TRADING ROUTES IN
LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY

6.1. Introduction
Analysis of trading routes and relations from the view of landscape archaeology and remote
sensing is a research path necessary for understanding social, economic yet also religious phenom-
ena in the area inhabited by the Geto-Dacians. Such an approach should consider a series of analy-
sis criteria addressing both the material culture from a series of micro-regions, their comparative
examination and identification of exchanged products and ideas, as well as the social, economic
and military functions of a centre or peripheral settlement. Furthermore, in order to understand
such phenomenon an overall view of the space and place that a centre occupies comparative to the
periphery, of the communication paths as well as the spatial analysis of commercial and power cen-
ters relative to the other commercial and power centers.
For the purpose of analysing 2nd century BC – 1st century AD trading routes in the intra-
Carpathian area and specification of main analysis criteria from the view of landscape archaeology,
we had to develop certain analytical and spatial databases and establish a working methodology
according to an information technology structure, which also allowed predictability analyses of
possible routes and slope and visibility analyses. Research here was not conducted for the entire
intra-Carpathian space, but only for a region delimited by the middle course of the Mureş river and
the Șureanu Mountains, an area with several points of archaeological interest and higher diversity
of types. The obtained results were validated both by military maps and field research. However,
many possibility of analyses using different approaches makes the research presented here only a
step that must be continued and developed further. It is not intended here to answer to all question
regarding trading routes and network pathways due to an enormous quantity of data collected that
is impossible to be processed in this limited time of a Phd stud program. The clear intention is to
establish a methodology that could lead to the identification of routes and network patterns that
could be developed and improved later.
Upon its establishment, the methodology relied on identification from various historiographic
sources and non-invasive investigations of a number of 484 recorded archaeological points of
interest (pl. 1). These were classified according to their main specificities and statistically analysed
182 Cristian Dima

(fig. 19). Thus, the largest class of such archaeological points is represented by Type A, in which
were framed those chance or field investigations archaeological finds, which yielded archaeological
materials, mainly potshards. This type of finds represents a percentage of 37.81% of the total archae-
ological points (pl. 2). In the next type (B) were framed the various types of deposits (pl. 3), most
resulted from chance finds. Coins hoards (B1–12.19%), hoards of precious metal, bronze or iron
objects (B2–2.27%) and tool deposits (B3–1.24%) were identified. Type C is represented by finds of
house remains (4.96%), while in type D were included the unfortified civil settlements (17.77) (pl.
4). Type E and F comprise the fortified settlements (2.48%) and citadels (5.58%) (pl. 5), while type
G (1.65%), the funerary features known in the investigated area (pl. 6). Blacksmithing workshops,
as well as bronze and precious metals working (pl. 7) were incorporated in type H (2.27%), while
the supposed iron ore exploitations (pl. 8) in type I (3.31%). House-towers nearby the Dacian cita-
dels (pl. 9) were mapped and framed in type K (5.37%), while the Roman marching camps (pl. 10),
important from the view of their location, were included in type J (3.10%).

Fig. 19. Statistical analysis of the main archaeological find types

6.2. Methodology of spatial research and the GIS database model

6.2.1. Development of the GIS database model
In order to apply a set of spatial analyses by the use of analysis tools provided by a wide range of
software operating with geospatial information, it was necessary to set up and develop a GIS data-
base. As such, several datasets containing various information of geographical and archaeological
nature were collected. Several physical maps of the investigated area were compiled, many being
geo-referenced here. To these added the already geo-referenced maps offered free of charge online.
The military survey maps of the 18th – 19th century were acquired, some being geo-referenced,
other, owing to a series of technical difficulties were used only for the provided information. Satellite
images and survey maps at various scales were included in the database directly from the utilized
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology

Fig. 20. Repertory of Dacian date archaeological points in the Hunedoara County
183
184 Cristian Dima

software, while the orthophotoplans available online, yet without the possibility of download were
used for study and comparison.
The most important aspect necessary for insertion in the GIS database was the identification
of the archaeological points in the investigated area (Pl. 1, fig. 20). For such purpose, a database
containing several fields was set up and developed separately. Each archaeological point was iden-
tified based on existing descriptions in bibliography, few of these being accurately located. In this
respect, beside extant descriptions in the examined bibliography, we also used the CIMEC database,
however it is often imprecise in terms of locating the points which yielded archaeological finds.
Moreover, we also used maps presented in a number of works in order to pinpoint certain archaeo-
logical points depending on watercourses and hill toponymy as well. On many occasions, even the
published maps of archaeological finds were inaccurate, mix-ups and erroneous takeovers being
found with several authors etc. Very few archaeological points were accurately identified through
the use of modern remote sensing methods, however in this case too, recognized archaeological
points clustered in a specific area, thus rectifying other mistaken identifications, yet this was less the
case of rural settlements. Of real aid, even though for only a 100 square km area, was detection by
LIDAR911 technology, the resulting map adjusting and placing new points (Pl. 16).
The database of archaeological points firstly focused on the area of Hunedoara county, 334
archaeological points being currently included. Each of these was introduced in the database with
the WGS84 system geographical coordinates, yet also in the Stereo 70 projection system. One
entered field was that of the precision degree of the location with a 1 to 3 bench marking (1 0
exact location 1–5 m error, 2 – 250m – 500m error, 3 – more than 500 m error). The next fields
targeted the toponym of the point and the place/locality. The archaeological points were partially
ranked depending on their specificity (citadel, fortified settlement, tower, open settlement, hoard,
cemetery), while in another field was inserted a short description. In the last field was entered the
examined bibliography referencing respective point. We also started to input the roads mentioned
in the academic literature for comparison with data provided by the spatial analyses calculations
with the aid of IT tools.

6.2.2. Identification of the archaeological sites

6.2.2.1. Power centres – Citadels, fortified settlements, dwelling towers
Citadels and fortified settlements
Pre-Roman date citadels and fortified settlements, similarly to Roman forts or towns, are more
extensively investigated archaeological objectives, more visible in the field owing to fortification
walls and grand public or private buildings within this type of sites, to the detriment of sites of open
rural settlement type. Their location and integration in a geographical database was, in this context,
an easy task (fig. 21, pl. 5). Within the analysis suggested here, these were deemed centres from sev-
eral points of view, both military and economic or social. As discussed in the previous chapter, all
these fortresses may be interpreted in fact as representing both power and military centres as well
as trading or production centres. In many cases, their positioning in access roads’ or trading routes’
areas, yet also in areas with consistent resources, led to their economical development mirrored by
the architecture and prestige objects, as well as the coin hoards.

911
Inf. I. Oltean.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 185

Fig. 21. Citadels and fortified settlements in the investigated area

Dwelling Towers
Over the course of several historical periods, tower-houses count among the various types of
buildings designed for the elites. Within the architecture designed for Middle Ages aristocrats, the
dwelling tower or dungeon represents the first form of aristocratic residence. They predate the castle
and are found on spread areas from Europe. Their image and function are known from descriptions
of the period, representations, as well as via the results of archaeological excavations912.
Such buildings were identified, subsequent to archaeological research, in the Dacian architec-
ture as well (fig. 22, pl. 9). The topic related to this type of buildings was addressed by historians
and archaeologists, however most often only descriptively, when research results were published.
Few historiographic approaches specified the main coordinates of this type of buildings, it being
most often analysed from architectural and constructional elements standpoints, where the later
were emplaced etc.913. It is generally agreed that towers located within the fortified space (Costeşti –
Cetăţuie, Costeşti – Blidaru, Căpâlna, Băniţa, Ardeu, Divici) functioned as aristocratic residences,
being included in the class of “palaces” of the time. Also, towers located outside the fortified enclo-
sure or adjacent to the fortifications were interpreted as exclusively military, aimed at barring access
on the course of Apa Grădiştii and Faerag valley914 in the case of the towers located in the area of the
Costeşti – Blidaru and Costeşti – Cetăţuie fortresses or, at blocking access to the citadel in the case
of those at the Dacian citadel of Luncani – Piatra Roşie.
As they are known today, subsequent to archaeological excavations, Dacian tower-houses are
912
Le Goff, Schmitt 2002, p. 91–97.
913
Glodariu 1983; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989; Ștefan 2005, p. 200–213.
914
Teodorescu, Roska 1923, p. 7–15; Glodariu 1983; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1985; Ștefan 2005, p. 200–213.
186 Cristian Dima

large constructions, built in stone, with ca. 2 m wide walls. Their plan is in most cases in the shape
of a square, however some rectangular are also known.
The living area and also that for other utilities of this type of constructions is considerable com-
pared to common houses. They had at least two levels (ground floor and first floor), the roof being
made in certain cases of tiles and shingles, and in other cases of shingles. Occasionally, they were
located also within the fortified enclosures of the fortresses, in other cases being attached to their
walls, however in most of the cases, towers were built outside the fortified area.
An attempt to differentiate various building classes should take into account the following
criteria:
a. location:
a1. Towers located within citadels (within the enclosure or attached to it)
a2. Towers built outside the citadels
b. tower base building material:
– buildings made of worked blocks
– buildings made of unworked stone
c. the material of the first floor
– brick
– wood.
d. the building plan
– square
– rectangular
For the lack of research carried out with many of the tower-houses, any chronological framing
in uncertain. From known finds, it was noted that this type of buildings emerges in the 1st century
AD, possibly during Burebista’s reign and maintain until the Roman conquest915.
In pre-Roman Dacia, the tower-house is first and foremost an aristocratic residence. They were
in fact included among the “palaces” of the time. Such ascribing is also based on their appearances
and sizes compared to commoner houses. As noticed, a common feature of the majority of houses
in Dacia and other European areas is the simplicity of the space and furnishings.
Other features which make tower-houses stand out are the building techniques and last but
not least, the inventories of these buildings, many yet unknown. Regarding their role, the military
role is occasionally more emphasized, however their location, appearance and proximity seem to
exclude a strictly defensive-military, non-functional nature. They rather underline the prestige that
the owners of these edifices enjoyed within the Dacian society. Differences in terms of building
technique, size or inventory could be indicative of the owner’s rank in the social structure, as well
as his economic affluence. The fact that the two tower-houses of Costeşti are the most impressive is
not accidental. The amassment of most such constructions in the area of the fortresses at Costeşti
– Cetăţuie and Costeşti – Blidaru may suggest a “fashion” specific to this area, diffused only to a
certain extent within the territory. Given the dating proposed for the beginning of these structures,
they could represent the archaeological expression of certain social, political or economic shifts
occurring during Burebista’s rule.
From the view of the building materials and location on one hand and the trading relations on
the other, these tower-houses may provide important information. Their nature and function, con-
nected to the owner’s social standing could offer information on his/her taste for certain purchased
products. In this case though, the lack of archaeological excavations of these towers and knowledge
915
Glodariu 1983.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 187

of the associated inventory, limits their understanding. The analysis of the inventory of certain tow-
ers like those at Luncani – Piatra Roşie, yet offer some information on the possible existence there
of a workshop for bronze working, however as presented above, in this case too these are uncer-
tain data, any interpretation based solely on inventory without the knowledge of stratigraphy being
restrictive.

Fig. 22. Towers from the area of the Costeşti – Cetăţuie and Costeşti – Blidaru citadels

In terms of the building material, the relation of commercial nature may be evidenced from
the view of its acquisition and transport. Alike the fortifications from the Șureanu Mountains area,
exploitation sources are partially known, being generally agreed that limestone blocks originated
from Măgura Călanului. As presented in the previous chapter, only the construction of the lime-
stone blocks level, at least 170 cubic meters, namely 385 tons of rock were required for transport.
Such load of over 700 carts pulled by oxen meant a considerable effort for the orderer, who must
have been a highly ranking aristocrat related to the individual who ruled over the fortress of Costeşti
– Blidaru. Still in this train of thought, from the view of the practiced trading route, it must be sup-
posed at least for some of the towers built there that stone arrived on the Apa Oraşului route, then
lifted to the towers’ area.

6.2.2.2. Dacian settlements and isolate finds, coin hoards

Small size rural type settlements kindled little interest in archaeological research (pl. 2). Most
such settlements were identified by chance finds, fieldwalks with small sondages, most often accom-
panied by superficial presentation of the findspot916. As such, in the area investigated here, there is
916
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989; Glodariu 1983.
188 Cristian Dima

no clear image on what a rural settlement meant, the sizes and limits of such settlement, most being
reduced to presented fieldwalk finds, the case when one or several rural settlements were excavated
being rather rare. Nevertheless, the large number of fieldwalk finds provides an image of the intense
living especially in the area of the Orăştie Mountains. This is also confirmed by most recent results
of LIDAR surveys, which identified a series of areas with inhabitancy traces. Numerous overlap
descriptions by archaeologists who identified points with finds of archaeological materials. Many
of the identified points have no clear function though and it is hard to believe that in the case of
the settlements identified on the terraces nearby the fortifications of the Orăştie Mountains, these
communities were agrarian in nature, being most likely engaged in the social-economic life of the
area. Agrarian areas must have been most likely located in the Mureş river flood area, propitious for
agriculture. Unfortunately, few such settlements were identified, however recent research prompted
by infrastructure works show the existence of such habitat. One must mention that out of the 484
archaeological points listed for the counties of Hunedoara and Alba, the majority represent such
settlements. As indicated above, some coin hoards were partially related to salt trade, however the
majority must be related to economic activities. To these also add hoards of objects and tools (pl. 3),
the result of certain purchases and then depositions for various reasons. Some of these are located
in areas with extensive traffic, trading routes or some possibly precisely in outlet areas.

6.2.2.3. The burial phenomenon

Owing to the lack of burial features yet also the little available information on those known,
most belonging to chance finds or illegal detecting, the study of the burial phenomenon has its lim-
its. As previously mentioned, several authors917 have been examining certain patterns in the loca-
tion of Dacian cemeteries, especially those of the aristocracy, since burials belonging to the lower
classes in the Carpathian area and by the Lower Danube are mostly unidentified archaeologically,
similarly to many other areas of Europe918.
From the point of view of the funerary monuments’ location, in many civilisations of the clas-
sical Antiquity it was noted these lay in visible places, usually alongside major roads. In what the
location of cemeteries in the investigated area is concerned (pl. 5), it was noticed that the mounds of
Cugir were situated on the steepest slope nearby the shortest side of the fortification. Instead, in the
other Dacian fortifications which include unsecure burials, circumstances are slightly different both
at Piatra Craivii919, Costeşti – Cetăţuie920, Ardeu921, burials and items deemed to belong to the grave
goods being discovered outside the fortress, on slopes or by the hill base on the long side of the
fortifications. This possible pattern was also seen in the case of the other Dacian fortresses from the
Carpathian basin, however cemeteries could not be identified922. A. Rustoiu maintains that based on
the few burials and funerary practices and rites resemblances, the Cugir cemetery likely belonged to
the founding family who controlled the fortress, lying in a visible area close to the fortification and
its access road923. The presumed mound in the fortress of Ardeu is also located nearby the access
road924 to the citadel. Furthermore, the natural pit from the Piatra Roşie fortress is similar to the

917
Popa 2008, p. 362; Rustoiu 2015a, p. 349–367 .
918
Sîrbu 2000, p. 162; Rustoiu 2015a, p. 359; Pupeză 2014, p. 62.
919
Popa 2008, p 357; Rustoiu 2015a, p. 361.
920
Glodariu et alii1998, p. 50; Glodariu et alii1999, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 208.
921
Pescaru et alii 2002, Ferencz, Dima 2009, p. 20; Ferencz 2010, p. 226; Ferencz 2013, p. 216.
922
Popa 2008, p. 362.
923
Rustoiu 2015a, p. 36; Dima, Borangic 2018, p. 26–27.
924
Pescaru et alii 2002, Ferencz, Dima 2009, p. 20; Ferencz 2010, p. 226; Ferencz 2013, p. 216.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 189

position of the Cugir barrow cemetery, nearby yet outside the fortified area and in the vicinity of the
access road to the fortress.

6.2.2.4. Exploitation sources and workshops

Both exploitation sources and the workshops were broadly discussed in the previous chapter.
From the view of landscape archaeology, this type of archaeological feature was also identified and
cartographically listed, inasmuch as possible based on descriptions from academic bibliography and
identification based on geographic descriptions and old Austro-Hungarian military maps as well as
the Military Map known as ”Plan Director de Tragere Militară” (PDTM) (pl. 7–8). Workshops, even
though located within fortified settlements or not, were identified and integrated in the database
separately. If specific objects were mentioned or only information suggestive of a possible work-
shop, the same coordinates ascribed to the settlement were marked. Iron mining points were identi-
fied on the massifs described in the academic bibliography, however no secure mining point could
be identified with certainty, except those mentioned south-west the Bătrâna Mountains, south-east
the Negru Hill and at Gropşoare, even though their ascribing as Dacian date exploitations is uncer-
tain for the lack of archaeological excavations or chemical analyses. It was noted they possible lay
nearby access roads used also during the Daco-Roman military campaigns, marching camps being
also situated in their vicinity.

6.2.2.5. Roman temoporary marching and siege camps

In the study of access paths towards the Dacian citadels special attention must be granted to the
position of the Roman marching or siege camps built during the military clashes (pl. 10, fig. 23).
Regularly, these lie in open areas nearby or oven on roads and circulation paths. They were identi-
fied in the field by several scholars starting with I. Téglás, A. Ferenczi, C. Daicoviciu, I. Ferenczi,
I. Glodariu etc. Their set up on a geo-referenced coordinates map has been performed though
more recently, however not for all camps, the various fieldwalk research either confirming previ-
ous descriptions, sufficiently illustrative for their emplacement or dismissing and adjusting them925.
Methodologically, these marching camps were identified and geo-referenced based on the same
criteria used for the identification of the Dacian settlements in terms of geo-referencing precision.
These were integrated in a separate database and later entered in the GIS database under a distinct
colour.
One of the main roman camps, even though is probably not a temporary one, lies at Orăştioara
de Sus926 and it was located north-east the Clemeia Hill (Klem on the Josephine map). Unfortunately,
there is little information on this camp, research in the area being restricted to a few fieldwalks. A
marching camp was geo-referenced based on the descriptions of the authors of the finds at Costeşti
– Prisaca, located on a 1219 m height (Prisaca summit) lying south-east the village of Costeşti927.
The emplacement of this camp would be on an access road reported by I. Ferenczi running from the
commune of Beriu, Rugaie Hill – Crişan Hill – Presbe, Prisaca – Brusturelu – Ceata – Comărnicelul
Cetei to Hulpe Peak, or by-passing the “Dealul de Groape” – “Cioaca Ulmului” – Negru Hill, on
the middle peak of the and from there to Grădiştea de Munte928. It was integrated in the database
for comparison with the spatial analysis suggested routes. A small Roman burgus (34X34 m) on the
925
Ștefan 2005, p. 281–321; Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016, p. 715–744; Teodor, Peţan, Berzovan 2013, p. 1–34; Oltean 2017,
p. 442–446; Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 63–88.
926
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951 p. 6–7; Ferenczi 1982–1983, p. 180.
927
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951 p. 46; Daicoviciu et alii, 1959, p. 381; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 120; Ferenczi 1983, p. 180.
928
Ferenczi 1982–1983, p. 181.
190 Cristian Dima

inside was geo-referenced subsequent descriptions at Costeşti, the hill termed Grădişte, towards the
riverbed of Apa Oraşului929. A marching camp was identified in the Târsa village930, the area of the
current church, accurately identified by recent research931, with the maximum side from west to east
of ca. 250 m, the western side of 100 m and the eastern side of ca. 150 cm. The camp is visible on
both satellite images and orthophotoplans.
Another camp, difficult to assess not so much on the map and geo-location, but according to
its sizes, presented differently in various works, is the marching camp from Muncelul Peak. It was
firstly mentioned by G. Téglás then by C. Daicoviciu932, the latter providing a few details and show-
ing it covers a 60 × 65 m area, inferring it could be a small temporary Roman camp. According to
H. Daicoviciu933, the approximate orientation of the fortification is north-east – south-east, having
a rectangular shape of which then were better visible the northern and southern sides. The pot-
tery discovered in a sondage performed there is argued to be Dacian in origin and it is mentioned
that the iron tip of a pilum was found in the sondage as well. I. Ferenczi underlines in a note that
the fortification lies on the highest peak of the Muncelul, at 1613 m elevation and appreciates that
discovered potshards could be indicative of both a Dacian fortification built about the Dacian wars,
hypothesis deemed in fact likely, and an existing fort934. At a later date, Al. Ștefan makes new speci-
fications regarding this fort and mentions its north-east – south-west orientation and a length dif-
ference compared to previous measurements (60–61 × 95 m), while the height of the peak where
the fort lay was of 1563.5 m935. A more recent interpretation, subsequent to LIDAR surveys, argues
this fortification was a proper roman fort that functioned for a longer timespan936. The subject is still
in debate as new paper argues that the interpretation made based on LIDAR surveys are not accu-
rate and the fortification has several „typical” Dacian features937 and based on topograpycal data
ant photogrammetry published before by one of the authors938 and the above mention arguments
related with the ceramic material discovered there, that this fortification must be pre-roman. Last
two studies on the topic suggest however a roman camp was built here, ant the so-called „annex”
could be interpreted as a defensive system to block the possibility of advance939. Nevertheless, a
hastily fortification build by dacians in the imminent danger of the wars is unlikely but as well not
similar to any of the known Dacian fortresses. As well the fact that the position that granted the
access to the single road without crossing a valley could be used rather for a siege than for a defend-
ing position where the enemy could attack from all sides..
Other marching camps, much more visible in the field were identified on Comărnicel Hill
(Comărnicel I, II and III)940. These three forts lie close one to another, being positioned on a road
used even today. Above marching camps are different in shape and layout, that of Comărnicel I hav-
ing two well delimited rooms A and B, the total area measuring 231/237 × 206/213 m. At 444 m dis-
tance westwards lies fort Comărnicel II, still rectangular in shape with an approximate area of 7.29

929
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 18–19; Crişan 1973, p. 74–75; Ferenczi 1983, p. 181–182.
930
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 48–49; Ferenczi 1982–1983, p. 182.
931
Teodor, Peţan, Berzovan 2013, p. 20–27.
932
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 42–43.
933
Daicoviciu 1964, p. 117–118.
934
Ferenczi 1983, p. 185.
935
Ștefan 2005, p. 313.
936
Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 438.
937
Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi 2018b, p. 683–706.
938
Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016, p. 732- 740.
939
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 78; Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 4.
940
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 298–313; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 191

ha. The fort of Comărnicel III is different in layout, being an irregular octagonal circumvolution.
This supposed marching camp lies north of Comărnicel I. On the same road, another march-
ing camp, on Pătru Peak941, was identified southwards. Its sides are of 241/228 m (northern and
southern sides) × 211/246 (westward and eastward sides). South-westwards the marching camps
of Comărnicel I-III are located the marching camp of Jigoru942. Its sides are of 315 × 248 m and
lies on a road used nowadays too, which makes the connection with Comărnicel forts’ area. Other
two marching camps have been more recently identified subsequent to LIDAR surveys on Șes Hill,
namely a rectangular 1.5 ha camp, positioned south of Sarmizegetusa Regia and another at Cornu
Pietrii, nearby the Dacian fortification of Hulpe Peak. The latter has an irregular plan and an area
of 6.9 ha943. The position of these two camps, quite near the Dacian fortifications could sustain the
idea of siege camps, at least for the one from Șes Hill but as well for the one of Muncelu944. A new
temporary camp as identified on the pathway that goes to south from Pătru Peak at the point named
Crac-Găuri945. The camp is 306 m in lenght and the width is 198 m in the southern side and 175 m
on northern side, and not 298 m, respectively 175 m as how erroneous was typed in the study946.
The position of this camp related with pathways is of great importance as it secures the road that
could connect Jiu Valey entrance with the capital of Dacian Kingdom. If used before roman con-
quest, this road could be of great importance for commercial roads. The temporary camp from
Bătrâna Hill, was firstly presumed and known in literature on basses of satellite images or orthopho-
toplans, however with southern corners947 still discernible. The camp was later mentioned on some
new researches on topic without more comments948. A recent and well documented study presents
important features about the location and strategic importance of this marching camp949. The camp
is about 175 m in straight line and about 200 in 3D distance on the surface, and the gate defence
is suggested by the two short ditches on the southern, in the middle and on the eastern side. The
longer side is visible for about 200 m, but presumably the long edge must have been 300 m950. Same
study presents a new temporary camp at Muncelu – Lăutoarea point found on the pathway from
Bătrâna Mountain to Sebeş valley, where the Dacian hillfort from Căpâlna is located. The camp is
270 meters length and 180 m with a surface of about 4.8 ha. Based on military maps the authors
underline the importance of this camp in relation with the military campaign and attack on Dacian
fortresses as Cugir, Căpâlna and Tilişca as well due to small distances and slightly easy pathways951.
Finally, the above mention study brings to attention another possible roman temporary fortlet at
Strungaru – Ciocu’lui Găvaiţă located near the presumed camp of Prisaca hill952. Whatever if it is
roman fortlet or watch tower, or other period fortification, the point is important due to possibility
of controlling the traffic of the pathways running up to the mountains as the roads mention above
in relation with Prisaca hill fortress. To these temporary camps it can be added with caution another
possible one located at north extremity of the base hills of Șureanu Mountains on the right bank of

941
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 292–298; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
942
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 287–291; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
943
Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–438.
944
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 81.
945
Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi 2018a, p. 77–90.
946
Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi 2018a, p. 78.
947
Popa 2011, p. 346–347.
948
Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016, p. 732; Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi 2018a, p. 77.
949
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 67–70.
950
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 68–70.
951
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 71–75.
952
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 75–78.
192 Cristian Dima

Cugir river at north-west of Vinerea (Alba County)953. If roman, this could be placed in conection
with the route token by roman armies from Mureş Valley to the Cugir Dacian citadel.

Fig. 23. Location of the marching camps (after F. Marcu)

It must be noted that even without a spatial analysis in the GIS software, the examination of sat-
ellite maps and images or the orthophotoplans offered online by ANCPI, shows that all temporary
camps presented above lie on roads used even today. Thus, it may be inferred with much certainty
that a number of roads that the Romans used were also in function during the Dacian period,
especially since some link several pre-Roman settlements and citadels. In fact, almost all studies
that approach the subject of roman temporary military camps suggest direction or pathways used
by roman army but as well emphasis the opportunities provided by the mountainous environment.
Taking this in consideration it must be noticed that last researches on topic provides several maps
of potential routes using remote sensing techniques954 that are slightly similar with Dacian pathways
revealed in this case study.

6.2.3. DEM maps, topographic maps

6.2.3.1. Digital Elevation Maps
In order to apply a set of spatial analyses in IT software operating with GIS type geospatial data-
bases (ArcMap, Global Mapper, QGIS) a dataset representing a three-dimensional digital terrain
953
Popa 2011, p. 347–348.
954
Marcu, Szabó 2020, p. 81–83, fig. 19; Oltean, Fonte 2021, 11–17.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 193

model (DTM or DEM) is required. If until recently, various spatial or visibility analyses were dif-
ficult, once with the development of GIS applications, most provide diverse calculation facilities.
Thus, the calculation issue is no longer represented by the IT software used for the analysis, but the
acquisition of a three-dimensional terrain model of precision allowing spatial computations as close
to reality as possible. Elevation models may be generated via various methods which imply either
land surveys, digital processing of existing topographic maps or generation of elevation models
using the techniques provided by remote sensing. Each of these methods implies various impedi-
ments related to the acquisition time and possibilities or their precision955.
Surveys for such a large area are costly and time consuming even though they may provide a
high quality terrain digital model, depending on the time and covered area. Digitalising 1:5000 or
1:10000 survey maps is time consuming, however it is a cheap working method as long as there is
access to such maps. In Romania, ANCPI supplies such numerical models of the terrain at various
resolutions, however not free of charge and with a long term acquisition process, which for many
areas has a series of errors956. Lastly, in the case of remote sensing, the use of aircrafts for a set of aer-
ial photos could offer by the photogrammetry technique a good quality three-dimensional digital
model, nevertheless the costs and timeline of such a project would also be high. Photogrammetry
was used for the area of the Șureanu Mountains via aerial images of the 80’ies on the basis of which
topographic plans were drafted957 for some of the Dacian citadels.
To the costs and timeline of such research adds woodland coverage, which greatly impedes
the making of highly precision photograms. The LIDAR technology is the only able to eliminate
forested coverage, however even in this case, processing information from such a large area may
be difficult for the lack of state-of-the-art equipment. It is possible today to acquire for free digital
elevation models at different resolutions, which added up may yield more or less accurate results.
Among such models mostly used in archaeology counts the 90 m resolution model developed
later to that of 30 m known as SRTM. This model was launched as open-source with a 30 m
resolution in 2014, being a model accomplished by the NASA. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
(SRTM). Another model often used in landscape archaeological research for spatial analyses is
the ASTER-GDEM model (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
(ASTER), the Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM), a model developed by NASA in coopera-
tion with the Ministry of Economy of Japan. However it proved to be a less used model for many
areas because of the “artefacts” present in the model, owed mainly to poor penetration of the blan-
ket of clouds (fig. 43)958. A third 30 m resolution model was developed by the Japanese Aerospace
Agency (JAXA), which compiles a large set of satellite images over the course of missions carried
out between 2001 and 2006. The model known as ALOS Global Digital Surface Model is of a high
precision degree and a series of control points derived from a few LIDAR scans. Beside these
DEMs, there are a few more elevation data with enhanced precision yet for more restricted areas,
for instance EU-DEM accomplished within the EU Copernicus programme with a 25 m resolu-
tion, the LIDAR models for Slovenia, the Netherlands or Spain959. Lastly, more recently (2016) was
published a terrain digital model made still by the Japanese mission (JAXA) with a 12.5 m resolu-
tion, yet which for Romania does not have full coverage like SRTM, ASTER-GDEM or EU-DEM,

955
Nelson, Reuter, Gessler 2009, p. 65–85; Szypuła 2017, p. 81–112.
956
Teodor 2016, p. 20.
957
Ștefan 2005, p. 267.
958
Güimil-Fariña, Parcero-Oubiña 2015, p. 36; Szypuła 2017, p. 89.
959
Szypuła 2017, p. 89.
194 Cristian Dima

being nevertheless a much more useful tool than, for instance, digitalised 1:20000 topographic
maps held by ANCPI960.

Fig. 24a-b. DEM – EU-DEM; SRTM models.

Evidently, the best elevation model is provided by the LIDAR technology, however as yet, such
acquisitions were made only for few areas. This airborne laser scanning technology penetrates and
digitally removes forestry vegetation, especially if acquisition is made in a late period of the year.
In the case of the investigated area, only an area of 100 square km was acquired using the LIDAR
technology, centred on Sarmizegetusa Regia. This was carried out in the autumn of 2011 by a British
team of the BBC, a good period with less forestry vegetation. The dataset was digitally processed in
order to eliminate vegetation and develop numerous types of visualising the area’s topography, inte-
grated in a GIS database. The resulted analyses identified several areas with settlements from both
the pre-Roman period as well as around the Roman conquest period and just after.
Part of the research results were published961 and presented, while other are under examina-
tion still. Access to the Dacian sites identified via the study of the LIDAR model was provided in
order to mark new and adjust older points for the purpose of this research962. Even if access to the
LIDAR elevation files would be granted, the small size of the investigated area offers insufficient
information for a complete research of the road network and spatial analysis calculations target-
ing the entire area under consideration here. Overlapping with higher resolution models is as well
necessary to be done under optimal parameters. Nonetheless, certain roads may be identified also
from the analysis of the visualisation types made by the LIDAR model (fig. 25). Very recently, a
new study using LIDAR DTM combined with SRTM DTM, was published in relation with spatial
networking patterns in upland ancient warfare963. Thus, because the recent study used slightly same
methods of analysis related with pathways predictability, it was given the opportunity to compare
the results of this research of finding commercial routes and network exchange products patterns in
the pre-roman time with the results of the pathways network used by roman army to conquest the
capital of the Dacia, Sarmizegetusa Regia. This could be as well considered a subsequent method of
data validation due different and independent researches and slightly different approaches (Pl. 16).

960
Teodor 2016, p. 20.
961
Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 429–446; Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 1–17.
962
Inf. I. Oltean.
963
Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 1–17.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 195

Fig. 25. LiDAR model – Sarmizegetusa Regia (I. Oltean)

In conclusion, the spatial analyses considered for research here, tested all terrain elevation mod-
els mentioned above, especially the slope analysis, which is one of the basic models used for compu-
tation in spatial analyses. Although the Alos-Palasar model has the best resolution, there are a few
uncovered surfaces in the investigated area, while interpolating this model with different resolution
models in order to cover respective surfaces proved inefficient, affecting the total resolution of the
digital model. Thus, spatial analyses made use of the 25 m resolution model offered by the European
Copernicus Mission.

6.2.4. Cost Surface Analyses

In spatial analyses aimed to identify routes or pathway networks between various centres and/
or peripheral areas it is necessary to define costs that a road or set of roads accumulate. These costs
were defined in various ways and are related to difficulty factors which a person or vehicle have to
get across in their movement from a certain point of origin to a fixed or not destination. The most
often used factor in travelling cost calculation from archaeological view is that provided by slope
analysis964. Such an analysis starts from the assumption that the more slanted the incline the higher
the cost of moving along it965. In various spatial analyses, to this slope cost added an isotropic cost
and anisotropic algorithms related to differences in energy consumption which a loaded human,
animal or vehicle make use of over the course of the travel. These factors were computed through a
series of algorithms (Tobler966, Llobera-Sluckin967, Herzog968), utilized for calculations and archaeo-
logical analysis of pathways and practiced routes in various periods969.

964
Herzog 2010, p. 275–376; Herzog 2013, p. 179–211;
965
Fabrega-Álvarez, Parcero-Oubiña 2007, p. 124.
966
Tobler 1993.
967
Llobera, Sluckin 2007, p. 206–217 .
968
Herzog 2013, p. 179–211.
969
Fabrega-Álvarez, Parcero-Oubiña 2007, p. 124; Herzog 2010, p. 377;
196 Cristian Dima

A second isotropic factor impacting the movement cost is related to crossing watercourses.
Thus, by means of digital terrain models, watershed analyses were set up for the investigated area
in order to be used as isotropic factor in the establishment of a model which accumulates a series
of costs (ACS – Accumulated Cost Surface). Regarding cost computations, the use of watercourses
as a factor implies a series of issues, since on one side rivers and streams are unsuitable for move-
ment (except those navigable), while on the other, these are difficult to avoid, their crossing need
being obvious, however by specific areas. Furthermore, this factor is important as the calculation
tendency of certain spatial road analyses (Least Cost Path LCP), using slopes as a factor, tend to use
watercourses, these being commonly gentler slopes, which in the case of the Orăştie Mountains is
an issue because they are many. A solution to such a problem was provided by conferring water-
courses a constant similar to that resulting from slope costs at more than 15º gradient of the slope970.
The importance of avoiding watercourses as well as flooding areas or marshes and the use of higher
routes, either upper terraces or ridge roads, was represented by an algorithm termed “hydrophobia”
and integrated as a cost factor in ACS971.

6.2.4.1. Least Cost Path Analysis

In archaeology, the mostly used method for movement calculations in various historical periods
is the method known as LCP – Least Cost Path. This type of analysis gives predictability of move-
ment in an area determined by two established points. This method was used in both attempts to
identify certain routes from prehistory or Antiquity as well as for validating the already known
paths method, delimiting road networks or main factors which led to the construction of a road.
Certain studies attempted to use the method for identifying areas that held a central position within
the territory972, while others even to date certain settlements973. The calculation of most optimal
routes between two points (LCP) is a computation method used as early as 1957, while more accu-
rate surface cost calculations began to be used since 1972974. LCP analyses in archaeology started
from the premise that humans optimise movement costs in time, following most advantageous
routes, while these become over time the most frequently used roads and are equivalent to the
results provided by LCP975.
The LCP analysis for the investigated area aims to combine a set of complementary sources in
order to identify the routes between centres and what periphery is considered, yet also the routes
in-between centres. Owing to the large number of points identified in the research area (citadels,
towers, settlements or isolate finds) it was necessary to set up an algorithm of model type that would
include all tools used in the analysis and also ease the insertion of new points or parameter updates
in the analysis. The Moldel Builder application of ArcMap was able to create an easy to understand
and modify work flow. Firstly, a digital elevation model (DEM) was introduced in the application,
then was added the slope calculation tool from the class of spatial analysis tools, subclass surface.
It was re-classified in order to give a single value for a group of slope accentuation degrees (fig. 26).
The watershed calculation algorithm was built according to the same model too (fig. 28).
The calculation used the same elevation model, which was subjected to a known watershed976

970
Güimil-Fariña, Parcero-Oubiña 2015, p. 34.
971
Fiz, Orengo, 2008, p. 317.
972
Hare 2004, p. 802–806.
973
Bell, Lock 2000, p. 85–100; Batten 2007, p. 151–158.
974
Herzog 2013, p. 179; Herzog 2014.
975
Herzog 2013, p. 179.
976
Singht, Gupta, Singht 2014, p.112–131.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 197

Fig. 26. LCP computation algorithm model using slope gradient as cost factor.

computation algorithm. Values resulted from both slope and watershed analyses were totalled and
ascribed difficulty degrees thus generating a summed up surface used as isotropic factor on one
hand, in slope and hydrology computations and as anisotropic factor on the other, by entering dif-
ficulty values (fig. 27). The accumulated cost surface (ACS) was generated via the path distance tool
which allowed, by contrast with the cost distance, the input of several computation factors. Tobler
function977 was entered as anisotropic factor in a first analysis, computed via the vertical factor table
set up by Tripcevich978, which reciprocates the Tobler calculation formula (time in hours to cross 1
meter). The resulted surface (ACS) comprised values representing the movement costs within the
delimited space starting from a point of origin. The points of origin selected in the first LCP analysis
were the Dacian citadels of Costeşti – Cetăţuie, Costeşti – Blidaru, Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Vârful lui
Hulpe, Băniţa, Ardeu and Cugir and the capital Sarmizegetusa-Regia.

Fig. 27. LCP computation algorithm using slope and watershed gradients as cost factors

977
Tobler 1993.
978
Tripcevich 2009.
 198
Cristian Dima

Fig. 28. Result watershed analysis

 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology

Fig. 29. Predictability routes having Sarmizegtusa Regia as point of origin and all identified Dacian citadels and settlements as destination points.
199
 200
Cristian Dima

Fig. 30. Predictability network routes with the Dacian citadels from the Orăştie Mountains as origin and destination points.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology

Fig. 31. Predictability network routes with multiple origins (Sarmizegetusa Regia, Costeşti – Cetăţuie,
Costeşti – Blidaru, Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hulpe Peak) and all points listed as destination.
201
202 Cristian Dima

In order to generate predictable roads the Cost Path tool was used: three data types must be
introduced in this analysis type, two being generated by the previously used tool, while the third
data type is represented by the destination points. In a first phase, each point of origin analysed by
the Path Distance tool was allotted as destination all points figured in the database (fig. 29). Thus,
it was aimed to establish all roads from points deemed centres to all the other points. Results were
extremely interesting; many of the destination points having common roads, while for other, new
roads were represented, although sometimes it seemed more logically that these would be linked to
neighbouring settlements. After accomplishing all analyses from the points of origin with presented
destination points, it was attempted to overlap all results in order to identify a road network and
road overlapping. Analysed from a micro view, the situation was interesting in small areas, several
road overlapping being identified. Nevertheless, because of the large number of destination points,
at overall visualisation, the network became too crowded to be understood (fig. 30). Moreover, the
limits of the LCP method are given in the case of proposed analysis by identification in many cases
of unique roads for each destination point. Therefore, the next stage in the LCP analysis considered
the accomplishment of road networks between citadels and the attempt to assess secondary settle-
ments in relation to respective roads. Thus, several roads resulted, the points of origin becoming
destination points and the reverse. Similarly to the previous analysis, results were overlapped for the
purpose of accomplishing a road network (fig. 30–31).

6.2.4.2. Focal Mobility Network Analysis (MADO)

As noted from the LCP analysis, the set up of a network related to all settlements in the research
area may become unclear, while certain secondary roads for smaller settlements make overall vis-
ibility rather difficult. Moreover, even if one would agree that all settlements in the area had a pos-
sible road to the capital, the version of roads linking all smaller settlements with all centres is dif-
ficult to prove. The LCP method in road predictability is determined by both cost factors as well
as the point of origin, yet also that of destination, however most times in the analysis of prehis-
tory and pre-Roman roads, which leave not very visible marks in the field, a specific destination
results in a path, however it was not necessarily used in Antiquity. A relatively new method related
to territory accessibility was developed in order to determine optimal routes guiding movement
from one origin point without specific destination979. Thus, starting from an economic or political
centre, an analysis of most optimal movement paths is made, which offers by contrast to the LCP
analysis, several versions of movement and connection with a series of other points. This is how
several road versions may be analysed and beside the results provided by the LCP analysis, new
road versions may be suggested that would be later validated with known data. The advantage of
this method is that no specific destination is further required, the software being free to offer paths
naturally linking the point of origin with other points of interest. The choice of a set of centres to
which this method may be applied ultimately leads to the outline of a mobility network providing
a wider range of movement possibilities. The Focal Mobility method uses the same tools until the
LCP calculation via the Cost Path tool. Thus, for a comparative analysis of the two methods were
used the same isotropic and anisotropic calculation factors. The method uses the same tools like the
watershed analytic computation. In contrast, if for the watershed computation entry data were rep-
resented by the digital elevation file source, the Focal Mobility method uses as entry data the results
of accumulated costs. Thus, if in the watershed computation, the flow direction tool calculated the
hydrological networks in areas with smallest elevation, in the case of cost accumulated surfaces

979
Fabrega-Álvarez 2006, p. 7–11.
Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 203

Fig. 32. Focal Mobility Analysis for Sarmizegetusa Regia.

 204
Cristian Dima

Fig. 33. Network of optimal routes through the Focal Mobility analysis with Sarmizegetusa Regia, Costeşti
– Cetăţuie, Costeşti – Blidaru, Luncani – Piatra Roşie, Hulpe Peak as points of origin
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 205

(ACS) calculations, the smallest values would be the smallest movement cost, while the flow direc-
tion tool would calculate optimal road networks980.
Similarly to the LCP method were used the same points of origin deemed centres, with the goal
of testing the method and analyse the results. In fact, the method has certain disadvantages in terms
of distance as it grows greater, because accumulated cost factors also consider the travelled distance,
while results would be unclear. After computing optimal routes and removal of small and irrelevant
values for each origin, results were overlapped accomplishing an optimal roads network linking
both centres and part of the other points (fig. 32–33).

6.2.5. Results and validation of results

As presented, obtained data relied on two types of spatial analyses, the Least Cost Path analysis
between a point of origin and one or several destination points and the analysis of most optimal
routes from a point of origin (Focal Mobility). For the absence of archaeological data on the exis-
tence of roads, except for the mica schist road from western quarters of Sarmizegetusa Regia, iden-
tified roads through the predictability of spatial analyses may be studied in relation to the archaeo-
logical finds from the area (exploitations, production centres, outlets, trading sites, citadels, settle-
ments either fortified or not, isolate finds, burials, hoards).
For the LCP analysis results, given that the first set of analyses aimed to create a road network
from a series of points of origin (centre) towards all identified archaeological points, analysis in
relation to the archaeological finds aims at discussing the paths which connect most points in-
between. The large number of resulted roads implies the accomplishment of a statistical assessment.
Validation of such roads would have to consider the slope gradient as well and the identification
of paths connecting neighbouring settlements with more practicable connections with the point of
origin. For instance, it may be noted that a road that starts from Luncani – Piatra Roşie as the point
of origin links several existing points via secondary roads or the same road. Thus, starting from
Sarmizegetusa Regia westwards, a series of points identified in the western quarters of the capital
connect to the main road that tracks the hill ridge and descend to Apa Grădiştii. From there, a
road follows Valea Largă linking the settlement identified at point Jerosu/Gerosu (fig. 30). The road
runs further to the south-west intersecting another road that runs from Melea-Rudele and further
to a nod point, where it intersects several roads at Poiana Omului. From there the road continues
westwards, through the woods reaching the Luncani Plateau and then the Luncani – Piatra Roşie
citadel. Another example is the road starting from Sarmizegetusa Regia towards north-east, cross-
ing the eastern quarters of the capital towards Căprăreaţa then the area where the Roman fort of
Muncel was identified. From there, another road follows the Neder Valley linking several points
with archaeological finds to the fortification at Hulpe Hill, and from there a series of other points
identified on Anineş Hill.
Similarly, having as point of origin the Costeşti – Cetăţuie citadel, a series of roads which run
either to the north-east reach Sarmizegetusa Regia linking points like Costeştii din Deal, Prisaca,
Ceata Comărnicelului, Curmătura Comărnicelului from where descend on another road at Hulpe
Peak and then further on above mentioned road to the capital, or north the Neder Valley by Fata
Cetei towards Muncel and then by Căprăreaţa towards the sacred area. Evidently, as previously
shown, these roads achieved via the LCP method starting from a point of origin towards all destina-
tions, imply a set of errors, as not all listed points must be mandatory destinations. Nevertheless, the
presence on a route of a large number of settlements connected in-between shows that respective
980
Fabrega-Álvarez 2006, p. 7–11.
206 Cristian Dima

path was practiced in Antiquity too. In fact, many of these roads are confirmed by the Austrian
and Hungarian maps, but also by the analysis of aerial or satellite images or the LIDAR identified
points. All these possible routes need though to be analysed separately and statistically, since more
information could be gained and less likely roads excluded.
In the second phase of the LCP analysis, a test that connected and presented Least Cost Paths
between the centres was carried out. Analyses were reciprocating, the point of origin becoming
a destination point and the reverse. Thus, for a road from Costeşti – Cetăţuie to Luncani-Piatra
Roşie, the software computed the Least Cost Path descending from Costeşti to the Faerag valley
later climbing towards Curmătura Faeragului, where a tower was discovered. Further to the south,
the road runs by other two or three towers (Turnul lui Mihu, La Vămi and another presumed tower
located westwards the fortress of Blidaru). The road follows further, still southwards, a road used
even today, alongside it being identified other four points with archaeological finds (Pietroasa,
Căprioarele, Pârul Scurtelor, Șesul Ciorii). Further, the road descends to Alun valley and then
climbs towards the fortress from the west (fig. 34). Up to where the road descends and then crosses
the Alun valley, it seems to follow a direction identified also on Austrian maps as well as satellite
images. From there, maps rather indicate the road used today with access on the eastern side of the
fortress. Nevertheless, the ascent from Alun village on that road is difficult and impossible to travel
by vehicle. Neither the version offered by the LCP calculation seems viable in the crossing area of
the Alun valley. The indicated road is 10.08 km long, however certain slopes have a gradient impos-
sible to be used by vehicles, however the road is easy to travel by foot.
Thus, the descent from Costeşti – Cetăţuie and then ascent towards Curmătura Faeragului
through the area provided by the LCP calculation may be replaced with a gentler ascent from Apa
Grădiştii by the area of the three towers on the Faerag. The road further to the Alun valley seems
to be that indicated by the LCP, confirmed both by finds and Austrian maps. The slopes in the
Alun valley area on the road suggested by the mathematical computation are very steep, therefore
the road should be reconsidered in this area, either with a descent on the western ridge and then
ascent towards Piatra Roşie, or a by-pass which would triple the distance, however it would be a
gentler road involving descent by Poiana Omului. A field check is necessary in this case. The Focal
Mobility analysis also offers a series of new information regarding the possible movement paths
in the investigated area (Fig. 35). Some of the resulted roads overlap a number of paths computed
using the LCP method, other provide though new movement versions, some with gentler slopes,
even though distances are higher. One of the Least Cost Path method disadvantages is that the
method also considers distance as cost factor in the choice of optimal roads and in mathematic
reporting, the calculation method chooses steeper slopes, while the Focal Mobility analysis provides
more alternatives of optimal roads, among which also the choice of gentler slopes to the detriment
of short distances. Moreover, this analysis type excludes in most cases valley roads, opting for ridge
roads. In fact, for the Dacian period, in the investigated area and especially in uplands, “hill” roads
are supposed to have been used instead. This idea is confirmed by the multitude of archaeological
finds located nearby roads used in the Middle Ages or even today by the seasonal communities of
herders. Thus, if for the LCP analysis the most suitable path followed the course of Apa Grădiştii,
in the Focal Density analysis other versions are mentioned tracking the ridge road. One of these,
likely the closest to facts, lies on the northern side of Apa Grădiştii and likely follows the road that
the Romans also used around the Dacian wars, presented above in the first LCP analysis, yet also
identified by I. Ferenczi.
In conclusion, it was noted in this phase that many of the roads resulted from the predictability
research through the use of methods and tools provided by IT applications, may be validated via
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology

Fig. 34. The Least Cost Path (LCP) from Costeşti – Cetăţuie to Piatra Roşie
207
 208
Cristian Dima

Fig. 35. Network of optimal routes from Focal Density analysis – detail of Sarmizegetusa Regia area
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 209

their connection to identified archaeological settlements. Moreover, these may be validated to a

certain extent also by the roads figured on the 18th – 19th century survey maps (Pl. 11–13) or the
Military plans – PDTM (Pl. 14).
As was mentioned above, due to a new study recently published981 a comparison of results of
both researches must be done. The above mentioned study uses the same methods used in this
research of LCP and Focal Mobility (MADO) in order to identify the most efficient routes and
access paths for Roman attackers from their attacking bases (Roman marching or siege camps) and
siege targets (indigenous Dacian hillforts). In order to identify the broad possible routes travelled by
Roman troops from Muncelu camp and Șes Hill temporary camp to Sarmizegetusa Regia in a siege
scenario an analys of Focal Mobility was done having as point of origin Sarmizegtusa Regia. Having
already a similar analysis in order to exploit possible pathways networks between this commercial
trading site and other peripheral settlements, or exploitation areas it was easy to overlap the results
of both researches (Pl. 16). As can be seen several pathways are slightly overlapping mostly the ones
that are following the upper paths know as hilly roads. Of course, in the case of roman marching
armies the situation is different as in the case transport of goods, time cost being of major impor-
tance, while slope and water course can be much more easily cross by an arm than a wagon with
goods. The authors of the study used the anisotropic factor of river networks and the water course
was reclassified at a higher cost value equivalent to crossing a slope of 60%982, while in the case of
transport of gods for this research was under 40%. That is why the network pathways are slightly
rich in routes used b roman army in comparison with the traffic of goods. However, even though
some anisotropic factors were different used, the results of both researches are validating each one,
due to similarity of 7 pathways having same point origin.
During the second research phase, the case study, we attempted to examine beside road and
trading routes relations among production centres/outlets, also the possibility to identify trading
routes connecting exploitation points with production centres, or the stone quarrying points and
the citadels built of this raw material. Validation of these roads was made within field assessments
as well as slope analysis by IT means. Once the database was completed and trading sites or outlets
theoretically identified in relation to peripheral areas, we obtained an overall view by also observing
habitat types and archaeological features in areas with possible trading routes alongside mainly the
valleys of Cugir, Apa Oraşului or Strei, as well as the Mureş valley.
In the attempt to identify routes from the stone quarry to the areas where it was transported,
we aimed at tracking the routes between Măgura Călanului and the Costeşti citadels area and the
tower-houses in their vicinity on one side, and following the route of optimal stone transport to
Sarmizegetusa Regia on the other. Since such transport was highly difficult, it was suggested that
these paths be analysed from the point of view of slope gradient and comparison with a field assess-
ment. The goal of the field evaluation was to both research possible movement routes and make a
comparative analysis of elevations analysed by IT software based on digital elevations, affected by
the forestry panoply.
Thus, the Focal Mobility analysis was originally applied on the Măgura Călanului quarry point
of origin in the IT software. The goal was to identify natural paths that may be followed from this
point, without specifying any points of origin. The result was negative (fig. 36), none of the resulted
routes took the direction of the citadels from Orăştie Mountains. Only one road followed the Strei
Valley, towards Luncani, yet stopped where the valley began to narrow.

981
Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 1–17.
982
Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 6–9, fig. 4.
 210
Cristian Dima

Fig. 36. Focal Density Analysis (Red) and Least Cost Path (Green) – Măgura Călanului – Costeşti – Cetăţuie
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 211

Evidently, given transport difficulties, roads with gradient higher than 10–15º were restricted.
Given this result, it was suggested to make another Least Cost Path analysis, having as destination
point the Dacian citadel of Costeşti – Cetăţuie. In this case, the road started eastwards the Măgura
Călanului, tracking the contour line and following the route described in the research for identi-
fying the stone quarry983, runs further to the Bobaia village, then climbs the ridge road which it
descends towards Costeşti. Although a possible road by Ocolişul Mic would seem easier, the exami-
nation of the road profile resulted from the analysis shows, despite its appearance, that some slopes
that do not exceed the 10º gradient but in few places. (fig. 37).

Fig. 37. Profile LCP route – Măgura Călanului – Costeşti – Cetăţuie

Further in the research, we attempted to identify gentler routes for stone carriage. Starting from
the premise that stone reached the Dacian citadel of Costeşti – Blidaru in one way or another, and
for the lack of identified stone wall fortifications east the Apa Grădiştei, it was assumed that the path
for the carriage of andesite and limestone blocks should follow the gentler slopes from Blidaru to
Prihodişte, Poiana Omului, Rudele, Melea, Tâmpu Hill, Șteaua Mică, Godeanu, Muncel and then
descend by Căprăreaţa. The field research aimed to identify precisely this route, which was carried
out at several points over the course of the research. We used a record device of the practiced route
equipped with a hand GPS. The device errors sit between a location margin of 3 m, yet in signal
areas, while elevations are relatively close to reality, especially in open areas, less for those forested.
The device was positioned on the entire route at 1m height from real elevation. The followed route
started at the base of the Gerosu/Jerosu Hill towards Rudele, Melea to Sarmizegetusa Regia.
Using recorded data in comparison with the performed slope analyses, we could also examine
parts of the route starting from the Dacian fortress of Piatra Roşie to Sarmizegetusa Regia. The
comparative analyses checked the slope analysis for a LCP result and a Focal Density result (fig. 38).
Comparatively, the steepest slope in the LCP analysis was of 38º, in the area where the road
descended towards Apa Grădiştei. The road, shorter than that provided by the Focal Density, of only
15 km, is practicable in most places, with gentle slopes, the single difficult point being the descent
from Gerosu. It is possible that the ancient path followed in this area the contour lines and differs
from that provided by the analysis. The road resulted from the Focal Density analysis, covered a
larger distance, yet with much gentler slopes. The most difficult was the road from the fortress to
Poiana Omului, where slopes reached a maximum 25º. Nonethless, this road is not very difficult,
being travelled in the first field research, while the slope resulted from the analysis seems to have
affected the analysis result.

983
Mârza 1995, p. 202.
 212
Cristian Dima

Fig. 38. Comparative analysis LCP – Focal Density – Piatra Roşie – Sarmizegetusa Regia
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 213

Start Position: 2576759.787, 5686325.143 Vertical Difference (Start to Finish): 227.2 m

Start Height: 816.9 m Total Climbing: 1937.1 m over 19.287 km on surface
End Position: 2594603.522, 5689491.282 Total Descending: 1709.9 m over 15.768 km on surface
End Height: 1044.086 m Minimum Elevation on Path: 715.302 m
Path Length: 34.744 km Maximum Elevation on Path: 1702.419 m
Straight-Line Distance: 12.699 km Max Path Slope: 25.06° [101.89 m along path]
3D Distance on Surface: 35.054 km
Fig. 39. LCP Piatra Roşie – Grădiştea de Munte – Profile

Start Position: 2576758.688, 5686264.132 Vertical Difference (Start to Finish): 226.3 m

Start Height: 811.89 m Total Climbing: 1122.5 m over 9.113 km on surface
End Position: 2594609.544, 5689333.267 Total Descending: 896.3 m over 6.831 km on surface
End Height: 1038.165 m Minimum Elevation on Path: 673.061 m
Path Length: 15.716 km Maximum Elevation on Path: 1153.851 m
Straight-Line Distance: 12.692 km Max Path Slope: 38.45° [12.628 km along path]
3D Distance on Surface: 15.944 km
Fig. 40. Focal Density – Piatra Roşie – Sarmizegetusa Regia

The field research aimed, beside identifying routes by comparison with those resulted from
spatial analyses, also at a comparative analysis of these results in terms of the used three-dimen-
sional models quality (EU-DEM). Thus, it could be noted there are areas where elevation differ-
ences are higher than in the digital model. In forested areas, the elevations of the digital model tend
to be higher owing to tree heights. Instead, in open, ridge road areas, in certain cases were noted
lower elevation differences than those provided by the digital model. Nevertheless, as noticeable
(fig. 41–63), differences are not significant, while on longer routes these are not even distinguish-
able. In conclusion, gradient slopes differ from reality with a margin ranging between 1–5º, thus
some routes deemed difficult in the digital result (comprised between 20–25º) are in fact much more
accessible. Validation of data resulted from IT software, based on digital three-dimensional models
acquired via spatial missions, are necessary both field research and evaluation of route elevations
via better performing equipments (Total Stations, Differential GPS)984, as well as the study of older
military maps which may provide additional data regarding the roads used in other time periods.
984
Dima 2017, p. 185–203.
 214
Cristian Dima

Fig. 41. Route checked by means of altimetry by field research

 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 215

Fig. 42. Portion of altimetric profile of the route

Fig. 43. Altimetric measured profile in comparison with the digital elevation model (EU-DEM)

Fig. 44. Details of altimetric measured profile measured compared to the digital elevation model (EU-DEM)

Given the large number of routes resulted in this case study, their exhaustive and detailed vali-
dation requires much space, time and a series of special equipments-aided field research. For this
reason, beside above validated results, other few routes were confirmed in order to best present the
216 Cristian Dima

working method leading to the future identification of a large number of trading or other types of
routes. Via applied IT technology and the use of three-dimensional digital maps, a series of possible
access routes, trading routes or routes used during the military campaigns may be checked and
analysed by comparison with routes known in historiography.

Fig. 45. Field research route (blue line); Focal Density Analysis Luncani-Piatra Roşie.

The field research had three more phase in order to validate other practiced trading routes, yet
covering the entire area was impossible in this timeline. Thus, the first field research checked certain
routes linking the Haţeg Basin to the area of the Orăştie Mountains, where a road no longer prac-
ticed today was found, exiting the Balomir village (Subcetate-Haţeg) and climbing onto a ridge road
to Ursici, from where one may descend to the Luncani valley and reach the fortress of Piatra Roşie.
Second confirmation of this route includes several archaeological finds, one recently reported by
illegal metal detecting985. To these adds a road present on the third Austrian military survey map,
which follows almost the same route as that identified in the field research. Compared to the result
obtained by the Focal Density analysis, whose point of origin is the Dacian citadel of Piatra Roşie,
the identified road lies on the same trajectory, only slightly southwards (fig. 45).
The trading route linking the Dacian fortress of Luncani-Piatra Roşie to the capital Sarmizegetusa
Regia, presented above (fig. 38) resulted from both the LCP and the Focal Mobility analyses has
already been validated by slope analysis (fig. 39–40), the easiest road for heavy load transports likely
being that resulted from the Focal Mobility analysis, by Poiana Omului, Rudele, Melea, Tâmpu,
985
Ferencz, Bodó, Bălos 2016, p. 223–242.
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology 217

Șteaua Mică, Godeanu, Muncel, Sarmizegetusa Regia. Since roads connecting the iron ore resource
exploitation to the capital workshops are partially linked to this route, to which likely add the stone
transports from Blidaru to Sarmizegetusa via Prihodişte, made that mentioned route be often tran-
sited in the period. In fact, this road is also present on all Austrian survey maps (fig. 46), point
Poiana Omului connecting seemingly several paths.

Fig. 46. Representation of the road between Piatra Roşie and Poiana Omului on the first Austrian survey maps

The route was checked from Luncani-Piatra Roşie to Poiana Omului during the second stage of
the field research. From Poiana Omului to Rudele, the road could not be investigated in the field,
while from Rudele to Sarmizegetusa Regia, it was checked and geo-referenced.
Another route checked and validated by the field research, older maps and location of archaeolog-
ical find points, lay on route starting from the Dacian fortress at Costeşti – Blidaru to Sarmizegetusa
Regia. In the third stage of the field research the road from Blidaru to Prihodişte was checked, and
in the last field investigation phase, its stretch from Gerosu Hill to Rudele was checked. The road
was likely used for the heavy stone transport from Măgura Călanului to Sarmizegetusa Regia, being
the easiest from difficulty and slope gradient standpoints. Over the course of the entire route were
identified several archaeological points, and a Roman marching camp at Târsa. The road is well
represented also on the Austrian maps and the Military Map (PDTM) (fig. 47–49).
 218
Cristian Dima

Fig. 47. Route Costeşti – Blidaru – Sarmizegetusa Regia, computed by Focal Mobility Analysis
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology
219

Fig. 48. Route Costeşti – Blidaru – Sarmizegetusa Regia overlapped by the Military Plans (PDTM).
 220
Cristian Dima

Fig. 49. Route Costeşti – Blidaru – Sarmizegetusa Regia overlapped by digital elevation map (EU-DTM)
 Case study. Dacian trading routes in landscape archaeology
221

Fig. 50. Route Sarmizegetusa Regia – Costeşti – Blidaru overlapped on elevation plan.
222 Cristian Dima

If one presumes that stone carried from Măgura Călanului reached via Apa Oraşului (Valea
Grădiştii/Valea Godeanului) the base of the Costeşti – Cetăţuie fortress, another route worth con-
sidering for its transport may lie on the heights located north Grădiştii Valey. This route was not
yet checked by field investigations, but the numerous archaeological points along this route are
most definitely indicative of a road (fig. 50). It is impossible to say to what extent stone was car-
ried through there, yet other commodities reaching or leaving Sarmizegetusa Regia must be most
definitely considered to have been transported via this path. In fact, the road is shorter and links
Sarmizegetusa Regia to the Costeşti fortress.

Fig. 51. Altimetric profile on the Costeşti – Blidaru – Sarmizegetusa Regia route

Nevertheless, based on the altimetric profile of this (fig. 51), the route from Blidaru to
Sarmizegetusa Regia (fig. 43, 47) even though longer, seems more facile for stone transport, but this
one from could be considered as an important pathway network that connects several settlements in
the area. Evan though a filed validation for this road was not done for this research several authors
mention this pathway as being one of major importance in what regards at least the movement of
Roman troops in the time of Dacian Wars986. As well, the road can be easily spotted on Austrian
Maps – Third Topographic Survey (1869–1887) and it overlaps almost perfectly with the predict-
ability analysis. Moreover, using the results of LCP analysis of Roman troops mobility from Muncel
to Prisaca and further to Costeşti fortress of the recently above mentioned study987, overlapped with
the results of LCP of present research, validates the joint results in both direction (Pl. 17).

986
Ferenczi 1982–1983, p. 181; Ferenczi Marcu, Szabő, p. 81–83, fig. 19; Oltean, Fonte, p. 8–9, fig. 5.
987
Oltean, Fonte 2021, p. 9, fig. 5.
 7.
CONCLUSIONS

Trading routes and relations, conveyance of goods and communication paths form part of the
livelihood of all ancient communities, while the ancient authors’ reports, iconographic images and
archaeological finds illustrate the phenomenon to a certain extent. For the civilising Greco-Roman
world information relative to the above is relatively numerous, however, in the case of the Barbarian
peoples, it comes from indirect sources, the result of commercial or military contact between the
Barbarians and the Greco-Roman world. This is also the case of the civilisation ethnically known
under the name of Dacians or Getae, who inhabited the intra-Carpathian area. Chronologically,
this research attempted to analyse the topic for the development period of the Dacian civilisation
in said area, when trading relations with both the Greeks and the Romans and those local are better
outlined. Written sources referencing the subject of the Dacian worlds’ trading relations and routes
with the Greeco-Roman world relatively few, and even those known are indirect, like the case of
Strabo’s narrative regarding river Marisos. Iconographic images are also few and regard the military
campaigns, thus not directly linked to the matter of the trading routes, but only certain vehicles
used for the carriage of commercial goods.
Thus, a picture of the trading routes, transport and relations among the Dacian communities
or their relations with the outer world may be outlined only by indirect appeal to the sources of the
Antiquity and, mostly, through the analysis of the archaeological finds. Occasionally, the appeal to
events known from medieval documents shed light on conveyance possibilities of the respective
period, also related to the classical Antiquity periods.
The Romanian archaeology and history rarely referenced the topic of trading routes because of
the interpreting difficulties of the archaeological material. Evidently, the trading relations with the
outer world are much more visible through the present import products, distinct from those locally
made, yet the local trading relations do not seem to leave many traces from the view of exchanged
goods’ analysis, most often related to the similar and relatively homogenous material culture in the
Dacian space. Thus, archaeological approaches from the view of the exchanged products did not
to yield remarkable results for understanding how the local trade was practiced or which were its
trading directions and routes.
Thus, a series of approaches made here attempted to expand knowledge on the topic from sev-
eral standpoints, tracking the main features and components of trading routes and relations. The
definition of trading routes and highlight of their main features called for both separate and joint
approach of all components of the commercial activity, like natural resources, their exploitation
centres, production centres, distribution of raw materials to production centres, distribution of
224 Cristian Dima

goods both as raw material and finished products, outlets, intermediaries and traders and lastly,
the beneficiaries. Moreover, the study also aimed to identify through different methods the routes
of the commercial paths between these key points, how conveyance took place and which were the
carriage vehicles used in the growth period of the Dacian civilisation.
It was comparatively distinguished the main features of trading relations and routes in the clas-
sical Antiquity, as known from all sources. Written or iconographic sources evidence the ancient
man’s need to become acquainted with places, to be guided, calculate time and always have the
chance to reach the desired destination. Written sources record the extensive concern of the clas-
sical Antiquity, especially of the Greco-Roman world, less of the Barbarians, to communicate,
measure and systemise aspects related to distances in-between places, to inform the others about
opportunities to change the conveyance vehicles, halt locations etc. The large number of epigraphic
sources, in the form of milestones, further evidence the Roman administration’s concern with both
developing new roads and care for those already built, and a notable extensive activity for their
re-construction.
Ancient civilisations practiced an extensive trade, occasionally according to rules proper to
smaller communities, other times according to rules set by Rome. Few sources speak of product
exchanges among the Barbarian communities, however when exchanges occur nearby the Roman
limes, the situation changes and sources show how these rules were enforced. The Roman world, so
cosmopolite and developed, equally allured good faith traders and possible perpetrators so that the
role of the limes army became highly important. Even in crisis and military conflict situations, trade
was not stopped, it unfolded with observance of harsher rules, clear exchange locations or even
specific days being established. Such rules, visible only from the analysis of literary sources, could
not yet be noted for the Dacian civilisation, however, some must have been in place. The presence
of a relatively high number of fortifications nearby important trading routes or areas with natural
resources records trade control and indirectly certain subordination relations. Very likely, traders
arriving from outside the kingdom were carefully monitored, and their products checked, alike the
case of the outlets held in well known places that could be surveilled, nevertheless the limits of such
control are difficult to specify for the lack of their knowledge.
Regarding how transport occurred, written sources present several vehicle types, some well
described, other less, while association of some with iconographical images or archaeological finds
is most often difficult. Some types are easily recognisable, especially those present in the majority of
iconographic images, like biga, qvadriga, carpentum or cisium and currus, while other, like raheda,
esseda or plaustrum may be easily mistaken.
Dacian date finds related to conveyance vehicles do not allow such framing, however a few gen-
eral features could be underlined. Out of the 118 identified items from publications and museum
deposits, most come from wheels (66 pieces), a significant number being represented by yoke parts
playing the role of terrets or having decorative functions (25 pieces), while the remainder are repre-
sented by various hound or body parts, their attachment elements, like rivets, or elements designed
to guide the cart like kingpins. Some of the items are uncertain and could play a decorative role for
the cart box.
On the basis of the analysis of cart parts known in the Dacian environment and their find con-
texts, these may be classified in two main classes: funerary or ceremonial chariots and conveyance
carts. Dacian date funerary chariot finds, even though few, illustrate beside the various funerary
and ritual practices highlighting the chariot’s symbolic role or the social status of the deceased, how
transport vehicles appeared in classical Antiquity period. The presence in certain burials of all metal
components of the cart aids its reconstruction. Concurrently, identification of cart parts and their
 Conclusions 225

functionality allows the accurate interpretation of cart parts discovered in civil or military settle-
ments or in isolate finds.
Cart images on certain Roman date funerary monuments, three of which come from the prov-
ince of Dacia, may be suggestive of special symbolism that may be interpreted in several ways. On
one hand, cart depictions on funerary monuments are indicative of the importance that the vehicle
held for the deceased, representing firstly a social prestige element as monuments are set up in order
to be seen, while the deceased thus gained immortality. Moreover, the funerary chariot is a symbol
of the travel to the world beyond, association of the cart with deities being an additional aspect that
confers a peculiar religious value. Therewith, the presence of these funerary monuments may also
symbolically replace the custom of certain Barbarian communities, recorded both previously and
after the conquest, of depositing the deceased and the cart used in the funerary procession. Such
burial contexts are known in the Geto-Dacian setting by certain burial finds like at Cugir, and likely
Costeşti – Cetăţuie. For the Călan burial, the chariot’s presence in the procession known as ekphora
is suggested by the sacrificed horses and deposition of their bits.
Among conveyance vehicles it was noted the use of specially reinforced carts for the carriage of
heavy loads (iron blooms, limestone blocks, andesite blocks etc.). Large size iron fittings reinforced
the wheel nave and axle in order to withstand heavier loads. Such reinforcements were assumed for
solid wheels, more suitable for heavy load transports on sloping roads, occasionally with more than
15º incline.
An argument for wagon use in the commercial goods transport activity, regardless their nature,
is represented by the find in the best known trading centre and market of parts originating from
at least five such carts. Out of these survived wheel parts, yet also body elements. At least two
carts may be supposed to have been designed for heavy load transport, their components being
discovered in the two iron workshops from Sarmizegetusa Regia. Their presence in these work-
shops, either related to repair activities or used for carriage of iron products made by the workshop,
records these producers’ concern for innovation in terms of heavy materials’ conveyance. These axle
and wheel reinforcement fittings are not paralleled for now in other cultural areas and could record
the originality of the metalworkers from the Dacian citadel to a certain degree.
Antiquity iconographic images complete the picture related to transports through the occasion-
ally very detailed depictions of vehicles and draft animals Thus, Trajan’s Column renders both two-
wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles used by the Roman army, or only four-wheeled carts, used by
the Dacians. Depicted draft animals include only mules or oxen, while horses were used for riding,
and if teamed to a cart, they usually carried persons, being used for fast travel. The mules used for
their resilience are not archaeologically recorded in the Geto-Dacian area, oxen being used for the
transport of goods in both heavy and easier transports. An interesting aspect noticeable on images
from Marcus Aurelius’s Column is the use of solid wheel carts, aspect neither mentioned by written
sources nor archaeological recorded but in rare cases.
Still concerning land conveyance, sources further evidence the Romans’ concern for roads, vehi-
cles and animals, clearly establishing maximum mass limits allowed for each cart type, since roads
were also used by the army, so it was important that these were well kept, as heavy load vehicles
could lead to their deterioration. The development of a road infrastructure in the Roman empire
starting with the 4th century BC and its later extension to the remainder of the conquered prov-
inces increased the movement speed of both the army and traders or various travellers. Road con-
struction compressed the time distance, which earned approximately 33% from the point of view
of land transport efficiency until late first century BC. By paving several roads in the 1st and 2nd
century AD, travel speed increased to a higher level and more importantly, for a greater number of
226 Cristian Dima

destinations. These changes led economical growth, while prosperity made no other than encour-
age continuous development of road networks, thus establishing an economic drive which made the
Roman civilisation so famous. Such development resulted in a series of visible effects on surround-
ing civilisations, which at their turn interacted and accessed the system. Land transport, doubled
by the cheaper water conveyance contributed to massive economic, military and eventually cultural
growth.
Works for the development of Dacian roads were recorded to a small extent and only in the
area of the kingdom’s capital, where a road paved with mica-schist slabs, would have connected
the entire quarters west of the fortification gate and the road within, built of limestone slabs, lead-
ing to the sacred area. It was believed that ridge roads were used for the carriage of limestone or
andesite blocks, which, owing to the area landscape required no special developments, the stone
of the mica-schist rocks being sufficient for such conveyance type. Nevertheless, given the carried
stone quantity and extensive and continuous traffic for a long time span, certain developments and
repairs would have been justified, however at this point, these are not recorded. Water conveyance,
safer and cheaper, is not documented by direct archaeological evidence in the area inhabited by the
Dacians. The presence of a large number of settlements and fortifications on the Mureş riverbanks,
deemed navigable, at least up to Alba Iulia area, as well as a series of coin finds record water trans-
ports to a certain extent. By ethno-archaeological analogy, Middle Ages documents evidence the
use of other watercourses as well, like the Someş or Criş rivers, for salt transport. Evidently, beside
salt other products must be also understood.
Another approach of trading routes considered the relations between natural resources exploi-
tations, production centres, traders and beneficiaries. Overall, their identification was much lim-
ited by the current state of research and the insufficient substantiation of finds deemed secure,
or the small number of comparative analyses of both the chemical composition of the metal and
the petrographic analyses recording connections between ore sources, raw and finished products.
Nevertheless, we were able to draw certain conclusions on the basis of some of the archaeological
data.
Trading routes between exploitation sources and production workshops commonly lie on small
distances, many of the blacksmithing workshops being located nearby the raw material source. In
some cases, workshop locations did not consider resource areas, but the route of the trading path-
way which permitted fast sale of products. In this case, the same commercial artery is that which
reaches both the workshop and the raw material supplier.
In terms of tools used for activities of farming, woodworking, construction, the main identified
distributor seems to be located at Sarmizegetusa Regia, even though workshops were noted in other
Dacian settlements as well. Regarding the latter, the raw material for iron working seems to come
still from the area of the Dacian capital. Regarding bronze and goldsmithing workshops, these seem
to have a limited number of beneficiaries located in the area where workshops operated, thus result-
ing a direct relation between the producer and beneficiary. In the capital’s case only higher produc-
tion may be assumed, which could be related to trade with such products. For the area east of the
intra-Carpathian space, the “export” of raw material was noted, both ferrous and copper bearing,
east of the Carpathians in the area of the Dacian settlements located on the important trading route
by the Siret river. Very likely, workshops from these davae on the Siret river manufactured prod-
ucts that later returned to the intra-Carpathian area on the same routes on which the raw material
reversely left.
Salt trade may be noted to a certain degree also in the case of the Dacian civilisation, even
though there is no direct evidence of salt mining and trade. The salt demand for nutrition yet also
 Conclusions 227

animal breeding or skin processing activities entailed exploitation of salt resources, present in pecu-
liar quantities in the intra-Carpathian space. Also, the location of some citadels nearby salt deposits
as well as the control of certain trading arteries to which add several coin finds indirectly record
this trading activity. The routes on which this merchandise was transported were identified along
rivers navigable in certain periods of the year, when water levels rose. Where water conveyance was
impossible, salt was carried either by cart or draft animals (mules, donkeys). These land routes lay
alongside watercourses as long as valleys were sufficiently wide, while nearby uplands, where valleys
narrowed, ridge roads were used instead.
Trading routes were methodologically addressed in a case study for a geographically well delim-
ited area, extensively inhabited in the Dacian period, where key elements defining the trading activ-
ity were identified (workshops, resources, outlets). This approach examined the area and landscape
archaeology by IT technical means, slope analyses, calculations defining hydrographical networks
and the draw up of predictability routes and paths which targeted the identification of most practi-
cable, quick and cheap routes for the transport of goods. In this respect, certain ideas present in his-
toriography were validated, while others were invalidated. In conclusion, ridge roads were chosen
in uplands, occasionally even roads running on larger distances following contour lines. Evidently,
roads that followed easily floodable watercourses were avoided, as gushes occurred during rainfall
seasons. A network of trading routes was also noted, the same route being often used by both stone
carriers for the construction of citadels and those who transported other goods. The constant use of
the same routes, especially between production areas which also played the function of outlets for
the sold merchandise, yet also between the settlements from the researched area, records extensive
traffic and effervescent economic activity.
Lastly, we must underline that the methodology used for identifying the trading routes and
delimiting their main specificities during the 2nd century BC – 1st century BC relied on the
archaeological repertory of 484 points and the establishment of typologies and main peculiarities
of such listed points, as well as the field check of routes resulted from predictability tests. Obviously,
research limits resulted from identification of certain points based only on field investigations or
non-invasive research via modern methods, to which often add imprecise descriptions, affected the
results of the study here to a certain extent. Also adds the check and validation of certain stretches
of the routes identified by technical and IT means, which might have qualitatively impaired cer-
tain results, even though validated by the careful examination of the military maps and rendered
secondary roads. The work methodology for identifying trading routes is improvable, while other
space analysis types as well as new archaeological excavations could provide a clearer image on this
phenomenon.
 A BBREVIATIONS

Journals
AB Analele Banatului. Muzeul Banatului,Timişoara.
AK Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Römisch-
Germanische Kommission Frankfurt.
Aluta Aluta. Muzeul judeţean Sf. Gheorghe. Sf. Gheorghe.
Amphora Amphora. Bruxelles.
AMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca.
AMP Acta Musei Porolissensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă, Zalău.
Antiquity Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Angustia Angustia. Revistă pentru sud-estul Transilvaniei. Sf. Gheorghe.
Apulum Apulum. Buletinul Muzeului Regional Alba Iulia, Alba Iulia.
AÉ Arhaeologiai Értesitö. Budapest.
ArchÖst Archäologie Österreich.Wien.
ArhVest Arheološki vestnik. Ljubljana.
ArchBulg Archeologia Bulgarica, Sofia.
ArchCal Archeologia e Calcolatori, Firenze.
ATS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis. Institutul pentru Cercetarea Patrimoniului Cultural
Transilvănean în Context European, Sibiu.
AVest Arheološki vestnic, Ljubljana.
ACL Acta Centri Lucusiensis, Timişoara.
AVSL Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Köln.
AuF Ausgrabungen und Funde,Berlin.
Banatica Banatica. Muzeul Judeţean Caraş-Severin, Reşiţa.
BCSS Buletinul Cercurilor Știinţifice Sudenţeşti Arheologie-Istorie-Muzeologie, Alba Iulia.
BJb Bonner Jahrbücher, Rheinisches Landesmuseums, Bonn.
BSI Buletinul Societăţii Istorice, Bucureşti.
BSAChamp Bulletin de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, Chalon-sur-Marne.
BSNR Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române, Bucureşti.
BVBl Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, München.
Carpica Carpica. Muzeul de Istorie şi Artă Bacău, Bacău.
CA Cercetări Arheologice, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti.
CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice. Comisia Naţională de Arheologie, Bucureşti.
Corviniana Corviniana. Acta Musei Corviniensis. Muzeul Castelul Corvineştilor, Hunedoara.
Crisia Crisia. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea.
230 Cristian Dima

CCDJ Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos, Călăraşi.

Dacia Dacia. Récherches et découvértes archéologiques en Roumanie. Bucureşti, I-XII
(1924–1948); N(ouvelle) S(érie): Révue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciénne, Bucureşti.
DevSSc Developments in Soil Science, New York.
DossProt Dossiers de Protohistoire, Paris.
EHRev The Economic History Review, Utrecht.
EJRS The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, Cairo.
EN Ephemeris Napocensis. Anuarul Institutului de arheologie şi Istoria Artei din Cluj-
Napoca, Cluj-Napoca.
FI File de Istorie. Culegere de studii, articole și comunicari, Bistriţa.
Germania Germania. Kaiserlich Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Römisch-Germanische
Kommission. Frankfurt, Main.
Haemus Center for Scientific Research and Promotion of Culture. Sofia.
Instrumentum Instrumentum: bulletin du Groupe de Travail Européen sur l’Artisanat et les
Productions Manufacturées dans l’Antiquité, Montagnac.
Istros Istros. Buletinul Muzeului Brăila, Brăila.
JArchS Journal of Archaeological Science, Oxford.
JAHA Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology. Cluj-Napoca.
JDAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin.
Jahrb. SGUF Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Schweiz.
JNG Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte.Bayerische numismatische Gesellschaft,
München.
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology. Cambridge.
JRMES Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies. Ryton
Lattara Edition de l’Association pour la recherche archéologique en Languedoc, Lattes.
JTheorBiol Journal of Theoretical Biology, Amsterdam.
Közlemények Archaeologiai Közlemények. Magyar tudományos Akademia archaeologiai
bizottmánya.Budapest.
Marisia Marisia. Studii şi materiale, Arheologie, istorie, etnografie, Târgu. Mureş.
Marmatia Marmaţia. Muzeul Județean Maramureș. Baia Mare.
MCA Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, Bucureşti.
MemAntiq Memoria antiquitatis: revista Muzeului Arheologic Piatra Neamt.
MEFRA Mèlanges d´archèologie et d´histoire de l´École Française de Rome. Antiquitè, Paris.
Mousaios Mousaios. Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Buzău.
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford.
OTÉ Orvos-természettudományi értesítő II. Természettudományi szak, Cluj-Napoca.
PamátkyArch Památky archaeologické. Skupina historická. Praga.
Pontica Pontica. Muzeul de Istorie Naţional şi Arheologie Constanţa, Constanţa.
PraehZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin.
PVer Preitoria Veronese. Contributi e aggiornamenti, Memoire del Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale di Verona.
RAPic Revue archéologique de Picardie, Compiègne.
RArh Revista Arhivelor, Bucureşti.
RB Revista Bistriţei, Bistriţa.
Sargetia Sargetia. Acta Musei Regionalis Devensis, Deva.
SCN Studii şi Comunicări de Numismatică, Bucureşti.
SCŞCj Studii şi Cercetări Ştiinţifice, Cluj-Napoca.
 Abbreviations 231

SCIV(A) Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche, din 1974 Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheo-
logie, Bucureşti.
SJ Saalburg-Jahrbuch, Mainz.
StComCar Studii şi Comunicări. Caransebeş.
StComSB Studii şi Comunicări, Sibiu.
StComEI Studii şi Comunicări de etnografie şi istorie, Caransebeş
StUBB Studia Universitatis „Babeş-Bolyai”. Historia, Cluj-Napoca.
SM Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş.
TD Thraco-Dacica Institutul de Thracologie, Bucureşti.
TS Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabensis, Muzeul Municipal „Ioan Raica”, Sebeş.
Tibiscus Tibiscus. Istorie-Arheologie. Muzeul Banatului. Timişoara.
ZeitEth Zeitschriftfür für Ethnologie. Berlin.
IDR Inscripţiile Daciei Romane, Bucureşti.

Abrevieri instituţii
AM- Rhodos Archaeological Museum, Rhodos.
BNM- Tunisia Bardo National Museum, Tunisia.
MCDR – Deva Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane – Deva.
MAN- Chiusi Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Chiusi.
MAN- Tarquina Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Tarquina.
MB- Sibiu Muzeul Bruchenthal, Sibiu.
MIA – Zalău Muzeul de Istorie şi Artă, Zalău.
MI- Sighişoara Muzeul de Istorie, Sighişoara.
MM-Bucureşti Muzeul Municipiului Bucureşti
MNIT – Cluj Napoca Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca.
MȚC – Oradea Muzeul Țării Crişurilor, Oradea
NM- Prague National Museum, Prague.
NM- Wien Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.
PA-Pompei Parco Archeologico, Pompei.
 B IBLIOGRAFY

Ackner 1851 M.J. Ackner, Auszug aus dem Tagebuche über neuentdeckte vaterländische
archäologische Gegenstände des letzverflossennen Dezenniums, in AVSL, 4,
1851, p. 18–35.
Alexandrescu 1966 A. D. Alexandrescu, Die Bronzeschwerter aus Rumänien, in DaciaNS 10,
1966, p. 117–190.
Andrieşescu 1926 I. Andrieşescu, Piscul Crăsani. Descoperirile arheologice din vara anului
1923, Bucureşti, 1926.
Andriţoiu 1976 I. Andriţoiu, Descoperiri arheologice pe Valea Streiului inferior, in Apulum
14, 1976, p. 393–414.
Andriţoiu 1978 I. Andriţoiu, Descoperiri arheologice la Crăciuneşti (com. Băiţa, jud.
Hunedoara), in Apulum 16, 1978, p. 55–72.
Andriţoiu 1979 I. Andriţoiu, Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Hunedoara, in
Sargetia 14, 1979, p. 15–34.
Andriţoiu 1992 I. Andriţoiu, Civilizaţia tracilor din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Bucureşti, 1992.
Andriţoiu, Mărghitan I. Andriţoiu, L. Mărghitan, Muzeul Arheologic din Deva, Bucureşti, 1972.
1972
Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997 I. Andriţoiu, A. Rustoiu, Sighişoara-Wietenberg. Descoperirile preistorice şi
aşezarea dacică, Bucureşti, 1997.
Anghel, Suciu 2004 G. Anghel, V. Suciu, Mărturii ale practicării plutăritului în Transilvania din
Antichitate, Evul mediu şi perioada modernă. Rolul oraşului Alba Iulia în isto-
ria plutăritului, in Apulum 41, 2004, p. 367–386.
Antal 2016 A. Antal, A god of convalescence. Telesphorus/ Genius cucullatus in Roman
Dacia, in AMN 51/1, 2016, p. 195–206.
Antonescu 1984 D. Antonescu, Introducere în arhitectura dacilor, Bucureşti, 1984.
Arneth 1850 J. Arneth, Die antiken gold- und Silber Monumente des k.k. Münz- und anti-
ken Cabinettes, Wien, 1850.
Babeş 1971 M. Babeş, Les fouilles archéologiques en Roumanie, in DaciaNS 15, 1971,
p. 359–394.
Baray 1998 L. Baray, Les cimetières à crémation de la basse vallée de la Somme d’après les
découvertes de l’autoroute Al6 Nord, in RAPic 1/2, 1998, p. 211–231.
Barbu 2015 D. Barbu, Car votiv miniatural, în D. Barbu (Coord.), Magia Restaurării. 40
de ani de restaurare ştiinţifică, Sibiu, 2015, p. 10–11.
234 Cristian Dima

Barbu, Bărbat 2017 M. Gh. Barbu, I.A. Bărbat, Noi informaţii arheologice privind exploatarea
andezitului la Măgura Uroiului (jud. Hunedoara), in Banatica 27, 2017,
p. 187–216.
Batten 2007 D.C, Batten, Least-Cost Pathways, Exchange Routes, and Settlement
Patterns in Late Prehistoric East-Central New Mexico, in J.T. Clark, E.M.
Hagemeister (Ed.) Digital Discovery. Exploring New Frontiers in Human
Heritage. CAA2006. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology. Proceedings of the 34th Conference, Fargo, United States, April
2006. Archaeolingua, Budapest, p. 151–158.
Băeştean et alii 2013 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, I. Barbu, M. Ion, M. Barbu, A. Marc, Rapoltu
Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura
Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2010, 2011, p. 106.
Băeştean et alii 2014 G. Băeştean, I. Barbu, M. Barbu, M. Barbu, A. Bărbat, A. Marc, R. Pavel, A.
Bălos, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara.
Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2013, 2014, p. 84–85.
Băeştean et alii 2015 G. Băeştean, A. Bălos, I. A. Bărbat, O. C. Bărbat, I. L. Barbu, M. G. Barbu,
M. M. Barbu, A. T. Marc, R. Pavel, A. Pescaru, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu
Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA,
Campania 2014, 2015, p. 122–123.
Bălan 1966 T. Bălan, Tezaurul de monede dacice de la Bozeş, in Sargetia 4, 1966, p. 51–64.
Bălos et alii 2004 A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, C. Mitar, Ş. Andrei, V. Papp, P. Straja,
Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului,
in CCA, Campania 2003, 2004, p. 250–251.
Bălos et alii 2010 A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, C. Mitar, Uroi Hill (Magura Uroiului). The
Beginning of an Interdisciplinary Research, in F. Niccolucci, S. Hermon (Ed.)
Beyond the Artifact. Digital Interpretation of the Past. Proceedings of the CAA
2004, Prato 13–17 April 2004, Budapest, 2010, p. 113–115
Bălos, Ardeu 2002 A. Bălos, Ardeu A., Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara.
Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA – campania 2001, 2002, p. 249–250.
Behm-Blancke 1971 G. Behm-Blancke, Ein Zügelführungsring im Gebiet des Oppidums
„Steinsburg“ bei Römhild, Kr. Meiningen, in AuF 16, 1971, p. 247–255.
Bejinariu 2018 I. Bejinariu, Depozite de bronzuri din Sălaj, Cluj-Napoca, 2018.
Beldiman, Sztancs 2012 C. Beldiman, D. Sztancs, Materii dure animale şi artefacte la geto-daci, in
I.V. Ferencz, C. Beldiman (Ed.), Artă şi meşteşug în epoca Regatului Dac.
Artefacte de os şi corn. Catalog, Cluj-Napoca, 2012, p. 43–46
Bell, Lock 2000 T. Bell, G. R. Lock, Topographic and Cultural Influences on Walking the
Ridgeway, in G.R. Lock (Ed.), Later Prehistoric Times.” In Beyond the Map:
Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, p. 85–100.
Benea 2004 D. Benea, Istoricul cercetărilor arheologice de la Grădiştea de Munte, in A.
Rusu-Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz (Ed.), Daco – Geţii. 80 de ani de cercetări arheo-
logice sistematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 9–38
Benea 2007 D. Benea, Cu privire la administrarea salinelor din Dacia Romană, in AB 15,
2007, p. 41–46.
Berciu 1942 D. Berciu, Repertoriu arheologic de staţiuni şi descoperiri preistorice în
România, in Rarh 5.1, 1942, p. 22–68
 Bibliografy 235

Berciu, Moga 1972 I. Berciu, V. Moga, Contribuţia Muzeului de Istorie din Alba Iulia la cunoaş-
terea culturii dacice, in Crisia 1, 1972, p. 65–77.
Berciu, Popa 1963 I. Berciu, A. Popa, Depozitul de unelte dacice de pe muntele Strâmbu de lângă
Grădiştea de Munte, in SCIV 14, 1963, p. 151–162.
Berciu, Popa 1970 I. Berciu, A. Popa, Cetatea dacică de la Piatra Craivii, in R. R. Florescu, P.
Anghel (Ed.), Sesiunea de Comunicări Ştiinţifice a Muzeelor de Istorie 1964,
Vol. I, 1970, p. 261–274.
Berciu, Popa, Daicoviciu Berciu I., Popa Al., Daicoviciu H., La forteresse Dace de Piatra Craivii
1965 (Transylvanie, Roumanie), in R. Joffroy (Ed.), Celticum XII. Actes du Ive Congres
International d’Etudes Gauloises, Celtiques et Protoceltiques,Sarrebruck
(Sarre), 4–9 Septembre 1964, 1965, Rennes, p. 115–146.
Bichir 1966 Gh. Bichir, Cuptoare de ars ceramică din cadrul culturii Vârteşcoiu-Poieneşti.
Un atelier de olărie descoperit la Butnăreşti, in SCIVA 3, 1966, p. 489–490.
Blăjan 1972 M. Blăjan, Descoperiri dacice şi celtice la Turdaş, in StUBB, 2, 1972, p. 11–17.
Blăjan 1973 M. Blăjan, Descoperiri romane la Turdaş şi în împrejurimi (jud. Alba), in
Apulum 11, 1973, p. 743–755.
Bodó 1997 C. Bodó, Construcţiile dacice de pe Rudele şi Pustâiosu, in BCSS 3, 1997,
p. 51–56.
Bodó, Ferencz 2004 C. Bodó, I.V. Ferencz, Dacian iron tools discovered in the area of the Dacian
kingdom capital, in A. Rusu-Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz (Coord.), Daco – Geţii. 80
de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei,
Deva, 2004, p. 286–297.
Bolla 2002 M. Bolla, Vasellame bronzeo da tombe celtiche, in Pver 5, 2002, p. 205–207
Bolla, Castoldi 2016 M. Bolla, M. Castoldi, I recipienti di bronzo in Italia settentrionale tra IV e I
secolo a.C. e il caso del territorio veronese, in ArhVest 67, 2016, pp. 121–175.
Borangic 2014 C. Borangic, Arme şi piese de harnaşament din epoca Regatului dac descope-
rite la Bulbuc, comuna Ceru-Băcăinţ, jud. Alba. Consideraţii preliminare, in
Istros 20, 2014, p. 259–310.
Borangic 2017 C. Borangic, Seniorii războiului în lumea dacică, Alba Iulia, 2017.
Borangic, Barbu 2013 C. Borangic, M. Barbu, Incursiune în fenomenul ecvestru geto-dacic. Studiu de
caz: zăbala de tip tracic, in ACL 1B, 2013, p. 22–47.
Borangic, Berzovan 2014 C. Borangic, A. Berzovan, Concepte despre cetatea dacică (I), in ACL 2b,
2014, p.82–145.
Boroneanţ 2000 V. Boroneanţ, Arheologia peşterilor şi minelor din România, Bucureşti, 2000.
Božič 2005 D. Božič, Die spätrömischen Hortfunde von der Gora oberhalb von Polhov
Gradec, in Avest 56, 2005, p. 293–368
Božič 2017 D. Božič, A new wagon grave from Late La Tène?, in 18th International
Konferenz die Latènezeit in Mitteleuropa, Moravia, 2017 – in print.
Brunaux, Fichtl, J.L. Brunaux, S. Fichtl, C. Marchand, Die Ausgrabungen am haupttor des
Marchand1990 „Camp César“ bei La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Dept. Somme, Frankreich), in SJ
45, 1990, p. 5–23.
Burford 1960 A. Burford, Heavy Transport in classical antiquity, in EHRev 13/1, 1960,
p. 1–18.
236 Cristian Dima

Burnaz 1991 S. Burnaz, Analiza materialului faunistic provenit din aşezarea feudală tim-
purie de la „Grădişte” – Haţeg (judeţul Hunedoara), in Sargetia 21–24, 1988–
1991, p. 681–688.
Cavruc, Harding 2011 V. Cavruc, A.F. Harding, New Archaeological Researches concerning
Saltworking in Transylvania. Preliminary Report, in M. Alexiannu, O. Weller,
R.G. Curcă (Ed.), Archaeology and Anthropology of Salt: A Diachronic
Approach Proceedings of the International Colloquium, 1–5 October 2008
Al. I. Cuza University (Iaşi, Romania), Oxford, 2011, p. 111–122
Căstăian 1995 M. Căstăian, Cetatea medievală de la Cucuiş-„Colnic”, in BCSS 1, 1995,
p. 121–126.
Cetean, Peţan 2017 V. Cetean, A. Peţan, Investigaţii petrografice la cetatea dacică Piatra Roşie, in S.
Forţiu, A. Stăvilă, Arheovest V: in honorem Doina Benea. Interdisciplinaritate
în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 2017, p. 803–826.
Chintăuan, Rusu 1988 I. Chintăuan, I. Russu, Consideraţii cu privire la utilizarea sării şi apelor sărate
din nord-estul Transilvaniei, in FI 5, p. 238–277.
Chirilă, Matei 1986 E. Chirilă, A. V. Matei, Tezaurul dacic de la Cehei, in AMP 10, 1986, p. 93–118.
Chişu, Benea 2001 Ş. Chişu, D. Benea, Unelte descoperite în zona Munţilor Orăştiei, in V. Crişan,
G. Florea, G. Gheorghiu (Ed.), Studii de istorie antică. Omagiu profesorului
Ioan Glodariu, Cluj-Napoca, 2001, p. 143–150
Cholakov 2004 I.M. Cholakov, Chariot bronze from Thrace, in The Antique Bronzes: Typology,
Chronology, Authenticity, in C. Muşeţeanu (Ed.), The antique bronzes: typo-
logy, chronology, authenticity: the acta of the 16th International Congress
of Antique Bronzes, Bucharest, May 26th–31st, 2003, Bucureşti, 2004,
p. 105–118.
Christescu 1937 V. Christescu, Istoria militară a Daciei romane, Bucureşti, 1937.
Ciugudean 1978 H. Ciugudean, Noi descoperiri arheologice pe teritoriul judeţului Alba (I), in
Apulum 16, 1978, p. 39–53.
Ciugudean 1980 H. Ciugudean, Mormântul dacic de la Blandiana (jud. Alba), in AMN 17,
1980, p. 425–432.
Ciugudean 2000 H. Ciugudean, Ampoiţa, comuna Meteş, Judeţ Alba, in CCA campania 1999,
2000, p. 68–77.
Ciugudean 2001 H. Ciugudean, Ampoiţa comuna Meteş, Judeţ Alba, in CCA campania 2000,
2001.
Ciugudean 2015 H. Ciugudean, Depozitele de bronzuri de pe teritoriul judeţului Alba. Stadiul
actual al cercetărilor, in H. Ciugudean, G. Bălan (Ed.), Artizanii Epocii
Bronzului. Decoperiri recente de depozite de bronzuri în Transilvania, Alba
Iulia, 2015, p. 7–16.
Ciugudean, Ciugudean D. Ciugudean, H. Ciugudean, Un mormânt de războinic dac la Tărtăria (jud.
1993 Alba), in EN 3, 1993, p. 77–79.
Cociş 1983 S. Cociş, Ateliere de bronzieri în Dacia preromană (sec. II î.e.n. – sec. I e.n.),
in Sargetia 16–17, 1982–1983, p. 139–144.
Comşa 1979 M. Comşa, Cuptoare de ars oale din sec. I î. e. n.–IV e. n. în regiunile de la est
şi de la sud de Carpaţi, in MemAntiq 9–11, 1977–1979, p. 171–184.
 Bibliografy 237

Constantinescu et alii B. Constantinescu, D. Stan, M. Babeş, C.I. Nicolae, Analiza compoziţională

2014 a tezaurelor de argint geto-dacice de la Agighiol, Peretu, Craiova şi Poroina,
in S. Forţiu, M. Cântar (Ed.), Arheovest II: in honorem Gheorghe Lazarovici:
interdisciplinaritate în arheologie, Timişoara, 6 december 2014, Szeged, 2014,
p. 645–666.
Costea 1970 F. Costea, Aşezarea dacică de la Râşnov, in Cumidava 4, 1970, p. 17–48.
Costea 1981 F. Costea, Aşezarea dacică de la Copăcel, in AMP 5, 1981, p. 169–174.
Costea 1988 F. Costea, Aşezarea dacică de la Copăcel (com.Hîrsemni, jud. Braşov), in
AMN 24–25, p. 97–118.
Costea 2002 F. Costea, Dacii din sud-estul Transilvaniei înaintea şi în timpul stăpânirii
romane: contribuţii la etnogeneza şi continuitatea românilor, Braşov, 2002.
Crăciun 1998 G.M. Crăciun, Circulaţia monetară în judeţul Hunedoara în secolele II î.e.n. –
I e.n., in Corviniana 4, 1998, p. 62–79.
Crăciun 1999 G.M. Crăciun, Podoabe şi tezaure de argint geto-dacice din judeţul Hunedoara,
in Corviniana 5, 1999, p. 86–94.
Crăciun 2000 G.M. Crăciun, Ateliere de prelucrare a metalelor din epoca dacică (sec. II
î.Chr.-sec. I d.Chr.) descoperite în judeţul Hunedoara, in Corviniana 6, 2000,
p. 79–85.
Crăciun 2004 G. M. Crăciun, Urme ale prelucrării lemnului la geto-daci descoperite în jude-
ţul Hunedoara, in Corviniana 8, 2004, p. 127–131.
Crişan 1955 I. H. Crişan, Ceaşca dacică. Contribuţie la cunoaşterea culturii materiale şi a
istoriei dacilor, in SCŞCj 6, 1955, p. 127–157.
Crişan 1964 I.H. Crişan, Morminte inedite din sec. III î.e.n. în Transilvania, in AMN 1,
1964, p. 87–110.
Crişan 1965 I. H. Crişan, Un depozit de unelte descoperit în apropierea Sarmizegetusei, in
StComSB 12, 1965, p. 223–230.
Crişan 1969 I. H. Crişan, Ceramica daco-getică. Cu privire specială la Transilvania,
Bucureşti, 1969.
Crişan 1973 I.H. Crişan, Descoperiri celtice de la Cluj, Peţelca şi Șeica Mică, in AMN 10,
1973, p. 39–64,
Crişan 1977 I. H. Crişan, Locul complexului din Munţii Orăştiei în civilizaţia daco-getică,
in Sargetia 13, 1977, p. 149–153.
Crişan 1980 I. H. Crişan, Necropola dacică de la Cugir (jud. Alba). (Consideraţii prelimi-
nare), in Apulum 18, 1980, p. 81–87.
Crişan 1986 I. H. Crişan, Spiritualitatea geto-dacilor, Bucureşti, 1986.
Crişan 1995 V. Crişan, Aşezările dacice din estul Transilvaniei în contextul schimburilor
comerciale şi a circulaţiei monetare (sec. III a.Ch. – I p.Ch.), in AMN 32, 1995,
p. 359–382.
Crişan 2000 V. Crişan, Dacii din estul Transilvaniei, Sfântu Gheorghe, 2000.
Crişan, Medeleţ 1979 I. H. Crisan, F. Medelet, Raport preliminar asupra săpăturilor din 1978 la
cetatea dacica de la Cugir, in MCA 13,1979, p. 105–107.
Crişan, Moldovan 1975 I. H. Crişan, M. Moldovan, Influenţe greceşti în arhitectura sacră a geto-daci-
lor, in Tibiscus 4, 1975, p. 91–106.
Cucuiu 1929 V. Cucuiu, Alba Iulia. Din trecutul şi prezentul oraşului, Alba Iulia, 1929.
238 Cristian Dima

Daicoviciu 1940 C. Daicoviciu, Neue Mitteilungen aus Dazien, in Dacia, 7–8, 1937–1940,
p. 299–336.
Daicoviciu 1945 C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie dans l’ antiquité, Bucureşti, 1945.
Daicoviciu 1954 C. Daicoviciu, Cetatea dacică de la Piatra Roşie, Bucureşti, 1954.
Daicoviciu 1964 H. Daicoviciu, Addenda la „Aşezările dacice din Munţii Orăştiei”, in AMN 1,
1964, p. 111–125.
Daicoviciu 1965 H. Daicoviciu, Nouvelles donées concernant le sanctuaire-calendier dace, in
DaciaNS 9, 1965, p. 383–386
Daicoviciu 1968 H. Daicoviciu, Dacii şi civilizaţia lor în secolele I î.e.n.- I e.n., in AMN 5, 1968,
p. 51–58.
Daicoviciu 1971 H. Daicoviciu, Un sanctuar circular dacic la Feţele Albe, in Apulum 9, 1971,
p. 257–262
Daicoviciu 1972 H Daicoviciu, Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romană, Cluj-Napoca, 1972.
Daicoviciu 1979 H. Daicoviciu, Sistemul defensiv al cetăţii dacice de la Costeşti, in Sargetia 14,
1979, p. 103–114.
Daicoviciu 1980 H. Daicoviciu, Le sanctuaire A de Sarmizegetusa Regia, in AMN 17, 1980,
p. 65–80.
Daicoviciu et alii 1951 C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, P. Dukà, E. Chirilă, Ș. Ferenczi, V. Manoliu, I. Pop,
M. Rednic, M. Rusu, H. Teodoru, Şantierul Grădiştea de Munte, in SCIV 2,
1951, p. 95–126.
Daicoviciu et alii 1952 C. Daicoviciu, S. Ferenczi, A. Bodor, C.Ș. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, N. Gostar, D.
Radu, M. Detiu, P. Dukà, Şantierul Grădiştea de Munte, in SCIV 3, 1952,
p. 281–310.
Daicoviciu et alii 1953 C. Daicoviciu, Ș. Ferenczi, A. Bodor, C.Ș. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, N. Gostar, D.
Radu, M. Detiu, P. Dukà, Şantierul Grădiştea de Munte, in SCIV 4, 1953,
p. 153–219.
Daicoviciu et alii 1955 C. Daicoviciu, Ș. Ferenczi, A. Bodor, C.Ș. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, N. Gostar,
D. Radu, M. Detiu, P. Dukà, Şantierul archeologic Grădiştea de Munte –
Blidarul. Rezultatul săpăturilor din campania anului 1954, in SCIV 6, 1955,
p. 195–238.
Daicoviciu et alii 1959 C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, N. Gostar, I.H. Crişan, H. Daicoviciu, A. Bodor, Ș.
Ferenczi, G. Cazimir, P. Duka, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea de Munte, in
MCA 5, 1959, p. 379–402.
Daicoviciu et alii 1960 C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, Ș. Ferenczi, I. H. Crişan, N. Vlassa, H. Daicoviciu, G.
Cazimir, A. Palkó, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea de Munte, in MCA 7, 1960,
p. 301–320.
Daicoviciu et alii 1962 C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, Ș. Ferenczi, I. H. Crişan, N. Vlassa, H. Daicoviciu,
G. Cazimir, A. Palkó, Şantierul archeologic Grădiştea de Munte, in MCA 8,
1962, p. 463–476.
Daicoviciu et alii 1973 C. Daicoviciu, I.H. Crişan, Ș. Ferenczi, H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, V. Vasiliev,
Şantierul arheologic dacic din Munţii Orăştiei, jud. Hunedoara (1960–1966),
in MCA 10, 1973, p. 61–86.
Daicoviciu et alii 1979 H. Daicoviciu, I. Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, Cercetări în incinta
sacră a Sarmizegetusei, in MCA 13, 1979, p. 135–138.
 Bibliografy 239

Daicoviciu et alii 1983 H. Daicoviciu, Ş. Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, A. Rusu, I. Andriţoiu,

Cercetări arheologice la Sarmizegetusa Regia, in MCA 15, 1983, p. 232–234.
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951 C. Daicoviciu, A. Ferenczi, Aşezările dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Bucureşti,
1951.
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, H. Daicoviciu, Ş. Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, Cetăţi şi aşezări dacice în sud-vestul
Glodariu 1989 Transilvaniei, Bucureşti, 1989.
Daicoviciu, Glodariu H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, Consideraţii asupra cronologiei aşezării dacice de
1969 la Feţele Albe, in AMN 6, 1969, p. 465–474.
Daicoviciu, Glodariu H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, Puncte de reper pentru cronologia cetăţilor şi aşe-
1976 zărilor dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, in AMN 12, 1976, p. 71- 80.
Daicoviciu, Gostar, C. Daicoviciu, N. Gostar, I. H. Crişan, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea de
Crişan 1957 Munte-Blidaru, in MCA 3, 1957, p. 255–280.
Daicoviciu, Gostar, C. Daicoviciu, N. Gostar, H. Daicoviciu, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea de
Daicoviciu 1959 Munte Costeşti, in MCA 6, 1959, p. 331–358.
Damian et alii 2012 P. Damian, I. Bocan, E. Dumitraşcu, C. Neagu, E. M. Paraschiv-Grigore, D.
Vleja, I. Paraschiv-Grigore, Pricaz, com. Turdaş, jud. Hunedoara (Varianta
de ocolire Deva-Orăştie) Punct: Pricaz – Dig, km. 4+600 – 5+150, in CCA,
Campania 2011, 2012, 169.
Dasen 2012 V. Dasen, Cherchez l’enfant! La question de l’identité a partir du matériel funé-
raire, in Hermary A., Dubois C. (Ed.), L’enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité III.
Le matériel associé aux tombes d’enfants, Paris, p. 9–22.
David 1999 D. David, Locuri de cult în Dacia (sec. II a. Chr. – I p. Chr), in Carpica 28,
1999, p. 37–48.
Dănilă 1989 Ș. Dănilă, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Bistriţa-Năsăud, Bistriţa, 1989.
Debrot, Lambot, J. Debord, B. Lambot, O. Buchsenschutz, Les fossés couverts du site gaulois
Buchsenschutz 1988 tardif de Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (Aisne), in DossProt 2, 1988, p. 121–135.
Déchelete 1914 J. Déchelete, Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique Celtique et Gallo-Romaine,
Paris, 1914.
Del Socorro 2013 N. del Socorro, Miniature objects from the Archaic Tombs of Macedonia, in
Haemus 2, 2013, p. 53–60.
Dima 2005 C. Dima, Pinteni dacici din Epoca Regatului, in Sargeţia 33, 2005, p. 179–191.
Dima 2007 C. Dima, Unele aspect cu privire la terminologia celei de a doua vârste a fieru-
lui, in BCSS, 13, 2007, p. 121–127.
Dima 2017 C. Dima, Topography survey on field / Măsurători topografice pe teren, in C.
Dima (ed.), Teaching methods in archaeological field-schools, Cluj-Napoca,
2017, p. 185–203.
Dima 2019 C. Dima, Yoke fittings of pre-Roman Dacia, in AMN, 56, p. 21–35.
Dima 2020a C. Dima, La Tène wagon models: Where did they come from and where did
they go?, in AK, 50/1, 2020, p. 23–34.
Dima 2020b C. Dima, Ducks and Trucks. Tracking the origin of water-birds and chariots of
pre-roman Dacia, in JAHA, vol 7, No 1, p. 59–69.
Dima, Borangic 2018 C. Dima, C. Borangic, Wagon-Models from the Second Iron Age. Journey to
the Outer World or Gifts for the Gods?, in ArchBulg, 22, 2018 2, p. 15–32.
Doyen 1984 J. M. Doyen, Rouelles votives du La TèneIII a Liberchies, in Amphora 36,
p. 25–26.
240 Cristian Dima

Doyen 1985 J. M. Doyen, La villa gallo-romain de Treignes: campagnes 1984–1985, in

Amphora 42, p. 18–25.
Dragotă, Roman, Țiplic A. Dragotă, C. Roman, M. Ţiplic, Descoperiri arheologice înjudeţele Sibiu,
1999 Alba şi Hunedoara, in Apulum 36, 1999, p. 81–96.
Drăgănescu 2006 L. Drăgănescu, Sarea gemă din extra şi intracarpaticul României, in V. Cavruc,
A. Chiricescu (Ed.), Sarea, Timpul şi Omul, Sfântu Gheorghe, 2006, p. 13–16.
Dumitraşcu 1979 S. Dumitraşcu, Raport asupra săpăturilor arheologice din anul 1978 de la
Biharea, in MCA 13, 1979, p. 297–303.
Dumitraşcu, Mărghitan S. Dumitraşcu, L. Mărghitan, Aşezări şi descoperiri dacice din vestul şi nord-
1971 vestul României din sec. III î.e.n. – II e.n., in Sargetia 8, 1971, p. 45–55.
Dumitraşcu, Ordentlich S. Dumitraşcu, I. Ordentlich, Săpăturile arheologice de la Berindia, in Crisia
1973 3, 1973, p.47–95.
Dupoi, Sîrbu 2001 V. Dupoi, V. Sîrbu, Incinta dacică fortificată de la Pietroasele – „Gruiu Dării”,
jud. Buzău, Buzău, 2001.
Egri, Berecki 2015 M. Egri, S. Berecki, Italy, Macedonia and Dacia – networks of interaction
in the 2nd – 1st centuries BC, in M. Guštin, W. David (Ed.), The Clash of
Cultures? The Celts and the Macedonien World. Schriften des Kelten-Römer-
Museums Manching 9, Manching, 2015, p. 129–136.
Egri, Ferencz 2017 M. Egri, I.V. Ferencz, A Dionysian bronze relief from Piatra Roşie (Hunedoara
County Romania), in The 5th International Symposium on Archaeological
Small Finds and their Significance, 23–25 March, Deva, 2017 – in print.
Egri, Rustoiu 2008 M. Egri, A. Rustoiu, Imported lamps from pre-Roman Dacia, in C.A. Roman
N. Gudea (Ed.), Trade and local production of lamps from Prehistory until the
Middle Age, Lyhnological Acts 2, Cluj-Napoca, p. 79–86.
El Susi 1996a G. El Susi, Fauna din aşezarea dacică de la Sighişoara-Wietenberg, jud. Mureş,
in AMN 33/1, p. 511–524.
El Susi 1996b G. El Susi, Vânători, pescari şi crescători de animale în Banatul mileniilor VI
î. Chr. I d. Chr. Studii arheozoologice, Timişoara, 2000
El Susi 1999 G. El Susi, Archaeozoological Report on the Animal Bones at Porolissum-
Măgura Moigradului. A Dacian Settlement in NW of Transilvania, in TD 20,
p. 387–396.
El Susi 2000 G. El Susi, Studiu preliminar asupra resturilor de faună din aşezarea dacică de
la Şimleul Silvaniei- Cetate, judeţul Sălaj, in AMP 23/1, p. 299–315.
El Susi 2007a G. El Susi, The analysis of animal bones from Hunedoara-The Castle’s Garden/
Plateau – the Dacian era, in Sîrbu et alii, Vestigiile dacice de la Hunedora,
Alba Iulia, 2007, p. 107–116.
El Susi 2007b G. El Susi, The analysis of the faunal remains from Hunedoara-Sânpetru Hill
– the Dacian era, in Sîrbu et alii, Vestigiile dacice de la Hunedora, Alba Iulia,
2007, p. 117–128.
Eskenasy 1977 V.Eskenasy, Date preliminare despre necropola romană de la Streisîngeorgiu
(jud. Hunedoara), in SCIVA 28, 1977, p. 603–609.
Fabrega-Álvarez, P. Fabrega-Álvarez, C. Parcero-Oubiña, Proposals for an archaeological
Parcero-Oubiña 2007 analysis of pathways and movement, in ArchCal 18, 2007, p. 121–140.
 Bibliografy 241

Ferencz 2001 I.V. Ferencz, Câteva unelte agricole descoperite în zona Grădiştii Muncelului,
in V. Crişan, G. Florea, G. Gheorghiu (Ed.), Studii de istorie antică. Omagiu
profesorului Ioan Glodariu, Cluj-Napoca, 2001, p. 151–158.
Ferencz 2007 I.V. Ferencz, Celţii pe cursul Mijlociu al Mureşului: La Tène –ul timpuriu şi
mijlociu în bazinul mijlociu al Mureşului (sec. IV-II î. Chr.), Sibiu, 2007.
Ferencz 2010 I.V. Ferencz, Obiecte de os şi corn descoperite la Ardeu (jud. Hunedoara), in I.
Glodariu, G. Gheorghiu (Ed.), Studii de Istorie şi Arheologie. Omagiu cercetă-
torului dr. Eugen Iaroslavschi, Cluj-Napoca, p. 79–90.
Ferencz 2012 I. V. Ferencz, Ardeu – Cetăţuie. Ten years later, in Sargetia S.N. 3, 2012,
p. 119–130.
Ferencz 2013 I.V. Ferencz, O unealtă din fier descoperită la Ardeu, jud. Hunedoara, in AMP
35, p. 137–143.
Ferencz 2015 I. V. Ferencz, Noi artefacte din fier descoperite în Dobrogea, in S. Forţiu, A.
Stavilă (Ed.), In memoriam Florin Medeleţ: interdisciplinaritate în arheologie
şi istorie, Timişoara, 28 november 2015, Szeged, 2015, p. 431–440.
Ferencz et alii 2002 I.V. Ferencz, A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, M. Căstăian, Ardeu, com. Balşa, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie (Cetăţeauă), in CCA – campania 2001, 2002,
p. 23.
Ferencz et alii 2003 IV. Ferencz, M. Căstăian, C. Bodó, A. Ştefan, R. Stăncescu, C.I. Popa, Ardeu,
com. Balşa, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie (Cetăţeaua), in CCA – campania
2002, 2003, p. 40–42.
Ferencz et alii 2004 I.V. Ferencz, M. Căstăian, C. Bodó, A. Ştefan, R. Stăncescu, C.I. Popa, Ardeu,
com. Balşa, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie (Cetăţeauă), in CCA – campania
2003, 2004, p. 43–45.
Ferencz et alii 2010 I.V. Ferencz, M. C. Căstăian, C. Dima, C. I. Popa, C. C. Roman, Ardeu, com.
Balşa, jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Cetăţuie, in CCA, Campania 2009, 2010,
p. 28–30.
Ferencz et alii 2011 I. V. Ferencz, M. C. Căstăian, C. Dima, C. I. Popa, C. C. Roman, Ardeu, Com.
Balşa, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie, in CCA, Campania 2010, 2011,
p. 17–18.
Ferencz et alii 2014 I. V. Ferencz, M.C. Căstăian, C.Dima, C.I. Popa, Ardeu, com. Balşa, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie, in CCA. Campania 2013, 2014, p. 18.
Ferencz, Beldiman 2012 I.V. Ferencz, C. Beldiman, Aşezarea dacică de la Sighişoara-„Wietenberg”.
Artefacte din materii dure animale, in I.V. Ferencz, C. Beldiman (Ed.), Artă
şi meşteşug în epoca Regatului Dac. Artefacte de os şi corn. Catalog, Cluj-
Napoca, 2012, p. 58–59.
Ferencz, Bodó 2000 I.V. Ferencz, C. Bodó, Noi piese descoperite la Piatra Roşie (Judeţul Hunedoara),
in Sargetia 28/29, 2000, p. 169–181.
Ferencz, Bodó, Bălos IV. Ferencz, C. Bodó, A. Bălos, Arme provenind de la Ursici, com. Boşorod,
2016 jud. Hunedoara, in AMP 38, 2016, p. 223–242.
Ferencz, Căstăian, Bodó I.V. Ferencz, M. Căstăian, C. Bodó, Ardeu, com. Balşa, jud. Hunedoara.
2005 Punct: Cetăţuie (Cetăţeauă), in CCA – campania 2004 (2005), p. 56–57.
Ferencz, Dima 2009 I.V. Ferencz, C. Dima, Piese de armament dacice descoperite la Ardeu (jud.
Hunedoara), in StUBB 54.1/2, p. 18–34.
242 Cristian Dima

Ferencz, Hegyi 2014 I.V. Ferencz, A. Hegyi, A few aspects of the ancient habitat at Ardeu from the
perspective of modern research methods, in Sargetia SN 5, 2014, p. 13–26.
Ferenczi 1924 A. Ferenczi, Les fouilles archéologiques de Poiana Selei, près de Sarmizegetusa,
in Dacia 1 (1924), p. 264–272
Ferenczi 1976 I. Ferenczi, Amplasarea cetăţilor dacice din Munţii Sebeşului (consideraţii geo-
morfologice şi topografice), in Apulum 14, 1976, p. 45–64.
Ferenczi 1977a I. Ferenczi, Observaţii geomorfologice privind apărarea naturală a complexu-
lui cetăţilor dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, in Sargetia 13, 1977, p. 155–170.
Ferenczi 1977b I. Ferenczi, Problema aşezărilor civile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei din punct de
vedere geografic, in AMN 14, 1977, p. 73–80.
Ferenczi 1977c I. Ferenczi, Premisele naturale ale metalurgiei fierului în Munţii Orăştiei, in
StComCar 2, 1977, p. 299–308.
Ferenczi 1978 I. Ferenczi, Consideraţii de ordin geomorfologic şi topografic cu privire la
desfăşurarea campaniilor împăratului Traian pentru cucerirea complexului de
cetăţi dacice din Munţii Sebeşului (I), in Apulum 16, 1978, p. 119–134.
Ferenczi 1979a I. Ferenczi, Câteva consideraţii în legătură cu materialul de construcţie litic
folosit în cetăţile dacice din Munţii Sebeşului, in StComCar 3, 1979, p. 263–271.
Ferenczi 1979b I. Ferenczi, Castrele de marş de la Ponorici (com. Pui, jud. Hunedoara).
Fortificaţii romane până acum necunoscute în partea vestică a Munţilor
Sebeşului, in StComEI 3, 1979, p. 133–152.
Ferenczi 1979c I. Ferenczi, Importanta unor metale neferoase şi a unor minerale în procesul
de formare a puterii dacice în Munţii Orăştiei, in Sargetia 14, 1979, p. 93–101.
Ferenczi 1983 I. Ferenczi, Observaţii tipologice şi comparative cu privire la castrele de marş
romane situate în zona cetăţilor dacice din Munţii Şurianului, in Sargetia
16–17, 1982–1983, p. 179–200
Feugère 1990 M. Feugère, Les petits objets de l’îlot 3, in Lattara 3, 1990, p. 191–203.
Filipescu 1985 B. Filipescu, Notă asupra unor descoperiri arheologice efectuate în peşteri de
pe teritoriul comunei Pui, judeţul Hunedoara, in BSI 9.1, 1985, p. 43–46.
Finály 1916 G. Finály, A gredistyei dák várak, in ArchÉrt 36, 1916, p. 11–43.
Fischer 1959 F. Fischer, Der spätlatènezeitliche Depot-Fund von Kappel (Kreis Saulgau),
Stuttgart, 1959.
Fischer, Rieckhoff-Pauli, T. Fischer, S. Rieckhoff-Pauli, K. Spindler, Grabungen in der spätkeltischen
Spindler 1984 Siedllung im Sulztal bei Berching-Pollanten, Landkreis Neumarkt, Oberpfalz,
in Germania 62, 1984, p. 311–363.
Floca 1947 O. Floca, Monnaies „dacique” du type Hunedoara, in Dacia 11–12, 1945–
1947, p. 35–69.
Floca 1956 O. Floca, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea tezaurelor de argint dacice. Tezaurul de la
Sărăscău şi Șeica Mică, Bucureşti, 1956.
Floca 1958 O. Floca, Tezaurul monetar de la Cugir (reg. Hunedoara), in SCN 2, 1958,
p. 95–107.
Floca 1969 O. Floca, Ghid turistic al judeţului, Deva, 1969.
Floca 1971 O. Floca, Cuptor dacic de ars vase descoperit la Deva, in Apulum 9, 1971,
p. 263–269.
Floca 1972 O. Floca, Activitatea de cercetare istorică a Muzeului judeţean Hunedoara din
Deva (1932–1972), in Sargetia 9, 1972, p. 11–28.
 Bibliografy 243

Floca 1977 O. Floca, Singidava, in Sargetia 13, 1977, p. 168–182.

Floca 1981 O. Floca, Scurtă privire asupra statului dac de la Burebista la Decebal reflectat
în cercetarea arheologică hunedoreană, in Sargetia 15, 1981, p. 11–18.
Floca, Valea 1965 O. Floca, Villa rustica şi necropola de la Cinciş, in AMN 2, 1965, p. 163–193.
Florea 1986 G. Florea, Descoperirile de epocă dacică din judeţul Cluj, in AMN 22–23,
1985–1986, p. 755–764.
Florea 1987 G. Florea, Consideraţii privind unele aspecte ale locuirii dacice în Munţii
Orăştiei, in Sargetia 20, 1986–1987, p. 81–92.
Florea 1993a G. Florea, Archaeological observations concerning the Roman conquest of the
area of the Dacian Kingdom’s capital, in AMN 26–30, 1989–1993, p. 33–38.
Florea 1993b G. Florea, Materiale ceramice descoperite pe terasa a VIII-a de la Grădiştea de
Munte (I), in EN 3, 1993, p. 95–109.
Florea 1998 G. Florea, Ceramica pictată. Artă, meşteşug şi societate în Dacia preromană
(sec. I.a.Chr.-I. p.Chr.), Cluj-Napoca, 1998.
Florea 2005 G. Florea, Comerţ şi societate la începuturile celei de-a doua epoci a fierului
din Dacia, in C. Cosma, A. Rustoiu (Ed.), Comerţ şi civilizaţie. Transilvania
în contextul schimburilor comerciale şi culturale în antichitate, Cluj-Napoca,
2005, p. 45–51.
Florea 2006 G. Florea, Dava et oppidum. Débuts de la genèse urbaine en Europe à la fin du
deuxième âge du Fer, Cluj-Napoca, 2011.
Florea 2015 G. Florea, Protome de păsări acvatice, in Mateescu R., Gheorgiu G. (Coord),
Sarmizegetusa Regia. Cromatică şi decor în antichitatea dacică. Catalog de
expoziţie, Cluj-Napoca, p. 18–20.
Florea, Cristescu 2016 G. Florea, C. Cristescu, Art, identity and imaginary, in C. Neamţu, G. Florea,
G. Gheorghiu, C. Bodó (Coord.), Când viaţa cotidiană antică devine patri-
moniu UNESCO – Incursiuni dacice în spaţiul virtual, Cluj-Napoca, 2016,
p. 141–163.
Florea, Ferencz 2007 G. Florea, I.V. Ferencz, Un nouveau „bouclier” de la fin du deuxième âge du
fer, décuverte à Piatra Roşie, in AMN 41–42/1, p. 47–54.
Florea, Suciu 2004 G. Florea, L.D. Suciu, Consideraţii preliminare privind cercetările arheologice
de pe platoul cetăţii Grădiştea de Munte, in A. Rusu-Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz
(Ed.), Daco – Geţii. 80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile
dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 63–74.
Florea, Vaida, Suciu 2000 G. Florea, L. Vaida, L. Suciu, Fortificaţiile dacice din nord-estul Transilvaniei
(un stadiu al cercetărilor), in Istros 10, 2000, p. 221–231.
Fodor 1844 A. Fodor, Romai régiségek Hunyad vármegyében, Hon és Külföld, 1844,
p. 300–347.
Fodorean 2006 F. Fodorean, Drumurile din Dacia Romană, Cluj-Napoca, 2006.
Franken 1996 N. Franken, Candelabrum Corinthium, in BJb 196, 1996, p. 276–311.
Gaudefroy, Pinard 1997 S. Gaudefroy, E. Pinard, Les incinérations gauloises de Canly „Les Trois
Noyers” (Oise), in RAPic 1–2, 1997, p. 89–105.
244 Cristian Dima

Gheorghiu 2000 G. Gabriela, Influences celtiques dans la céramique dacique découverte dans
la zone des Monts D’Orăştie . Le vase de type situla, in C. Gaiu, A. Rustoiu
(Ed.), Les celtes et les thraco-daces de l’est du Bassin des Carpates: les actes du
colloque national qui a eu lieu a Bistrița le 16–17 octobre 1998, Cluj-Napoca,
2000, p. 214–225.
Gheorghiu 2004a G. Gheorghiu, One toreus tool found within the Dacian fortress at Costeşti-
Cetăţuie (Hunedoara county), in L.C. Ruscu, R. Ardevan, C. Ciongradi (Ed.),
Orbis Antiquus. Studia in Honorem Ioannis Pisonis, Cluj-Napoca, 2004,
p. 531–537.
Gheorghiu 2004b G. Gheorghiu, New weights discovered in the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia,
in A. Rusu-Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz (Coord.), Daco – Geţii. 80 de ani de cerce-
tări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004,
p. 75–78.
Gheorghiu 2005 G. Gheorghiu, Dacii pe cursul mijlociu al Mureşului, Cluj-Napoca, 2005.
Gheorghiu et alii 1999 G. Gheorghiu, I. Glodariu, V. Moga, L. Suciu, C. Bodó, Lupu – Cimitirul nou,
com. Cergău, jud. Alba, in CCA campania 1998, 1999, 78.
Ginoux, Leman-Delerive, M. Ginoux, G. Leman-Delerive, C. Severin, Le dépôt de pièces de char dans
Severin 2009 les tombes de Gaule Belgique entre le IIIe et le Ier siècle avant J.-C., in RAPic
3/4, 2009, p. 211–222.
Ginzrot 1917 J.C. Ginzrot, Die Wagen und Fahrwerke der Griechen und Römer und anderer
alten Völker, München, 1817.
Glodariu 1968 I. Glodariu, Importuri romane în cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, in
Apulum 7, 1968, p. 353–368.
Glodariu 1971 I. Glodariu, Consideraţii asupra circulaţiei monedei străine în Dacia (secolele
III î.e.n. – I e.n.), in AMN 8, 1971, p. 71–90.
Glodariu 1974a I. Glodariu, Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană, Cluj-
Napoca, 1974.
Glodariu 1974b I. Glodariu, Itinerarii posibile ale cavaleriei maure în războaiele dacice, in
H. Daicoviciu (Coord.) In memoriam Constantini Daicoviciu, Cluj, 1974,
p. 151–164.
Glodariu 1975a I. Glodariu Ioan, Comerţul roman şi cucerirea Daciei, in Sargetia 11–12,
1974–1975, p. 237–248.
Glodariu 1975b I. Glodariu, Un atelier de făurărie la Sarmizegetusa Dacică, in AMN, 12,
1975, p. 107–134.
Glodariu 1982 I. Glodariu, Sistemul defensiv al statului dac şi întinderea provinciei Dacia, in
AMN 19, 1982, p. 23–38.
Glodariu 1983 I. Glodariu, Arhitectura dacilor – civilă şi militară – (sec. II î.e.n.-I e.n.), Cluj-
Napoca, 1983.
Glodariu 1984 I. Glodariu, „Brăţările” cu nodozităţi Latène târzii în Dacia, in AMN 21,
1984, p. 63–80.
Glodariu 1986 I. Glodariu, Cariere şi exploatarea pietrei în Dacia preromană, in AMN,
22–23, 1985–1986, p. 91–100.
Glodariu 1995 I. Glodariu, Addenda aux „Points de repère pour la chronologie des citadel-
les et des établissements daciques des Monts d’Orăştie”, in AMN 32, 1995,
p. 119–134.
 Bibliografy 245

Glodariu 1997 I. Glodariu, Blocuri cu marcaje în construcţiile dacice din Munţii Şureanu, in
EN 7, 1997, p. 85–88.
Glodariu 2006 I. Glodariu, Un neobişnuit cuptor de ars ceramică, in C. Gaiu, C. Găzdac
(Ed.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in Honorem Demetrii Protase, 2006, Bistriţa,
p. 251–256.
Glodariu et alii 1979 I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, T. Nägler, M. Rill, Raport asupra cercetărilor
arheologice întreprinse în 1978 la Șura Mică, jud. Sibiu, in MCA 13, 1979,
p. 149–154.
Glodariu et alii 1994 I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Florea, G. Gheorghiu, Sarmizegetusa Regia,
jud. Hunedoara, in CCA campania 1993, 1994, p. 55–56.
Glodariu et alii 1996a I. Glodariu, G. Florea, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, Sarmizegetusa Regia
(Grădiştea de Munte), jud. Hunedoara, in CCA campania 1995, 1996,
p. 53–54.
Glodariu et alii 1996b I. Glodariu, A. Rusu-Pescaru, E. Iaroslavschi, F. Stănescu, Sarmizegetusa
Regia. Capitala Daciei preromane, Deva, 1996.
Glodariu et alii 1998a I. Glodariu, G. Florea, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, D. Sima, Grădiştea de
Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara – Punct „Cetăţuie”, in CCA
campania 1997, 1998, 78, p. 50.
Glodariu et alii 1998b I. Glodariu, G. Florea, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, D. Sima, Sarmizegetusa
Regia (Grădiştea de Munte), jud. Hunedoara, in CCA campania 1997, 1998,
p. 65–66.
Glodariu et alii 1999 I. Glodariu, G. Florea, D.L. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru,
Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara – Punct
„Cetăţuie”, în CCA campania 1998, 1999, 123, p. 65–66.
Glodariu et alii 2000a I. Glodariu, G. Florea, D.L. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru,
C. Bodó, Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara – Punct
Dealul Grădişte, in CCA, campania 1999, 2000, 60.
Glodariu et alii 2000b I. Glodariu, G. Florea, L.D. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G.Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru,
C. Bodó, Costeşti, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţuie,
in CCA campania 1999, 2000, p. 31.
Glodariu et alii 2001 I. Glodari, G. Florea, L.D. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru,
C. Bodó, Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara
Sarmizegetusa Regia), in CCA Campania 2000, 2001, p. 94–95.
Glodariu et alii 2002 I. Glodariu, L.D. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru, C. Bodó,
Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara (Sarmizegetusa
Regia), in CCA campania 2001, 2002, p. 149–150.
Glodariu et alii 2004a I. Glodariu, A. Pescaru, E. Pescaru, C. Bodó, Costeşti,com. Orăştioara de Sus,
jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Blidaru – Cetate, La Vămi, in CCA campania 2003,
2004, p. 103–104.
Glodariu et alii 2004b I. Glodariu, G. Florea, L.D. Suciu, D. Sima, R. Mateescu, C. Toma, P. Pupeză,
D. Cioată, M. Sacalâş, G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, G. Trohani, R.
Oanţă-Marghitu, S. Oanţă-Marghitu, Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara
de Sus, jud. Hunedoara (Sarmizegetusa Regia), in CCA campania 2003, 2004,
p. 130–131.
246 Cristian Dima

Glodariu et alii 2005 I. Glodariu, G. Florea, L.D. Suciu, D. Sima, R. Mateescu, C. Toma, E.
Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu, C. Bodó, Grădiştea de Munte, com. Orăştioara de
Sus, jud. Hunedoara (Sarmizegetusa Regia). Punct: Dealul Grădiştii, in CCA
campania 2004, 2005, p. 166–167.
Glodariu, Câmpeanu I. Glodariu, M. Câmpeanu, Depozitul de unelte agricole de la Dedrag, in SCIV
1966 17, 1966, p. 19–31.
Glodariu, Costea 1983 I. Glodariu, F. Costea, Aşezarea dacică de la Șercaia (jud. Braşov), in
Cumidava 13/2, 1983, p. 9–43.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, Civilizaţia fierului la daci (sec. II î.e.n. – I e.n.),
1979 Cluj-Napoca, 1979.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, A. Rusu, Cetăţi şi aşezări dacice în Munţii
Rusu 1988 Orăştiei. Bucureşti, 1988.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, A. Rusu, Die Münzstätte von Sarmizegetusa
Rusu 1992 Regia, in EN 2, 1992, p. 57–68.
Glodariu, Moga 1989 I. Glodariu, V. Moga, Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna, Bucureşti, 1989.
Glodariu, Moga 1994 I. Glodariu, V. Moga, Tezaurul dacic de la Lupu, in EN 4, 1994, p. 33–48.
Goetze 1900 A. Goetze, Depotfund von Eisengeräten aus frührömischer Zeit von Körner
(Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha), in ZeitEth 32, 1900, p. 202–214.
Gramatopol 1982 M. Gramatopol, Dacia antiqua. Perspective de istoria artei şi teoria culturii,
Bucureşti, 1982.
Guadagnin 1983 R. Guadagnin, L’aedificium du «Bois Bouchard». [Etude d’une exploitation
agricole gauloise découverte au Mesnil-Aubry (Val d’Oise)], in RAPic 1–2,
1983, p. 195–209.
Güimil-Fariña, Parcero- A. Güimil-Fariña, C. Parcero-Oubiña, “Dotting the joins”: a non-reconstruc-
Oubiña 2015 tive use of Least Cost Paths to approach ancient roads. The case of the Roman
roads in the NW Iberian Peninsula, in JArchS, 54/34 2015, p. 31–44.
Guštin 1984 M. Guštin, Prazgodovinski grobovi z vozovi na ozemlju Jugoslavije, in M.
Guštin, M. Pauli (Ed.), Keltske Voz. Posavski Muz. Brežice 6,1984, p. 111–132
Haimovici 1987 S. Haimovici, Creşterea animalelor la geto-dacii (sec. IV î.e.n – sec. I e.n.) din
Moldova şi Muntenia, in TD 8, 1987, p. 144–153.
Hampel 1897 J. Hampel, A Nemzeti Muzeum Régiségosztályának, in AÉ, 17, 1897,
p. 277–279.
Hanemann 2014 B. Hanemann, Die Eisenhortfunde der Pfalz aus dem 4. Jahrhundert nach
Christus, Speyer, 2014. .
Hanson, Oltean 2000 W. Hanson, I. Oltean, A Multi-Period Site on Uroi Hill, Hunedoara: an Aerial
Perspective, in AMN 36/1, 2000, p. 43–49.
Harţuche 1967 N. Harţuche, Un car de luptă descoperit în regiunea Dobrogea, in Apulum 6,
1967, p. 231–258.
Herepei 1901 K. Herepey, Alsófehér vármegye Öskora, Aiud, 1901.
Herepei, Cserni 1901 K. Herepei, B. Cserni, Alsófehérvármegye monográphiája, vol. II. Partea 1:
Alsófehérvármegye torténelme, Aiud. 1901.
Herzog 2010 I. Herzog, Theory and Practice of Cost Functions, in F. Contreras, M. Farjas,
F.J. Melero (Ed.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Oxford, 2010,
p. 375–382.
 Bibliografy 247

Herzog 2013 I. Herzog, The Potential and Limits of Optimal Path Analysis, in A. Bevan,
M. Lake (Ed.), Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces, London,
New York, 2013, p. 179–211.
Herzog 2014 I. Herzog, A review of case studies in archaeological least-cost analysis, in
ArchCal 25, 2014, p. 223–239.
Horedt 1966 K. Horedt, Die Ansiedlung von Blandiana, Rayon Orăştie, am Ausgang des
ersten Jahrtausends u.Z, in Dacia 10, 1966, p. 261–289.
Horedt 1967 K. Horedt, Unele probleme privind răspîndirea culturii Sîntana de Mureş –
Cerneahov în România, in SCIV 18, 1967, p. 575–592.
Horedt, Seraphin 1971 K. Horedt, C. Seraphin, Die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Wietenberg
bei Sighişoara-Schässburg, 1971, Bonn.
Hrişcu, Bejenaru, C. Hrişcu, L. Bejenaru, M. Udrescu, Mircea, Aşezarea getică de la Grădiştea
Udrescu 1997 (jud. Brăila). Studiu arhezoologic, in Istros 8, 1997, p.97–105.
Iambor 1982 P. Iambor, Drumuri şi vămi ale sării din Transilvania în perioada Feudalismului
Timpuriu, in AMN 19, 1982, p. 75–85.
Iaroslavschi 1981 E. Iaroslavschi, Au prelucrat dacii sticla?, in H. Daicoviciu (Ed..), Studii
dacice, Cluj-Napoca, 1981, p. 166–173.
Iaroslavschi 1983 E. Iaroslavschi, Inventarul sanctuarului A de la Sarmizegetusa Regia, in AMN
20, 1983, p. 371–382.
Iaroslavschi 1986 E. Iaroslavschi, Inventarul sanctuarului mic rotund de la Sarmizegetusa Regia,
in AMN 22–23, 1985–1986, p. 453–458.
Iaroslavschi 1997a E. Iaroslavschi, Tehnica la daci, Cluj-Napoca, 1997.
Iaroslavschi 1997b E. Iaroslavschi, Vases daciques en fer aux anses en forme d’oiseaux, in AMN
34.1, 1997, p. 511–519.
Iaroslavschi 2004 E. Iaroslavschi, Zona siderurgică din preajma capitalei statului dac, in A.
Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz (ed.), Daco-Geţii. 80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sis-
tematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 55–62.
Iaroslavschi 2005 E. Iaroslavschi, Siderurgie dacică în Carpaţii Orientali, in Angustia 9, 2005,
p. 155–158.
Iaroslavschi, Bozu 2001 E. Iaroslavschi, O. Bozu, Descoperiri dacice la Grădiştea de Munte-„Râpa cu
Galbeni”, in G. Florea, D.L. Suciu (Coord.), Studii de istorie antică. Omagiu
profesorului Ioan Glodariu, Cluj-Napoca, 2001, p. 127–142.
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu E. Iaroslavschi, R. Mateescu, Dacian iron blooms discoverd in the area of
2011 Sarmizegetusa Regia, in AMN, 45–46, I, 2008–2009 (2011), p. 99–134
Iaroslavschi, Mateescu E. Iaroslavschi, R. Mateescu, Meşteşuguri, in C. Neamţu, G. Florea, G.
2016 Gheorghiu, C. Bodó (Coord.), Când viaţa cotidiană antică devine patrimoniu
UNESCO – Incursiuni dacice în spaţiul virtual, Cluj-Napoca, 2016, p. 63–88.
Ignatov 2018 V. Ignatov, Funeral complexes with carts in the Roman province of Thrace (mid
1st – 3rd c.), Sofia, 2018
Iliescu 1958 O. Iliescu, Descoperiri monetare în Transilvania, in SCN 2, 1958, p. 459–460.
Ioan 2007 R.V. Ioan, A doua epistolă către hunedoreni: o mică parte din istoria hunedo-
renilor, Reşiţa, 2007.
Jacobi 1974 G. Jacobi, Werkzeug und gerät aus dem oppidum von Manching, Die
Ausgrabungen in Manching, Bd.5, Wiesbaden, 1974,
248 Cristian Dima

Jakó 1966 Sz. Jakó, Cercetări arheologice la cetatea Grădiştea de Munte, în anii 1803–
1804, in AMN 3, 1966, p. 103–120.
Jakó 1968 Sz. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la Grădiştea de Munte în
anul 1803 (I), in AMN 5, 1968, p. 433–444.
Jakó 1971 Sz. Jakó, Cercetări arheologice la cetatea Grădiştea de Munte, în anii 1803–
1804 (II), in AMN 8, 1971, p. 439–456.
Jakó 1973 Sz. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la Grădiştea de Munte în
anul 1803–1804 (IV), in AMN 10, 1973, p. 615–640.
János, Kovács 1967 P. János, D. Kovács, Periegheză arheologică în Bazinul Ciucului, in SM 2,
1967, p. 43–52.
Kavruk et alii 2017 V. Kavruk, M. Ștefan, D. Buzea, D. Ștefan, L. Bordi, O analiza arheologică şi
etnografică a rutelor de aprovizionare cu sare, in Istors 23, 2017, p. 381–430.
Kiernan 2009 P. Kernan, Miniature votive offerings in the Roman North-West, Mainz, 2009.
Kiss 1989 A. Kiss, Das Römerzeitliche wagengrab von Kozármisleny (Ungarn, Kom.
Baranya), Budapesta, 1989.
Kramer 1994 L. Kramer, Latènefunde der Steiermark, Marburg 1994.
Kuun, Torma, Téglás G. Kuun, Zs. Torma, G. Téglás, Hunyadvármegye Földjének Története,
1902 Budapest, 1902.
Lambot 1989 B. Lambot, Le sanctuaire gaulois et gallo-romain de Nanteuil-sur-Aisne, lieu-
dit « Népellier » (Ardennes), in BSAChamp 82. 4, 1989, p. 33–44.
Langouet, Bucur 1989 L. Langouet, I. Bucur, Un village coriosolite sur l’île des Ebihens: (Saint-Jacut-
de-la-Mer), Saint Malo, 1989.
Laurence 1999 R. Laurence, The roads of Roman Italy. Mobility and cultural change., Londra,
1999.
Lazăr 1979 M. D. Lazăr, Un nou cuptor dacic pentru ars ceramică descoperit la Deva, in
Sargeţia 14, 1979, p. 637–642.
Lăscoiu 2014 M.E. Lăscoiu, Posibilitatea existenţei unei cariere de piatră în zona cetăţii
dacice de la Costeşti-Cetăţuia, in S. Forţiu, M. Cântar (Ed.), Arheovest II: in
honorem Gheorghe Lazarovici: interdisciplinaritate în arheologie, Timişoara,
6 december 2014, Szeget, 2014, p. 715–723.
Le Goff, Schmitt 2002 J. Le Goff, J.C. Schmitt, Dictionar tematic al evului mediu occidental, Bucureşti
2002.
Lewis 2005 A. Lewis, Iron age and roman-era vehicle terrets from Western and Central
Britain: an interpretive study, University of Leicester (PhD Thesis), Leicester,
2005.
Lipovan 1994 I. T. Lipovan, Două arme antice în zona arheologică Ampelum, in AMN 31/I,
1994, p. 203–204.
Llobera, Sluckin 2007 M. Llobera, T.J. Sluckin, Zigzagging: theoretical insights on climbing strategies,
in JtheorBiol 249, 2007, p. 206–217.
Luca et alii 2001 S.A. Luca, S. Purece, N. Cerişer, C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, C. Suciu, Munţii
Poiana Ruscă, jud. Hunedoara, in CCA –campania 2000, 2001, p. 153–154.
Luca et alii 2003 S.A. Luca, V. Sîrbu, C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, N. Cerişer, S. Purece,
Hunedoara, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Grădina Castelului, in CCA campania
2002, 2003, p. 143–144.
 Bibliografy 249

Luca et alii 2005 S.A. Luca, C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, C. Suciu, Repertoriul arheologic al jude-
ţului Hunedoara, ed. A I-a, Sibiu, 2005.
Luca et alii 2008 S.A. Luca, C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, C. Suciu, Repertoriul arheologic al jude-
ţului Hunedoara, ed. A II-a, Sibiu, 2008.
Luca et alii 2012 S.A. Luca, F. Dumitrescu-Chioar, Gh.V. Natea, F.M. Niţu, M.R. Teodorescu,
V. Palaghie, A. Tudorie, C. Beldiman, M.C. Căstăian, V. C. Sava, C.I. Suciu,
S. Tincu, Turdaş, com. Turdaş, jud. Hunedoara (Varianta de ocolire Deva-
Orăştie) Punct: Luncă, km. 11+060 – 12+450, in CCA Campania 2011, 2012.
Luca et alii 2013 S.A. Luca, A. Georgescu, G.V. Natea, R.M. Teodorescu, C. Urduzia, C.I.
Munteanu, V. Palaghie, A. Luca, Cercetarea preventivă. Provocarea arheolo-
gică a zilelor noastre, Sibiu, 2013.
Luca, Gudea 2010 S.A. Luca, N. Gudea, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Sălaj, Sibiu, 2010.
Luca, Roman, Băicoană S.A. Luca, C. Roman, M. Băicoană, Materiale arheologice din peşteri ale jude-
1997 ţului Hunedoara (I), in Corviniana 3, 1997, p. 17–32.
Luca, Roman, S.A. Luca, C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce,
Diaconescu 2004 Sibiu, 2004.
Lupu 1989 N. Lupu, Tilişca. Aşezările arheologice de pe Căţănaş, Bucureşti, 1989.
Macrea 1941 M. Macrea, Urme romane în regiunea cetăţilor dace din munţii Hunedoarei,
in Sargetia 2, 1941, p. 127–150.
Macrea 1957 M. Macrea, Şantierul arheologic Caşolţ – Arpaşu de Sus, in Materiale 4, 1957,
p. 119–155.
Macrea et alii 1966 M. Macrea, O. Floca, N. Lupu, I. Berciu, Cetăţi dacice din sudul Transilvaniei,
Bucureşti, 1966.
Macrea, Berciu 1942 M. Macrea, I. Berciu, Două tezaure de monete republicane romane din Dacia
Superioară, in Apulum, 1, 1939–1942, p. 110–202.
Macrea, Crişan 1964 M. Macrea, I.H. Crişan, Două decenii de cercetări arheologice şi studii de isto-
rie veche la Cluj (1944–1984), in AMN 1, 1964, p. 307–366.
Mateescu, Gheorghiu R. Mateescu, G. Gheorghiu, Piese de car de la Grădiştea de Munte-
2018 Sarmizegetusa. Cronologie şi context, in Sesiunea anuală de comunicări ştiin-
ţifice, 14–15 june 2018 (in print).
Mateescu-Suciu, S. Mateescu-Suciu, G. Gheorghiu, C. Găzdac, Schimburile comerciale, in C.
Gheorghiu, Găzdac 2016 Neamţu, G. Florea, G. Gheorghiu, C. Bodó (Coord.), Când viaţa cotidiană
antică devine patrimoniu UNESCO – Incursiuni dacice în spaţiul virtual,
Cluj-Napoca, 2016, p. 99–128.
Marcu, Szabó 2020 F. Marcu, M. Szabó, New data on the Roman temporary camps in Șureanu
Mountains, in AMN, 57/1, 2020, p. 63–88.
Matei 1979 A.V. Matei, Repertoriul de aşezări şi descoperiri dacice pe teritoriul
judeţului Sălaj, in AMP 3, 1979, p. 11–40.
Matei 2007 S. Matei, The morphology and typology of kilns for firing ceramic in the Geto-
Dacian classical period (2nd century BC–1st century AD), in Istros 14, 2007,
p. 279–296.
Matei, Pop 2001 A. Matei, H. Pop, Măgura Moigradului – Zona sacră (sec. I î.Chr.) şi aşe-
zare dacică fortificată (sec. I d.Chr.), in G. Florea, D.L. Suciu (Coord.), Studii
de istorie antică. Omagiu profesorului Ioan Glodariu, Cluj-Napoca, 2001,
p. 253–277.
250 Cristian Dima

Maxim 1971 I.A. Maxim, Un depozit de unelte dacice pentru exploatarea sării, in AMN 8,
1971, p. 458–463.
Mărghitan 1969 L. Mărghitan, Tezaurul de podoabe dacice din argint de la Săliştea (fost Cioara,
jud. Alba), in SCIV 20, 1969, p. 315–327.
Mărghitan 1970 L. Mărghitan, Vestigii dacice pe cursul mijlociu al Mureşului, in Sargetia 7,
1970, p. 11–20.
Mărghitan 1972 L. Mărghitan, Un grup de vase dacice provenite de la Costeşti, in Sargetia 9,
1972, p. 35–41.
Mărghitan 1975 L. Mărghitan, Urme romane pe cuprinsul judeţului Hunedoara, in Sargetia
11–12, 1974–1975, p. 37–42.
Mărghitan 1977 L. Mărghitan, Valea Mureşului – parte integrantă a sistemului de fortificaţie a
Daciei, in Sargetia 13, 1977, p. 203–208.
Mărghitan 1998 L. Mărghitan, Reflecţii asupra romanizării Daciei. Săpăturile arheologice de la
Deva, in Sargetia 27, 1997–1998, p. 303–352.
Mârza 1995 I. Mârza, Les calcaires utilisés a la construction des citadelles daciques des
Monts d’Orăştie et les carrieres antiques, in AMN 32, 1995, p. 199–207.
Mârza 1997 I. Mârza, Andezitul utilizat de daci în construcţiile sacre de la Sarmizegetusa
Regia – Petrografia şi provenienţa, in AMN 34, p. 819 – 823.
Medeleţ 1975 F. Medeleţ, Tipologia brăţărilor spiralice dacice din argint, in StComCar 2,
1975, p. 277–297.
Medeleţ 1994 F. Medeleţ, În legătură cu o mare spirală dacică din argint aflată în Muzeul
Naţional din Belgrad, in AnB SN 3, 1994, p. 192–230.
Medeleţ 1995 F. Medeleţ, Sarea daciei preistorice, in AB S.N., 4, 1995, p. 285–301.
Meduna 1961 J. Meduna, Stare Hradisko. Katalog nálezu uložených v muzeu mìsta Boskovic.
Katalog der Funde im Museum der Stadt Boskovice, Brno 1961.
Menke 1968 M. Menke, Die spätlatènezeitlichen Jochbeschläge aus Karlstein, in BVBl 33,
1968, p. 58–81.
Mercklin 1933 E. von Mercklin, Wagenschmuk aus der Römischen Kaiserzeit, in JDAI 48,
1933, p. 84–176.
Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016 D. Micle, A. Hegyi, C. Floca, Urme peste timp: topografierea castrelor romane
de marş din Munţii Șureanu, in D. Micle (Coord.), ArheoVest IV: In Honorem
Adrian BEJAN, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 26
november 2016, Vol. 1, Szeged, 2016, p. 715–744.
Miniero 1987 P. Miniero, Studio di un carro romano dalla Villa c.d. di Arianna a Stabia, in
MEFRA 99.1, 1987, p. 171–209.
Mitrea 1958 B. Mitrea, Découvertes récentes de monnaies antiques et byzantines sur le terri-
toire de la République Populaire Roumaine, in Dacia NS 2, 1958, p. 493- 498.
Mitrea 1962 B. Mitrea, Descoperiri recente de monede antice şi bizantine din RPR, in SCIV
13, 1962, p. 215–224.
Mitrea 1964 B. Mitrea, Descoperiri recente şi mai vechi de monede antice şi byzantine din
Republica Populară Română, in SCIV 15, 1964, p. 568–580.
Mitrea 1965a B. Mitrea, Découvertes récentes ou plus anciennes de monnaies antiques et
byzantines en Roumaine, in DaciaNS 9, 1965, p. 489–502.
Mitrea 1965b B. Mitrea, Descoperiri recente şi mai vechi de monede antice şi byzantine din
RS România, in SCIV 16, 1965, p. 605–622.
 Bibliografy 251

Mitrea 1966 B. Mitrea, Descoperiri recente şi mai vechi de monede antice şi byzantine în
Republica Socialistă România, in SCIV 17, 1966, p. 415–428.
Mitrea 1969a B. Mitrea, Descoperiri recente şi mai vechi de monede antice şi byzantine din
Republica Socialistă România, in SCIV 20, 1969, p. 161–172.
Mitrea 1969b B. Mitrea, Découvertes récentes et plus anciennes de monnaies antiques et
byzantines sur le territoire en Roumaine, in DaciaNS 13, 1969, p. 539–551.
Mitrea 1971a B. Mitrea, Découvertes récentes et plus anciennes de monnaies antiques et
byzantines en Roumaine, in DaciaNS 15, 1971, p. 395–414.
Mitrea 1971b B. Bucur, Descoperiri recente şi mai vechi de monede antice şi byzantine din
Republica Socialistă România, in SCIV 22, 1971, p. 115–134.
Moga 1976 V. Moga, Sondajul arheologic de la Blandiana (jud. Alba), in Marisia 6,
p. 95–100, 1976.
Moga 1979 V. Moga, Bolul cu toartă mobilă de la Răduleşti (com. Dobra), in Sargetia 14,
1979, p. 645–650.
Moga 1981 V. Moga, Aşezarea şi cetatea dacică de la Piatra Craivii, in H. Daicoviciu
(Ed.), Studii Clasice, Cluj-Napoca, 1981, p. 103–117.
Moga 1982 V. Moga, Morminte dacice de incineraţie la Teleac, in Apulum 20, 1982,
p. 87–91.
Moga 1987 V. Moga, De la Apulum la Alba Iulia, fortificaţiile oraşului, Bucureşti, 1987.
Moga 1992 V. Moga, Depozitul de unelte agricole dacice de la Căpâlna, in EN 2, 1992,
p. 37–38.
Moga, Aldea 1975 V. Moga, A. Aldea, Harta arheologică a satului Țelna (jud. Alba), in Marisia
5, 1975, p. 43–50.
Moga, Ciugudean 1995 V. Moga, H. Ciugudean, Repertoriul Arheologic al Judeţului Alba, Alba Iulia
1995.
Moga, Moga 2002 V. Moga, V. Moga, Piese din fier de la Grădiştea de Munte, in Sargetia 30,
2001–2002, p. 107–110.
Moga, Plantos 2007 V. Moga, C. Plantos, C. (eds.), Interferenţe culturale în Dacia Preromană.
Importuri şi influenţe greco-romane în sud-vestul Transilvaniei. Catalog de
expoziţie, Alba Iulia, 2007.
Moraru, Pârvu 1991 V. Moraru, V. Pârvu, Noutăţi la Măgura Călanului, in Sargetia 21–14, 1988-
1991, p. 643–652.
Moraru, Tatu 1993 V. Moraru, H. Tatu, Posibile fortificaţii dacice din val de piatră şi pământ la
Pui şi Federi (jud. Hunedoara), in AMN 26–30, 1989–1993, p. 263–268.
Morintz 1972 S. Morintz, Les foilles archèologiques en Roumanie (1971), in DaciaNS 16,
1972, p. 335–358.
Morintz 1973 S. Morintz, Les foilles archèologiques en Roumanie (1972), in DaciaNS 17,
1973, p. 361–398.
Müler-Karpe, Müler- A. Müler-Karpe, M. Müler-Karpe, Neue latènezeitliche Funde aus dem
Karpe 1977 Heidetränk Oppidum im Taunus, in Germania 55, 1977, p. 33–63.
Munteanu 2003 C. Munteanu, Repertoriul descoperirilor monetare de tip PROVINCIA DACIA,
in ATS 2, 2003, p. 107–124.
Nagy 1996 P. Nagy, Eisenzeitliche Funde von Mels SG-Castels. Zeugen einer wichtigen
Handelsroute zwischen den nord- und südalpinen Kulturgebieten, in Jahrb.
SGUF 79, 1996, p. 27–42
252 Cristian Dima

Natea 2016 Gh. V. Natea, Locuinţe aristocratice în Dacia sec. I î. Chr. – I d. Chr., Sibiu,
2016.
Neigebauer 1851 J. F. Neigebauer, Dacien aus den Ueberresten des klassischen Alterhums,
Braşov, 1851.
Nelson, Reuter, Gessler A. Nelson, H.I. Reuter, P. Gessler, DEM Production Methods and Sources, in
2009 DevSSc 33, 2016, p. 65–85.
Nemeş 1991 E. Nemeş, Locuitorii Ţării Haţegului până la cucerirea romană, in Sargetia
21–24, 1988–1991, p. 33–43.
Nemeş 1996 E. Nemeş, Descoperiri de epocă romană în Ţara Haţegului, in Sargetia 26,
1995–1996, p. 341–352.
Nemoianu, Andriţoiu L. Nemoianu, I. Andriţoiu, Sondajul arheologic de la Ardeu, com. Balşa, jud.
1975 Hunedoara, in CA 1, 1975, p. 181–190.
Oltean 2007 I. A. Oltean, Dacia. Landscape, colonisation and romanisation, London, New
York, 2007.
Oltean 2017 I. A. Oltean, Non-invasive archaeology today, in C. Dima (ed.), Teaching
methods in archaeological field-schools, Cluj-Napoca, 2017, p. 27–39.
Oltean, Hanson 2017 I. A. Oltean, W.S. Hanson, Conquest strategy and political discurse: new evi-
dence for the conquest of Dacia from LiDAR analysis at Sarmizegetusa Regia,
in JRA 30, 2017, p. 429–446.
Oltean, Fonte 2021 I. A. Oltean, J. Fonte, GIS Analysis and Spatial Netwoerking Patterns in Uplan
Ancient Warfare: The Roman Conquest of Dacia, Geosciences 2021, 11, 17.
Palamariu 1979 O. Palamariu, Tezaurul de la Vărmaga, in Sargetia 14, 1979, p. 675- 678.
Pare 1989 C.F.E. Pare, From Dupljaja to Delphi: the ceremonial use of the wagon in later
prehistory, in Antiquity 63/238,1989, p. 80–100.
Pare 1992 C.F.E. Pare, Wagons and Wagon-Graves of the Early Iron Age in Central
Europe, Oxford, 1992.
Paul, Ciută 1998 I. Paul, M. Ciută, Șeuşa –„La cărarea morii”, com. Ciugud, jud. Alba, in CCA
campania 1997, 1998, 93.
Paul, Ciută 1999 I. Paul, M. Ciută, Șeuşa –„La cărarea morii”, com. Ciugud, jud. Alba, in CCA
campania 1998, 1999, 141.
Pavel 1978 V. Pavel, Tezaurul monetar roman de la Șpring (Jud. Alba), in Apulum 16,
1978, p. 91–101.
Pavel 1980 V. Pavel, Un aureus de la Nero descoperit la Zlatna, in BSNR 70–74, 1976–
1980, p. 171–172.
Pavel 1983 V. Pavel, Câteva consideraţii asupra tezaurului de la Sălaşul de Sus (jud.
Hunedoara), in Sargetia 16–17, 1982–1983, p. 145–150.
Pavel, Andriţoiu 1994 V. Pavel, I. Andriţoiu, Tezaurul de monede romane republicane de la cetatea
dacică de la Piatra Roşie, in Apulum 31, 1994, p. 79–121.
Pârvan 1926 V. Pârvan, Getica. O protoistorie a Daciei, Bucureşti, 1926.
Perlzweig 1963 J. Perlzweig, Lamps from the Athenian Agora, Princeton, 1963.
Perrin, Schönfelder 2003 F. Perrin, M. Schönfelder, La tombe à char de Verna (Isère): Témoignage de
l’aristocratie celtique en territoire allobroge, Lyon, Alpara, 2003
Pescaru et alii 2002 A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, M. Căstăian, I.V. Ferencz, Ardeu, com. Balşa, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Cetăţeaua, in CCA campania 2001, 2002, p. 41–43.
 Bibliografy 253

Pescaru et alii 2005 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, Ş. Andrei, R. Nicolicea, V.

Papp, P. Straja, A. Bărbat, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara.
Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2004, 2005, p. 287–288.
Pescaru et alii 2006 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, I. Barbu, C. Doncuţiu, C. D.
Ţuţuianu, V. Papp, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct:
Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2005, 2006, p. 281–282.
Pescaru et alii 2007 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, R. Pavel, V. Papp, O. Crandell,
Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului,
in CCA, Campania 2006, 2007, p. 286–287.
Pescaru et alii 2008 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Stăncescu, R. Pavel, V. Papp, O. Crandell, Rapoltu
Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura
Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2007, 2008, 248–250.
Pescaru et alii 2009 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, R. Stăncescu, O. Crandell, Rapoltu Mare, com.
Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului,
in CCA, Campania 2008, 2009, 181–182.
Pescaru et alii 2011 A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, I. Barbu, M. Ion, M. Barbu, A. Marc, Rapoltu
Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, oraş Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura
Uroiului, in CCA, Campania 2010, 2011, 106.
Pescaru et alii 2014 A. Pescaru, G. Florea, R. Mateescu, P. Pupeză, C. Cristescu, C. Bodó, E.
Pescaru, The Dacian Fortress from Costeşti-Blidaru – recent archaeological
research. the towers from la Vămi, Poiana lui Mihu, Platoul Făeragului, in
JAHA 1.1, 2014, p. 3–28.
Pescaru, Bodó, Ferencz A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, I.V. Ferencz, Ocolişu Mic, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud.
2001 Hunedoara. Punct: Apa Grădiştii – Vila Napoleon Săvescu, in CCA campania
2000, 2001, p. 165.
Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó A. Pescaru, E. Pescaru, C. Bodó, New elements of fortification in the area of
2004 the citadel of Costeşti-Blidaru, in A. Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz (ed.), Daco-Geţii.
80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii
Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 47–54.
Petculescu 1995 L. Petculescu, Military equipment graves in Roman Dacia, in JRMES 6, 1995,
p. 105–145.
Petersen, Domaszewski, E. Petersen, A. von Domaszewski, G. Calderini, Die Marcus-Säule auf der
Calderini 1896 Piazza Colonna in Roma, Monaco, 1896.
Peţan 2015 A. Peţan, Cetatea dacică de pe Vârful lui Hulpe, in Rapoartele CSFD 6, 2015,
p. 123–171.
Píč 1906 J.L Píč, Le Hradischt de Stradonitz en Bohême, Leipzig 1906.
Pieta 1996 K. Pieta, Romischer Import der Spatlatenezeit in der Slowakei, in ArhVest 47,
1996, p. 183–195,
Piette 1981 J. Piette, Le fanum de la Villeneuve-au-Châtelot (Aube). État des recherches en
1979, in BSAChamp, Suppl. 1, 1981, p. 367–375.
Pinter, Căstăian, Z.K. Pinter, M. Căstăian, D. Ţuţuianu, Cucuiş, com. Beriu, jud. Hunedoara.
Țuţuianu 2000 Punct: Colnic – Cetatea medievală, in CCA campania 1999, 2000, p. 34.
Plantos 2006 C. Plantos, Spaţii de cult din cetatea şi aşezarea dacică de la Piatra Craivii.
Repere ale problemei, in Nemvs I.1–2, p. 7–34.
254 Cristian Dima

Plantos 2015 C. Plantos, New recovered archaeological artifacts from Craiva „ Piatra
Craivii”, Dacian Fortress (Cricău commune, Alba county) I, in ATS 14, 2015,
p. 251–263.
Plantos 2016 C. Plantos, Produse elenistice, romane şi din mediul barbar în cetatea şi aşe-
zarea dacică de la Craiva – „Piatra Craivii„ (jud. Alba), PhD Thesis Iaşi, 2016.
Polenz 1974 H. Polenz, Ein maskenverzierter Achsnagel der Spätlatènezeit vom Donnersberg
in der Pfalz, in Germania 52, 1974, p. 386–400.
Pop 2006 C. Pop, Fortificaţiile dacice din vestul şi nord-vestul României, Cluj-Napoca,
2006.
Popa 1977 R. Popa, Observaţii privind zidurile de mortar din cetăţile dacice hunedorene,
in Sargetia 13, 1977, p. 277–284.
Popa 2004 C. I. Popa, Descoperiri dacice pe valea Cugirului, in A. Pescaru, I.V. Ferencz
(ed.), Daco-Geţii. 80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile
dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 83–166.
Popa 2005 C.I. Popa, Cugir. Schiţă monografică, Alba Iulia, 2005.
Popa 2008 C.I. Popa, A possible Dacian burial in the vicinity of the Piatra Craivii fortress,
in Apulum 45, p. 357–364.
Popa 2011 C.I. Popa, Valea Cugirului din preistorie până în zorii epocii moderne, Cluj-
Napoca, 2011.
Popa 2012 C.I. Popa, Patrimoniul arheologic, în T. Goronea, M. Pascaru, C.I. Popa
(Coord.), Studiu privind aria caracteristică pentru peisaj cultural în zona
Ceru- Băcăinţi, judeţul Alba, Cluj-Napoca, 2012, p. 12–18.
Popa, Simina 2004 C.I. Popa, N.M. Simina, Cercetări arheologice la Lancrăm-„Glod”, Alba Iulia,
2004.
Popa, Totoianu 2000 C. Popa, R. Totoianu, Câteva probleme ale epocii Laténe în lumina desco-
peririlor recente la Lancrăm (or. Sebeş) –„Glod” (jud. Alba), in C. Gaius, A.
Rustoiu (Ed.), Les celtes et les thraco-daces de l’est bassin des Carpates:: les
actes du colloque national qui a eu lieu a Bistrita le 16–17 octobre 1998, Cluj-
Napoca, 2000, p. 51–134.
Poporogu 1972 I. Poporogu, Exploatarea aluvionară a aurului în bazinul Petroşani, in
Sargetia 9, 1972, p. 225–230.
Preda 1966 C. Preda, Einige Fragen der geto-dakischen Numismatik, in JNG 16, 1966,
p. 63–82.
Preda 1973 C. Preda, Monedele geto-dacilor, Bucureşti, 1973.
Protase 1962 D. Protase, Considération sur les rites funéraires des Daces, in Dacia 6, 1962,
p. 173–198.
Pupeză 2012 L.P. Pupeză, Veacul întunecat al Daciei. Arheologie şi istorie în spaţiul
Carpato-Danubian de la sfârşitul secolului III a.Chr. până la începutul secolu-
lui I a.Chr., Cluj-Napoca, 2012.
Pupeză 2014 L.P. Pupeză, The immortal Thracians. Grave disapparance at the end of the
Iron Age in the Carpatho-Danubian area, in AMN 51/1, p. 61–74.
Rădulescu, Dimitrescu D. Rădulescu, R. Dimitrescu, Mineralogia topografică a României, Bucureşti,
1966 1966
Rişcuţa 1996 C. Rişcuţa, Repertoriul arheologic al depresiunii Brad, in Sargetia 26, 1995–
1996, p. 265–318.
 Bibliografy 255

Roman et alii 2003 C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, S.A. Luca, C. Suciu, Ciulpăz, com. Peştişu Mic, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Peştera Bulgărelu, in CCA campania 2002, 2003, p. 89.
Roman et alii 2007 C. Roman, D.M. Roman, S. Tincu, A. Sabin, Hunedoara, jud. Hunedoara.
Punct: Dealul Sânpetru, in CCA campania 2006, 2007, 96.
Roman, Diaconescu 2002 C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, Noi descoperiri neolitice şi eneolitice pe teritoriul
judeţului Hunedoara, in Corviniana 7, 2002, p. 7–29.
Roman, Diaconescu 2004 C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, Cercetări arheologice la Ciulpăz – „Peştera
Bulgărelu” (com. Peştişu Mic, jud. Hunedoara), in Corviniana 8, 2004,
p. 65–95.
Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016 C.C. Roman, R.V. Ioan, R. Turle, Aşezarea dacică de la Hunedoara în con-
textul extragerii metalurgiei – prelucrării fierului din Munţii Poiana Ruscă
– Abordări metodologicice – (I), in AMP 38, 2016, p. 243–256.
Roman, Roman, Tincu C. Roman, D.M. Roman, S. Tincu, Hunedoara, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Dealul
2008 Sânpetru, in CCA campania 2007, 2008, 78.
Roman, Tincu 2010 C. Roman, S. Tincu, Hunedoara, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Dealul Sânpetru, in
CCA campania 2009, 2010, 127.
Röring 1983 C.W. Röring, Untersuchungen zu Römischen Reiswagen, Koblenz, 1983.
Róska 1942 M. Róska, Erdély régészeti repertóriuma, Cluj-Napoca, 1942.
Roymans 1990 N. Roymans, Tribal societies in northern Gaul. An anthropological perspec-
tive, Amsterdam, 1990.
Rustoiu 1988 A. Rustoiu, Colanele de argint daco-getice, in AMN 24–25, 1987–1988,
p. 1079–1094.
Rustoiu 1992 A. Rustoiu, Un atelier de prelucrare a bronzului din cetatea dacică de la Băniţa
(jud. Hunedoara), in EN 2, 1992, p. 49–55.
Rustoiu 1993a A. Rustoiu, Observaţii privind tipologia şi cronologia fortificaţiilor daco-getice
cu ziduri din piatră fasonată, in AnB SN 2, 1993, p. 179–187.
Rustoiu 1993b A. Rustoiu, Observaţii privind ceramica Latène cu grafit în pastă din România,
in TD 14, 1993, p. 131–142.
Rustoiu 1995 A. Rustoiu, Le premier horizon de fibules romaines en Dacie préromaine, in
TD 16, 1995, p. 211–219.
Rustoiu 1996a A. Rustoiu, Metalurgia bronzului la daci (sec. II î.Chr – sec. I d.Chr.). Tehnici,
ateliere şi produse de bronz, Cluj Napoca, 1996.
Rustoiu 1996b A. Rustoiu, Ateliere de orfevrărie şi artizani de prestigiu în Dacia Preromană,
in S. Mitu, F. Gogâltan (Ed.), Viaţă privată, mentalităţi colective şi imaginar
social în Transilvania, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, 1995–1996, p. 76–82.
Rustoiu 1997 A. Rustoiu, Fibulele din Dacia Preromană (sec. II î.e.n. – I e.n.), Bucureşti,
1997.
Rustoiu 2002 A. Rustoiu A., Războinici şi artizani de prestigiu în Dacia Preromană, Cluj-
Napoca, 2002.
Rustoiu 2003 A. Rustoiu, Sarea Maramureşului şi aşzările dacice de pe Tisa Superioară, in
Marmaţia 7/1, 2003, p. 201–217.
Rustoiu 2007 A. Rustoiu, About a curved dagger descovered at Piatra Craivii, in Apulum
44, 2007, p. 83–98.
Rustoiu 2008 A. Rustoiu, Războinici şi societate în aria celtică transilvăneană. Studii pe
marginea mormântului cu coif de la Ciumeşti, Cluj-Napoca, 2008.
256 Cristian Dima

Rustoiu 2009 A. Rustoiu, A late republican bronze situla (Eggers type 20) from Cugir (Alba
County),Romania, in Instrumentum 29, 2009, p. 33–34.
Rustoiu 2015a A. Rustoiu, Civilian and funerary space in the dacian fortified settlement at
Cugir, in S. Forţiu, A. Stavilă (Ed.), In memoriam Florin Medeleţ: interdis-
ciplinaritate în arheologie şi istorie: Timişoara, 28 november 2015, Szeged,
p. 349–367.
Rustoiu 2015b A. Rustoiu, The Celtic Horizont in Transylvania. Archaeological and Historical
Evidence, in S. Berecki (Ed.), Iron Age Settlement Patterns and Funerary
Landscapes in Transylvania (4th – 2nd Centuries BC), Cluj-Napoca, 2015,
p. 9–29.
Rustoiu 2015c A. Rustoiu, Weapons, chariots and warlike elites in Iron Age Transylvania. A
burial containing weapons and an iron linchpin from the La Tène cemetery
at Fântânele-Dâmbu Popii, in D. Gavrilaş et lii (Ed.), Trecutul mai aproape
de noi Omagiu Profesorului Gheorghe Marinescu la 70 de ani, Cluj-Napoca,
2015, p. 71–87.
Rustoiu, Ferencz 2002 A. Rustoiu, I.V. Ferncz, Piese ornamentale de car din Dacia Preromană, in
Traco-Dacica 23, 1/2, 2002, p. 231–242.
Rustoiu, Rustoiu 2000 A. Rustoiu, G.T. Rustoiu, Aşezări din a doua vârstă a fierului descoperite
recent pe teritoriul oraşului Alba Iulia, in Apulum 37/1, 2000, p. 177–192.
Rustoiu, Sîrbu, Ferencz A. Rustoiu, V. Sîrbu, I.V. Ferencz, Mormântul tumular dacic de la Călan (jud.
2002 Huneoara), in Sargeţia 30, 2001–2002, p. 111–127.
Rusu 1975 A. Rusu, Vestigii dacice şi romane în zona Hunedoarei, in Sargetia 11–12,
1974–1975, p. 351–352.
Rusu 1977 A. Rusu, Un mormânt roman descoperit la Uroi (jud. Hunedoara), in Sargetia
13, 1977, p. 539–542.
Rusu, Pescaru 1995 A. Rusu, E. Pescaru, Mărturii arheologice din zona Hunedoarei, in Corviniana
1, 1995, p. 11–16.
Rybová, Motyková 1983 A. Rybová, K. Motyková, Der Eisendepotfund der Latènezeit von Kolín, in
PamátkyArch. 74, 1983, p. 96–174
Sahotsky 2012 B. Sahotsky, Masons, Materials, and Machinery: Logistical Challenges in
Roman Building, in R.Ousterhout, R. Holod, L. Haselberger, Masons at work,
2012, Pennsylvania, online edition.
Schafarzik 1908 F. Schafarzik, Detaillierte Mitteilungen über die auf dem Gebiet das ungari-
schen Reiches befindlichen Steinbrücke, Publikationen der königlich ungaris-
chen geologischen Reichsanstalt, Budapest, 1909.
Schönfelder 2000 M. Schönfelder, Das spätkeltische wagengrab von Boé (Dép. Lot-et-Garonne) –
Studien zu wagen und wagengräbern der jüngeren latènezeit, Marburg, 2000.
Schuster 2007 C. Schuster, Transportul terestru în preistorie, cu privire specială la Dunărea
de Jos, Târgovişte, 2007.
Scurtu 2002 F. Scurtu, Băniţa, com. Băniţa, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Dealul Cetăţii, in CCA
– campania 2001, 2002, p. 52–53.
Simion 2003 G. Simion, Opaiţe greco-romane de bronz din România, Tulcea, 2003.
Singht, Gupta, Singht P. Singh, A. Gupta, M. Singh, Hydrological inferences from watershed analysis
2014 for water resource management using remote sensing and GIS techniques, in
EJRS 17, 2014, p. 111–121.
 Bibliografy 257

Sireix 1984 Ch. Sireix, Une ville-marché gauloise, in Archéolgia 197, 1984, p. 60–66.
Sîrbu 1987 V. Sîrbu, Cultul apelor, al izvoarelor şi fântânilor reflectat în unele descoperiri
arheologice (sec. II î.e.n. – III e.n.), in CCDJ 3–4, 1987, p. 73–75.
Sîrbu 1992 V. Sîrbu, Un atelier de prelucrare a bronzului de la Grădiştea (jud. Brăila), in
Istros 6, 1992, p. 37–45.
Sîrbu 1994a V. Sîrbu, Mormintele tumulare din zona carpato-dunăreană (sec. I î. d. Chr. – I
d. Chr.), in Istros 8, 1994, p. 123–159.
Sîrbu 1994b V. Sîrbu, Incinte şi locuri sacre cu sacrificii şi depuneri de ofrande în lumea
geto-dacilor, in Pontica 27, 1994, p. 39–59.
Sîrbu 2000 V. Sîrbu, Credinţe şi practici funerare şi sacrificiale la geto-daci (sec. V a.Chr –
I p.Chr), in Istros 10, 2000, p. 159–178.
Sîrbu 2004 V. Sîrbu, Sacrifices et inhumations rituelles de chevaux chez les Thraces du
Nord des Balkans au cours de l’Âge du Fer, in L.C. Ruscu, R. Ardevan, C.
Ciongradi (Ed.), Orbis Antiquus. Studia in Honorem Ioannis Pisonis, Cluj-
Napoca, 2004, p. 735–754.
Sîrbu 2006a V. Sîrbu, Oameni şi zei în lumea geto-dacilor – mărturii arheologice / Man
and Gods in the Geto-Dacian World – archaeological testimony, Braşov, 2006
Sîrbu 2006b V. Sîrbu, Dacii şi celţii din Transilvania şi sud-vestul României, in C. Gaiu, C.
Găzdac (Ed.), Fontes Histriae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase, Bistriţa,
2006, p. 191–220.
Sîrbu et alii 2005 V. Sîrbu, S.A. Luca, S. Purece, C. Roman, N. Cerişer, G. El Susi, A. Soficaru,
A. Stan, E. Orlandea, Hunedoara, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Grădina Castelului
– Platou, in CCA campania 2004, 2005, p. 178–180.
Sîrbu et alii 2007 V. Sîrbu, S.A. Luca, C. Roman, S. Purece, D. Diaconescu, N. Cerişer, Vestigiile
dacice de la Hunedora, Alba Iulia, 2007.
Sîrbu, Borangic 2015 V. Sîrbu, C. Borangic, Paznicii trecătorii. Mormintele dacice de pe Valea
Oltului, in S. Forţiu, A. Stavilă (Ed.), In Memoriam Florin Medeleţ,
Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 28 november 2015,
Vol. 1, Szeged, 2015, p. 369–390.
Sîrbu, Borangic 2016 V. Sîrbu, C. Borangic, Pumnalul sica în nordul Dunării (~200 a. Chr. – 100
p. Chr)/ Le poignard sica au nord du Danube (~200 av. J.-C. – 106 ap. J.-C.),
Brăila, 2016.
Sîrbu, Davîncă 2014 V. Sîrbu, D. Davîncă, The “Fields of Pits” in the Geto -Dacian Area (4th C. BC–
1st C. AD). Sacred or Profane Spaces?, in Mousaios 19, 2014, p. 295 – 342.
Sîrbu, Florea 1997 V. Sîrbu, G. Florea, Imaginar şi imagine în Dacia preromană, Brăila, 1997.
Sîrbu, Oţa 2004 V. Sîrbu, L. Oţa, New consieration concerning the Roman tumulus grave with
chariot found at Calatis (Mangalia) – 2 Mai, in C.V. Muşeţeanu (Ed.), The
Antique Bronzes: Typology, Chronology, Authenticity, The Acta of The 16th
International Congres of Antique Bronzes, Bucharest, May 16–31, 2003,
Bucureşti, 2004, p. 407–420.
Smith 1875 W. Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London, 1875.
Spânu 2002 D. Spânu, Un mormânt de epocă târzie Latène de la Dubova, in SCIVA 52–53,
2001–2002, p. 83–132.
Stoia 1976 A. Stoia, Les fouilles archéologiques en Roumanie (1975), in DaciaNS 20,
1976, p. 273–286.
258 Cristian Dima

Stoicovici, Winkler 1971 E. Stoicovici, I. Winkler, Über die Stanzen von Pecica und von Ludeşti, in
AMN 8, 1971, p. 477–480.
Strieder 1933 J. Strieder, Ein Bericht des Fuggerschen Faktors Hans Dernschwam über den
Siebenbürgener Salzbergbau um 1528, in Ungarische Jahrbücher, XIII, 1933,
p. 260–290. (after M. Holban (ed.) Călători străini despre Țările Române, vol.
I, p. 262–295).
Strobel 1998 K. Strobel, Dacii. Despre complexitatea mărimilor etnice, politice şi culturale
ale istorie spaţiului Dunării de Jos (II), in SCIVA 49.2, 1998, p. 207–227.
Suciu 2009 L.D. Suciu, Habitat şi viaţă cotidiană în Dacia secolelor I a.Chr. – I p.Chr.
(PhD Thesis), Cluj-Napoca, 2009.
Székely 1959 Z. Székely, Raport preliminar asupra sondajelor efectuate de Muzeul regional
din Sf. Gheorghe în anul 1956, in MCA, 5, 1959, 231–246.
Székely 1962 Z. Székely, Sondaje executate de Muzeul regional Sf. Gheorghe, in MCA 8,
1962, p. 336–337.
Székely 1981 Zs. Székely, Contribuţii la studiul prelucrării fierului la dacii din sud-estul
Transilvaniei, in Aluta 12–13, 1981 p. 31–36
Szypuła 2017 B. Szypuła, Digital Elevation Models in Geomorphology, in D. Shukla (Ed.),
Hydro-Geomorphology – Models and Trends, Rijeka, 2017, p. 81–112.
Ștefan 2005 A.S. Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: architecture ili-
taire, topographie, images et histoire, Ecole française de Rome, Roma, 2005.
Tatu 1983 H. Tatu, Fortificaţii la Porţile de Fier ale Transilvaniei, in Sargetia 16–17,
1982–1983, p. 165–170.
Tatu 1994 H. Tatu, Descoperiri dacice şi romane din Ţara Haţegului, in AMN 31, 1994,
p. 199–202.
Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991 H. Tatu, O. Popa, Z. Maxim, Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al Ţării
Haţegului, in Sargetia 21–24, 1988–1991, p. 93–120.
Tătar 2016 O. Tătar, „Ar fi fost mai bine dacă stăteam deoparte”. Raportul lui Hans
Dernschwam din 1528 către casa Fugger sau despre eşecul unui proiect vizând
Transilvania, in Terra Sebus 8, 2016, p. 227–237.
Téglás 1884 G. Téglás, A Boli hegy Petrozsény mellett mint öskori erősseg, in HTRTÉ 3,
1883–1884, p. 27–32.
Téglás 1887 G. Téglás, Az erdélyi medence őstörténelméhez, in OTÉ 12/9, 1887, p. 181–204.
Téglás 1892 G. Téglás, Emlékek és leletek. A történelemelőtti dáciáról, in AÉ, 12, 1892,
p. 403–410.
Teleagă 2010 E. Teleagă, Die Prunkgräber aus Agighiol und Vraca, in Amazonen –
Geheimnisvolle Kriegerinnen -Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung, Historischen
Museum der Pfalz, Speyer, München, 2010, p. 78–85.
Teleagă 2014 E. Teleagă, Pecetea lui Skyles şi tumulii fastuoşi de la Agighiol şi Cugir.
Omisiune şi falsificare în fondarea mitului „strămoşilor”românilor, geto-dacii,
in SCIVA 65/3–4, 2014, p. 295–318.
Teleagă et alii 2014 E. Teleagă, A. Bălăşescu, A. Soficaru, W. Schoch, Die Scheiterhaufen aus
Cugir und Tarinci. Ein Beitrag zu den Bestattungssitten der Balkanhalbinsel
und des vorrömischen Dakiens in der Spätlatènezeit, in PraehZ 89.2, 2014,
p. 305–336.
 Bibliografy 259

Teodor 1980 S. Teodor, Das Werkzeugdepot von Lozna (Kr. Botoşani), in Dacia NS 24,
1980, p. 133–150.
Teodor 2016 E. S. Teodor, O devenire: arheologia peisajului pe frontiera romană, in E.S.
Teodor (ed.), Arheologia peisajului şi frontiera romană, Târgovişte, 2016,
p. 5–26.
Teodor, Peţan, Berzovan E. S. Teodor, A. Peţan, A. Berzovan, Cercetări perieghetice pe platforma
2013 Luncani. I. Târsa şi Poiana Omului, in ESTuar 1, 2013, p. 1–34.
Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi E. S. Teodor, A. Peţan. A. Hegyi, A ”new” Roman temporary camp in Parâng
2018a Mountains, in CA, 25, 2018, p. 77–90.
Teodor, Peţan, Hegyi E. S. Teodor, A. Peţan. A. Hegyi, Commens on the morphology of the hillfort
2018a from Muncelu, in D. Micle (coord.), In memoriam Marian Gumă, Timişoara,
24 nov. 2018, ArheoVest, VI, 2, Szeged 2018, p. 683–706.
Theodossiev 2000a N. Theodossiev, The dead with golden faces. II Other evidence and connection,
in OJA 19(2), 2000, p. 175–210.
Theodossiev 2000b N. Theodossiev, Monumental Tombs and Hero Cults in Thrace during the
5th–3rd centuries B.C, in V. Pirenne-Delforge, E. Suarez de la Torre (Ed.)
Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs: Actes du colloque organisé
à l’Université de Valladolid, 26–29 may 1999, Liège, 2000, p. 435–447.
Tobler 1993 W. Tobler, Three Presentations on Geographical Analysis and Modeling: Non-
Isotropic Geographic Modeling; Speculations on the Geometry of Geography;
and Global Spatial Analysis, Santa Barbara, 1993.
Tripcevich 2009 N.Tripcevich, Cost Distance Analysis. GIS. And Anthropology, Berkeley 2009.
Turcu 1979 M. Turcu, Geto-Dacii din Câmpia Munteniei, Bucureşti, 1979
Udrescu 1985 M. Udrescu, Consideraţii arheozoologice privind creşterea animalelor şi vână-
toarea la geto-dacii din câmpia română, in CCDJ 1, 1985, p. 83–88.
Urban, Ruprechtsberger O. Urban, E.M. Ruprechtsberger, Keltische Eisendepotfunde vom Gründberg,
1997 in ArchÖst 8/2, 1997, p. 34–36.
Ursachi 1995 V. Ursachi, Zargidava. Cetatea dacică de la Brad, Bucureşti, 1995.
Vaida 1997 L. Vaida, Consideraţii asupra locuirii dacice pe teritoriul judeţului Bistriţa-
Năsăud (sec. II î.Chr. – I d. Chr.), in RB 10–11, 1996–1997, p. 21–26.
Valea, Mărghitan 1966 M. Valea, L. Mărghitan, Aşezarea dacică de la Câmpuri-Surduc, in Sargetia
4, 1966, p. 65–74.
van Endert 1991 D. van Endert, Die Bronzefunde aus dem Oppidum von Manching, Die
Ausgrabungen in Manching, 13, Stuttgart, 1991.
van Straten 1981 F.T. van Straten, Gifts for the Gods, in H.S. Versnel (Ed.), Faith, Hope and
Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden,1981,
p. 65–151.
van Tilburg 2007 C. van Tilburg, Traffic and congestion in the Roman Empire, Londra, 2007.
Vendl 1932a A. Vendl, A Szászvárosu és Szebeni Havasok kristályos területe, in GH 4, 1932,
p. 1–19.
Vendl 1932b A. Vendl, Das Kristallin des Sebeser und Zibins-Gebirges, in GH 4, 1932,
p. 1–365.
Veress 1910 E. Veress, Hunyadmegye bányászátának múltja, in HTRTÉ 20.3, 1910, p. 146.
Verger, Thouvenot 2009 S. Verger, S. Thouvenot, Les chars, in RAPic NS 26.1, 2009, p. 375–392.
260 Cristian Dima

Visy 1993 Zs. Visy, Wagen und Wagenteile, in E. Künzl (Ed.), Die Alamannenbeute aus
dem Rhein bei Neupotz. Plünderungsgut aus dem römischen Gallien, RGZM
34.1, Mainz, 1993, p. 257–327.
Voktopoulou 1996 J. Vokotopoulou, Guide du Musée Archéologique de Thessalonique, Athènes,
1996.
Vulpe 1975 A. Vulpe, Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien, II, PBF 9.5, München, 1975.
Vulpe 1976 A. Vulpe Al., La nécropole tumulaire gète de Popeşti, in TD 1, p. 193–215.
Vulpe 2001 A. Vulpe, Ältere Eisenzeit / Späthallstattzeit (8. – 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.),
in M. Rotea, T. Bader (Ed.), Thraker und Kelten beidseits der Karpaten,
Sonderausstelung, September 2000 – April 2001, Eberdingen, 2001, p. 42–51.
Vulpe et alii 1951 R. Vulpe, E. Vulpe, A. Niţu, P.C. Mătasă, C. Cihodaru, C. Călinescu, V. Balan,
Ș. Kiss, E. Negruţi, R. Petre, Ș. Ștefănescu, Activitatea şantierului arheologic
Poiana-Tecuci, in SCIV 1.2, 1951, p. 177–216.
Vulpe, Popescu 1976 A. Vulpe, E. Popescu, Une contribution archéologique à l’étude de la religion
des Géto-Daces, in ThD 1, 1976, p. 217–226.
Vulpe, Teodor 2003 R. Vulpe, S. Teodor, Piriboridava, Aşezarea geto-dacică de la Poiana,
Bucureşti, 2003.
Wegner 1976 Wegner, G., Die vorgeschichtlichen Flußfunde aus dem Main und aus dem
Rhein bei Mainz, Kallmünz 1976.
Winkler 1966 I. Winkler, Drahma şi hemidrahma în sistemul monetar al daco-geţilor, in
AMN 3, 1966, p. 75–90.
Winkler 1968 I, Winkler, Ştanţele şi stilul monedelor daco-getice, in Apulum 7, 1968,
p. 209–228.
Winkler 1969 I. Winkler, Tipurile monetare ale daco-geţilor şi aria lor de răspândire (partea
II), in AMN 6, 1969, p. 67–92.
Winkler 1970 I. Winkler, Perioada emiterii monedelor şi dreptul monetar la geto-daci, in
AMN 7, 1970, p. 93–108.
Winkler 1972 I. Winkler, Despre două tezaure de monede antice descoperite la Deva, in
Sargetia 9, 1972, p. 51–54.
Winkler, Takács, Păiuş I. Winkler, M. Takács, G. Păiuş, Aşezarea dacică şi daco-romană de la Cicău,
1979 in Apulum 17, 1979, p. 129–193.
Wollmann 1971 V. Wollman, Valoarea cercetărilor metalografice pentru studierea unor desco-
periri arheologice II, in Apulum 9, 1971, p. 283–292.
Wollmann 1973 V. Wollmann, Cercetări privind carierele de piatră din Dacia romană, in
Sargetia 10, 1973, p. 105–121.
Wollmann 1996 V. Wollmann, Mineritul metalifer, extragerea sării şi carierele de piatră în
Dacia Romană, in BMN 13, Cluj-Napoca, 1996.
Woźniak 1974 Z. Woźniak, Wschodnie pogranicze Kultury Lateńskiej, Wroclaw, 1974.
Zirra, Spânu 1992 V.V. Zirra, D. Spânu, Observaţii asupra tezaurelor de argint din Latène-ul târ-
ziu, in SCIVA 43, 1992, p. 401–424.
 A RCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES REPERTORY

Legend:
D – Dating:
1: (Sec. II – I BC)
2: (Sec. I BC – I AD)
3: (Sec. II BC – I AD)

T – Type
TYPE A: Dacian artifacts (ceramic, metal, etc.) isolated.
TYPE B1: Monetary hoards
TYPE B2: Silver/gold/bronze/iron deposit
TYPE B3: Tools deposit
TYPE C: Traces of clay dwellings
TYPE D: Unfortified civilian settlement
TYPE E: Fortified settlement
TYPE F: Fortress
TYPE G: Funerary context
TYPE H: Workshops
TYPE I: Ores mining
TYPE J: Roman march Camp
TYPE K: Dwellings house
 262

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

1 508644.485 389413.544 3
2 509258.059 387858.256 2
3 508644.485 389413.544 3
4 514128.363 381523.828 1 La Pietre
5 503417.55 356701.34 1 Gura Che-
ilor
6 503613.56 356505.82 1 Cetăţuie
ty
Alba Iulia AB 3 A Hampel 1897, p. 277; Cucuiu 1929, p. 11; Moga, Ciu-
gudean 1995, p. 30
Alba Iulia AB 2 A Crişan 1969, p. 251, nr. 2; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 30
Alba Iulia AB 3 B1 Preda 1973, p. 218–221, 280–281, 285, 302; Glodariu
1974a, p. 276; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 30.
Ampoiţa Meteş AB 2 A Ciugudean 2000, p. 14, nr. 12; Ciugudean 2001, p. 30.
Ardeu Balşa HD 2 D Ferencz et alii 2004, p. 43–45.
Ardeu Balşa HD 2 F Floca 1972, p. 15; Nemoianu, Andriţoiu 1975, p. 181–
190; Andriţoiu 1979, p. 16; Ferenczi 1979b, p. 269;
Glodariu 1982, p. 28; Glodariu 1983, p. 82, 119, 128,
130, 154; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 60, 185, 197; 199, 110;
Crăciun 1999, p. 91; 2000, 80; Ciugudean 2000, p. 63;
Pescaru, Căstăian, Herţa, 2000 p. 15; Pescaru et alii
2002, p. 41–43; Ferencz et alii 2003, p. 40–42; Ferencz
et alii 2004, p. 43–45; Ferencz, Căstăian, Bodó 2005,
p. 56–57; Luca et alii 2005, p. 22–23; Ferencz, Dima
2009, p. 18–34.
Cristian Dima

7 503649.67 356599.39 1 Jude Hill Ardeu Balşa HD 2 G Ferencz et alii 2002, p. 23.
8 503613.56 356505.82 1 Cetăţuie Ardeu Balşa HD 2 H Floca 1972, p. 15; Nemoianu, Andriţoiu 1975, p. 181–
190; Andriţoiu 1979, p. 16; Ferenczi 1979b, p. 269;
Glodariu 1982, p. 28; Glodariu 1983, p. 82, 119, 128,
130, 154; 2004, 540; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 60, 185, 197;
199, 110; Crăciun 1999, p. 91; 2000, 80; Ciugudean
2000, p. 63; Pescaru, Căstăian, Herţa, p. 15; Pescaru
et alii 2002, p. 41–43; Ferencz et alii 2003, p. 40–42;
Ferencz et alii 2004, p. 43–45; Ferencz, Căstăian, Bodó
2005, p. 56–57; Luca et alii 2005, p. 22–23; Ferencz,
Dima 2009, p. 18–34.
9 480056.56 345200.58 3 Băcia Băcia HD 3 B1 Crăciun 1998, p. 68; Luca et alii 2005, p. 28.
10 522023.21 323813.76 3 Baia de Criş Baia de Criş HD 1 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 269; Glodariu 1975a, fig. 4, 6; Cră-
ciun 1998, p. 63–64, 68; Luca et alii 2005, p. 25.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
11 451445.88 347487.15 2 Cetăţuie Băieşti Pui HD 3 A Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 93; Luca et alii 2005, p. 29.
12 450322.96 345198.82 3 Băieşti Pui HD 3 B1 Nemeş 1996, p. 343; Luca et alii 2005, p. 29.
13 494787.239 375450.899 1 Gura Văii Balomiru de Şibot AB 2 D Gheorghiu 2005, p. 25; Popa 2011, p. 672.
Cioarei câmp
14 496108.929 374043.212 1 Old Village Balomiru de Şibot AB 2 D Popa 2011, p. 673.
câmp
15 440722.87 368608.51 1 Bolii Cave Băniţa Băniţa HD 3 B1 Mitrea 1962, p. 218; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu
1989, p. 211; Luca et alii 2005, p. 30.
16 440462.34 368444.18 1 Piatra Băniţa Băniţa HD 3 D Rustoiu 1995, p. 214; Rustoiu 1996a, 47;Crăciun 2000,
Cetăţii p. 82; Rustoiu 2002, p. 65–66; Luca et alii 2005, p. 30.
17 440479.64 368282.86 1 Piatra Băniţa Băniţa HD 2 F Daicoviciu 1968, p. 53; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glo-
Cetăţii dariu 1989, p. 13–254; Glodariu 1971, p. 76; Floca
1972, p. 15; Popa 1977, p. 278, 280–282; Glodariu,
Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 37, 47, 52, 159–161; Ferenczi
1979a, p. 268–269; Glodariu 1982, p. 28; Cociş 1983,
p. 139; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 94; Rustoiu 1996a,
p. 185; Rustoiu 1997, p. 101, 108; Iaroslavschi 1997a,
59; Crăciun 1999, p. 91; Crăciun 2000, p. 85; Scurtu
2002, p. 52–53; Luca et alii 2005, p. 29–30.
18 440479.64 368282.86 1 Piatra Băniţa Băniţa HD 2 H Ferenczi 1979a, p. 268–269; Cociş 1983, p. 139; Tatu,
Archaeological sites Repertory

Cetăţii Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 94; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 185;

Rustoiu 1997, p. 101, 108; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 59;
Crăciun 1999, p. 91; Crăciun 2000, p. 85; Scurtu 2002,
p. 52–53.
19 440462.34 368444.18 1 Piatra Băniţa Băniţa HD 3 H Rustoiu 1995, p. 214; Rustoiu 1996a, 47; Crăciun 2000,
Cetăţii p. 82; Rustoiu 2002, p. 65–66; Luca et alii 2005, p. 30.
20 456860.48 376907.49 1 Negru Hill Baru Baru HD 3 A Ferenczi 1977c, 302; Luca 2005 et alii, p. 27.
21 455618.89 372881.7 1 Petrosu Baru Baru HD 3 F Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 205, 253; Luca
Valley et alii 2005, p. 26.
22 456041.92 376910.17 1 Gruişor Baru Baru HD 3 J Ferenczi 1983, p. 186–187; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glo-
Fountain dariu 1989, p. 156- 254; Luca et alii 2005, p. 27, Popa
2011, p. 346, 347;Micle, Hegyi, Floca 2016, p. 721.
263
 264

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
23 455076.92 377448.75 1 Comărni- Baru Mare HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 298–
cel I 313; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
24 454609.09 376827.56 1 Comărni- Baru Mare HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 298–
cel II 313; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
25 455638.98 377080.02 1 Comărni- Baru Mare HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 298–
cel III 313; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439.
26 448044.82 367749.83 1 Jigoru Baru Mare HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 287–
Mare 291; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439
27 451144.9 384962.31 1 Pătru Peak Baru Mare HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 43; Ștefan 2005, p. 292–
298; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439
28 509153.226 402372.41 2 Zăcătoare Berghin AB 1 A Glodariu 1974a, p. 234; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 55–56; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 26.
29 463118.21 361672.46 2 Găurile Beriu Beriu HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 188; Boroneanţ 2000, p. 73;
Cave of Luca et alii 2005, p. 32.
Cocoş Hill
30 461921.11 361435.53 2 La Vârtoa- Beriu Beriu HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 188- 189; Glodariu 1974a,
pe p. 300; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 176;
Crăciun 1998, 76; Moga, Moga 2002, p. 107–110; Luca
Cristian Dima

et alii 2005, p. 32.

31 519052.143 415934.716 2 Ciufud Blaj AB 1 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 59
32 497477.483 376838.237 1 La Brod Blandiana AB 1 C Ciugudean 1980, p. 425–432; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 60; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 26.
33 498944.521 378202.4 1 Lunca Blandiana AB 3 A Horedt 1966, p. 261; Moga 1976, p. 95–99; Moga, Ciu-
Fermei gudean 1995, p. 61; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 26.
34 466224.28 352987.05 3 Bobaia Boşorod HD 1 B1 Glodariu 1974a, 266; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976,
p. 73; Chirilă, Iaroslavschi 1988, p. 69–98; Crăciun
1998, p. 63, 66, 68; Luca et alii 2005, p. 32.
35 494921.087 407245.012 3 Boz AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 62; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 27.
36 498836.42 358579.47 3 Bozeş Geoagiu HD 3 B1 Mitrea 1965a, p. 493; Mitrea 1965b, p. 609; Bălan
1966, p. 51–64; Mărghitan 1970, p. 12; Nemoianu,
Andriţoiu 1975, p. 181; Crăciun 1998, p. 64, 69; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 34.
37 516967.94 329846.67 3 Brad Brad HD 3 A Rişcuţa 1996, 281; Luca et alii 2005, p. 35.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
38 495616.23 401000.95 1 Măgura Bretea-Mure- Ilia HD 3 E Floca 1977, p. 173; Mărghitan 1977, p. 205;Glodariu
Brănişca şană 1982, p. 28; Glodariu 1983, p. 56, 59, 66–67, 95, 128,
154; Luca et alii 2005, p. 35.
39 474370.79 358482.3 2 Cărpeniş Bucium Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 316; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
de Sus Glodariu 1964, p. 112; Macrea, Crişan 1964, p. 351;
Florea 1987, p. 82; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 46–47;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 36.
40 531182.83 359441.165 2 Bucium AB 1 B1 Róska 1942, p. 50, nr. 217; Glodariu 1974a, p. 262;
Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 64; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 27.
41 472998.48 358607.08 3 Bucium Orăştioara HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1971, p. 76; Crăciun 1998, p. 69; Luca et alii
de Sus 2005, p. 36.
42 472858.74 359184.62 1 Țigani Bucium Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 316; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Valley de Sus Glodariu 1964, p. 112; Macrea, Crişan 1964, p. 351;
Florea 1987, p. 82; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 46; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 47; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 36.
43 457538.01 345601.863 Chilia Bucium Sântămărie HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 36; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 94;
Valley Orlea Orlea Luca et alii 2005, p. 37.
44 503357.176 367713.354 1 Piatra Mare Bulbuc Ceru-Băcă- AB 2 A Popa 2012, p. 14.
inţi
Archaeological sites Repertory

45 503454.998 367773.755 1 Bulbuc Ceru-Băcă- AB 1 G Borangic 2014, p. 259–310.

inţi
46 475591.83 348247.42 1 Măgura Călan Călan HD 3 A Daicoviciu 1972, p. 51; Wollmann 1973, p. 107; Fe-
Călanului renczi 1979a, p. 266; Floca 1981, p. 13; Glodariu 1983,
p. 36; Florea 1987, p. 89; Mârza 1995, p. 202–205; Glo-
dariu 1997, p. 77–78; Boroneanţ 2000, p. 41; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 39.
47 475388.56 348629.771 Șesul Gor- Călan Călan HD 3 A Moraru, Pârvu 1991, 643; Luca et alii 2005, p. 39.
ganului
48 488194.566 395605.724 3 Câlnic AB 1 A Crişan 1969, p. 259, nr. 82; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 81.
49 498356.75 310675.23 3 Câmpuri de Guraşada HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, 270; Glodariu 1975b, fig. 4, 20; Luca
Sus et alii 2005, p. 40.
265
 266

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
50 496195.49 310322.5 3 Câmpuri Guraşada HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 269; Luca et alii 2005, p. 41.
Surduc
51 496179.93 310235.81 3 Câmpuri Guraşada HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 269; Luca et alii 2005, p. 41.
Surduc
52 496637.63 311437.23 3 Câmpuri Guraşada HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 269; Luca et alii 2005, p. 41.
Surduc
53 497085.31 308167.27 3 Cetăţeaua Câmpuri Guraşada HD 3 E Róska 1942, p. 123, nr. 119; Mitrea 1966, p. 403; Va-
Surduc lea, Mărghitan 1966, 69–72; Dumitraşcu, Mărghitan
1971, p. 48, 53; Floca 1972, p. 15; Daicoviciu 1972,
p. 143; Mărghitan 1977, p. 205; 1987, 15, 25; Glodariu,
Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 80, 156, 160–162; Crăciun 1998,
p. 64, 69; Crăciun 2004, p. 128; Luca et alii 2005, p. 41.
54 496815.74 308781.22 1 La Mănăs- Câmpuri Guraşada HD 3 E Valea, Mărghitan 1966, p. 65–69; Dumitraşcu, Măr-
tire Surduc ghitan 1971, p. 48; Glodariu 1971, p. 76; Floca 1972,
p. 15; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 143; Mărghitan 1977, p. 205;
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 80, 156, 160–162; Glo-
dariu 1982, p. 28; Glodariu et alii 1994, p. 311.
55 481863.228 391838.209 1 Obreje Căpâlna Săsciori AB 2 B3 Moga 1992, p. 37–38; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 67;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 28–30
Cristian Dima

56 481212.413 391626.084 1 Hill Fort Căpâlna Săsciori AB 2 F Téglás 1892, p. 492; Daicoviciu 1945, p. 67, 70; Daico-
viciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 115–116; Glodariu, Câmpea-
nu 1966, p. 25; Daicoviciu 1968, p. 53; Crişan 1969,
p. 257, nr. 53; Berciu, Moga 1972, p. 66–68; Glodariu
1974a, p. 235, 245; Glodariu 1983, p. 84–87; Moga,
Ciugudean 1995, p. 66–67; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 28–30.
57 546072.968 418771.108 3 Căptălan Noşlac AB 2 A Róska 1942, p. 163–164, nr. 101; Preda 1973, p. 433,
nr. 10; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 67.
58 477174.24 347953.4 1 Grădişte Quarry of Călan HD 3 I Róska 1942, p. 138; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 174; Măr-
Sântămăria ghitan 1975, p. 41; Andriţoiu 1976, p. 398; Ferenczi
de Piatră 1979a, p. 267–268; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu
1989, p. 53, 55, 135, 211, 245; Moraru, Pârvu 1991,
p. 643–352; Popa 2002, p. 169; Luca et alii 2005, p. 141.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
59 485122.14 331161.43 3 Cârjiţi Cârjiţi HD 3 A Winkler 1966, p. 86; Mărghitan 1970, p. 15; Luca et
alii 1998, p. 30; Crăciun 1998, 69; Luca 1999a, p. 11;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 41.
60 478372.79 323131.66 3 Dosul Cerbăl Cerbăl HD 3 B1 Daicoviciu 1972, p. 180, 196; Glodariu 1974a, 235,
Pârlit 280; Glodariu 1975a, p. 246, fig. 3; Rusu 1975, p. 351;
Rustoiu 1988, p. 1089; Zirra, Spânu 1992, fig 3/20;
Medelet 1994, 201, 204–205; 208; Rustoiu 1995,
p. 214; Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12; Rustoiu 1997, p. 107;
Crăciun 1998, p. 66, 69; Crăciun 1999, 91; Luca et alii
2005, p. 43.
61 528078.263 434625.274 2 Coasta Cetatea de AB 2 C Christescu 1937, p. 120; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 70.
Sântă- Baltă
măriei or
Cetăţii Hill
62 527014.307 390791.906 3 Cetea Galda de Jos AB 3 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 72.
63 528787.399 388656.647 1 Pietri Cetea Galda de Jos AB 2 D Crişan 1969, p. 257, nr. 1; Glodariu 1974a, p. 235, 262,
280, nr. 9, 71; Ciugudean 1978, p. 45, 48; Moga, Ciu-
gudean 1995, p. 72.
64 469785.07 349900.43 3 La Plopi Chitid Boşorod HD 3 B1 Rustoiu 1996a, p. 33; Luca et alii 2005, p. 45.
65 469523.3 349807.13 1 Pleşa Hill Chitid Boşorod HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 259; Andriţoiu 1979, p. 21; Luca et
Archaeological sites Repertory

alii 2005, p. 45.

66 469860.6 349803.39 3 La Plopi Chitid Boşorod HD 3 B2 Róska 1942, p. 130, nr. 214; Glodariu 1971, p. 76, 82;
Zirra, Spânu 1992, fig. 2/25; Medeleţ 1994, p. 203, 204;
Crăciun 1999, p. 91; Luca et alii 2005, p. 45.
67 469699.31 350165.09 1 Jidovin Chitid Boşorod HD 3 F Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 196; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 45.
68 544938.675 398232.449 2 Călin’s Cicău Mirăslău AB 1 A Winkler, Takács, Păiuş 1979, p. 131–135; Moga, Ciu-
Garden gudean 1995, p. 76.
69 545534.882 418237.036 1 Sălişte Cicău Mirăslău AB 2 D Winkler, Takács, Păiuş 1979, p. 129–131, 135–190;
Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 75.
267
 268

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
70 456494.64 354986.52 1 Țâfla Ciclovina Boşorod HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 25–26; Daicovi-
ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 201, 205, 253; Tatu,
Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 94; Ciugudean 2000, p. 68, 77;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 46.
71 489945.06 357611.37 3 Cigmău Geoagiu HD 3 A Mărghitan 1970, p. 12; Glodariu 1971, p. 76, 80; Glo-
dariu 1974a, p. 262; Crăciun 1998, p. 69; Luca et alii
2005, p. 47.
72 468279.89 334525.73 1 Casa Albă Cinciş-Cerna Teliucu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 14; Dragotă, Roman,
Inferior Țiplic 1999, p. 82; Luca et alii 2005, p. 47.
73 454644.385 356198.333 1 Chiciura Cioclovina Boşorod HD 3 F Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 61; Ferenczi 1977a,
Hill p. 155–170; Ferenczi 1978, p. 127–129; Glodariu 1982,
p. 28; Glodariu 1986, p. 91–100; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 102–103; Teodor, Peţan, Berzovan 2013, p. 1–134.
74 453197.99 341848.23 3 Ciopeia Sântămărie HD 3 A Nemeş 1996, p. 343; Luca et alii 2005, p. 48.
Orlea
75 506108.486 392648.115 3 Crâşma lui Ciugud AB 3 A Crişan 1969, p. 259, nr. 77; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
Bran p. 77; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 33.
76 479836.68 327118.09 2 Bulgărelu Ciulpaz Peştisu Mic HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 65, nr. 68; Andriţoiu 1978, p. 67; Luca
Cristian Dima

Cave et alii 2001, p. 153–154; Roman et alii 2003, p. 89;

Roman, Diaconescu 2004, p. 65–95; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 49.
77 534745.863 404757.173 3 Ciumbrud AB 1 A Crişan 1969, p. 259, nr. 79; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 80.
78 433697.21 317004.8 3 Pietrii Hill Clopotiva Râu de Mori HD 3 F Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 95; Luca et alii 2005, p. 49.
79 548275.939 388275.156 1 Cetăţii Hill Colţeşti Râmetea AB 2 B2 Téglás 1892, p. 304; Pârvan 1926, p. 381–446, 538,
540, 583, 706, 761; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 83.
80 466875.29 360665.31 1 Costeşti – Costeşi Orăştioara HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 46; Daicoviciu et alii
Prisaca de Sus 1959, p. 381; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 120; Ferenczi 1983,
p. 180.
81 466709.23 356828.75 1 Costeşti – Costeşi Orăştioara HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 18–19; Crişan 1973,
Grădişte de Sus p. 74–75; Ferenczi 1983, p. 181–182.
82 468363.42 356437.52 3 Mormân- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 385; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114;
turile de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
83 466744.39 356400.29 3 Dârlău Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu 1972, p. 47; Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83;
de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 50.
84 463940.13 354246.22 1 Merişorul Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83–84; Luca et alii 2005,
de Sus p. 50.
85 464395.61 354693.6 1 Merişorul Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Luca et alii 2005, p. 50.
de Sus
86 466062.13 357035.58 3 Părul Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 315; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114;
de Sus Stoia 1976, 277; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 158, 160, 165, 187; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 50.
87 466091.6 357513.3 3 Școala din Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 349; Daicoviciu 1964,
Deal de Sus p. 114–115; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 157, 158, 188; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 50.
88 465982.38 357617.51 3 Șeaua Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 349; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 115;
(Hoaga) lui de Sus Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 157, 188; Dai-
Crai coviciu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 50.
89 467772.48 356969.36 3 Cosman Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 153; Daicoviciu et alii
de Sus 1960, p. 315; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114–115; Glodariu
1983, p. 134; Florea 1987, p. 83; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Archaeological sites Repertory

Glodariu 1989, p. 157, 159, 160,185; Glodariu et alii

1996b, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 50.
90 468669.3 357393.74 1 Church Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 315; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114;
de Sus Florea 1987, p. 83; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu
1989, p. 158, 187; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 50.
91 459927.01 361741.64 3 La Curţi Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Stoia 1976, p. 277; Florea 1987, p. 84; Daicoviciu,
de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 165, 188; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 48; Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 50.
92 464503.77 358150.19 3 Belie Hill Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 349; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 115;
de Sus Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 157, 189; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 50.
269
 270

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
93 467170.94 356782.81 3 Putinei Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1962, p. 474; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 115;
de Sus Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 159, 165, 185;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
94 464824.05 356159.75 3 Gemeni Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1962, p. 464; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 116;
Stream de Sus Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 159; Glodariu
et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
95 466195.72 356919.83 1 Padişeu Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 153; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Stream de Sus Glodariu 1989, p. 188; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
96 466765.32 356898.11 1 Bărcii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1989, p. 180, 251; Luca et alii 2005,
Valley de Sus p. 51.
97 466128.55 356338.65 2 Cetăţuie Costeşti Orăştioara HD 2 A Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 80, 82;
de Sus Glodariu 1974a, 255, 270, 281; Crăciun 1998, p. 62,
70; Crăciun 1999, p. 91; Luca et alii 2005, p. 53.
98 468056.3 358205.35 1 Plaiu Val- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 153; Daicoviciu et alii 1959,
ley de Sus p. 385; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 73; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Crăciun
1998, p. 70; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55.
99 466411.21 357069.37 3 Sub Marti- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 315; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 114;
Cristian Dima

noi de Sus Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 48; Daicoviciu,

Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 157, 158, 187; Glodariu et
alii 1996b, 49; Crăciun 1998, p. 70;Luca et alii 2005,
p. 55.
100 466220.04 356254.62 2 Cetăţuie Costeşti Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 80, 82;
de Sus Glodariu 1974a, p. 255, 270, 281; Crăciun 1998, p. 62,
70; 1999, 91; Luca et alii 2005, p. 53.
101 468061.11 356024.39 3 Bolşaia Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 B1 Luca et alii 2005, p. 55.
de Sus
102 468338.97 357108.99 3 Ursoaia Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 A Mărghitan 1972; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
de Sus
103 462042.66 366648.31 1 La Strâmbu Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 B3 Berciu, Popa 1963, p. 151–162; Crişan 1965, p. 223–
de Sus 230; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 12–134; Daico-
viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 42, 54, 156; Iarosla-
vschi 1997a, p. 21; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55–56.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
104 458312.01 365461.86 1 Largă Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 B3 Daicoviciu 1972, p. 173; Florea 1987, p. 85; Daicovi-
Valley de Sus ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 61; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 56.
105 464241.08 358133.15 3 Feţele Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 153; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
Belinii de Sus
106 463696.05 355322.3 3 Șesul lui Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Ferenczi 1979a, p. 263; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 63;
Inatoiu de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
107 465150.27 357978.78 3 Șesul Iezi- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1962, p. 474; Daicoviciu 1964,
lor de Sus p. 115;Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 52.
108 464022.16 357001.63 1 Pietroasa Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi,
de Sus Rusu1988, p. 64–65; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 67; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 52.
109 466413.46 356596.52 3 Laz Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 315; Daicoviciu 1964,
de Sus p. 114; Glodariu 1974a, p. 224; Florea 1987, p. 83–84;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
110 466097.34 357209.98 3 Năpârţi Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 153; Stoia 1976, p. 277; Flo-
Meadow de Sus rea 1987, p. 84; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 52.
111 461331.29 359375.92 3 Țuţurău Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Stoia 1976, p. 277; Florea 1987, p. 84; Luca et alii 2005,
Archaeological sites Repertory

de Sus p. 52.
112 460700.8 360442.84 1 La Bocşi- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Florea 1987, p. 84; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 48–49;
tură de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
113 459385.39 358476.28 2 La Cruce at Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
Stănişorii de Sus
Valley
114 458194.41 356830.53 1 Gura Văii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
Stănişorii de Sus
115 458825.71 358076.97 1 Stănişorii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
Valley de Sus
116 463282.35 361733.5 3 Arsuri Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1960, 316; Florea 1987, p. 84; Glo-
de Sus dariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 74; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 54.
271
 272

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
117 464975 356535.81 3 La Cioburi Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Florea 1987, p. 84; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
de Sus p. 74; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 63–64; Luca et alii
2005, p. 54.
118 465159 356403.9 2 Făerag Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu 1972, 137; Glodariu 1983, p. 39, 91, 93;
Garden de Sus Florea 1987, 84; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 62; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 64; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 54.
119 459619.63 358766.96 3 Rădăcinii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 C Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83; Florea 1987, p. 84; Dai-
Meadow de Sus coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 160, 188; Gloda-
riu et alii 1996b, p. 49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 56.
120 460858.9 360126.66 1 Șesul Cru- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 D Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 188; Luca et
cii Ruşilor de Sus alii 2005, p. 51.
121 463734.78 356488.12 3 Scurtelor Costeşti Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu 1964, p. 116; Luca et alii 2005, p. 77.
Stream de Sus
122 463716.79 356705.97 3 Căprioarele Costeşti Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu 1964, p. 116; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
de Sus 1988, p. 72; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 158, 160, 189; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 74; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 77.
Cristian Dima

123 461903.19 356429.38 1 Șesul Ciorii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 64; Daicoviciu,
de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu et alii 1989, p. 186, 251; Glodariu
et alii 1996b, 66; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
124 465935.29 356163.617 1 Ciocuţa Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Glodariu 1983, p. 90–91; Daicoviciu et alii 1989,
de Sus p. 180, 181; Florea 1993a, p. 34; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 62; Luca et alii 2005, p. 51.
125 465494.568 356193.891 1 Cetăţuia Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 228–230; Daicoviciu 1972,
Înaltă de Sus p. 132; Glodariu 1983, p. 90–91; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Glodariu 1989, p. 70, 123, 153, 181, 218, 248, 251; Flo-
rea 1993a, p. 34; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 62–63; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 51.
126 464080.08 354598.97 3 Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
de Sus
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
127 465765.45 355790.83 3 Dosul Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 316; Daicoviciu 1964,
Brăiţei de Sus p. 115–116; Glodariu 1983, p. 90–91; Florea 1993a,
p. 34; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
128 466198.59 356367.75 1 Cetăţuie Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Róska 1942, p. 137, nr. 254; Daicoviciu, Gostar, Daico-
de Sus viciu 1959, p. 331–335; Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 301–
302; Macrea, Crişan 1964, p. 353; Daicoviciu 1968,
p. 53; Glodariu 1968, p. 354–357; Babeş 1971, p. 378;
Glodariu 1974a, p. 223–224, 235–236, 242, 243, 245,
249; Stoia 1976, p. 277; Daicoviciu 1979, p. 103–114;
Floca 1981, p. 15; Cociş 1983, p. 140; Glodariu 1983,
p, 25–154; Antonescu 1984, p. 33, 36, 99–117; Gloda-
riu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 27–32, 49–60; Rustoiu
1993a, p.183; Rustoiu 1993b, p. 140; Glodariu et alii
1994b, p. 50–62; Medeleţ 1994, p. 202, 203; Mârza
1995, p. 200, 201; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 192, 193, 197, 201;
Rustoiu 1997, p. 108; Iaroslavschi 1997a, 59; Florea
1998, p. 150; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31; Gheorghiu
2000, p. 215, 217; Crăciun 2004, p. 128; Glodariu et
alii 2004a, p. 103–104; Gheorghiu 2004a, p. 531–537;
Gheorghiu 2004b, p. 75–78; Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó
2004, p. 47–54; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52–53; Pescaru et
Archaeological sites Repertory

alii 2014, p. 3–28

129 464753.97 357015.22 1 Blidaru Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 124–143, 146–147; Dai-
de Sus coviciu et alii 1955, p. 219–227; Daicoviciu, Gostar,
Crişan 1957, p. 263–270; Macrea, Crişan 1964, p. 353;
Daicoviciu 1968, p. 53; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 44–338;
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 16, 54, 80, 91, 93, 109,
149; Floca 1981, p. 13;; Daicoviciu et alii 1983, p. 25–
154; Antonescu 1984, p. 116–129; Daicoviciu Feren-
czi, Glodariu 1989, p. 13, 67–251; Florea 1993, p. 35;
Mârza 1995, p. 201; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 67–72;
Glodariu et alii 2004a, p. 103–104; Pescaru, Pescaru,
Bodó 2004, p. 47–54; Luca et alii 2005, p. 53–54; Pes-
caru et alii 2014, p. 3–28.
273
 274

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
130 465085.724 357144.517 1 Chisetoare Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu et alii 1955, 227–228; Glodariu 1983, 90–
Peak de Sus 91; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu p. 1988, 71; Daicovi-
ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 154, 185, 251; Gloda-
riu et alii 1996b, p. 73; Pescaru et alii 2004, p. 48–49;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
131 466080.85 356465.25 2 Cetăţuie Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 G Glodariu et alii 1998, nr. 78, p. 50; Glodariu et alii
de Sus 1999, nr. 123, p. 65–66; Glodariu et alii 2000b, nr. 41,
p. 31.
132 466198.59 356367.75 1 Cetăţuie Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 H Cociş 1983, p. 140; Rustoiu 1996a, p. 192, 193, 197,
de Sus 201; Rustoiu 1997, p. 108; Gheorghiu 2004a, p. 531–
537; Gheorghiu 2004b, p. 75–78; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 52–53.
133 462042.66 366648.31 1 La Strâmbu Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 I Ferenczi 1977c, p. 303; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979,
de Sus p. 17; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 21; Iaroslavschi 2004,
p. 57; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 57–58.
134 466735.54 360526.99 1 Prisaca Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 J Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 381; Daicoviciu 1964,
de Sus p. 120; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Ferenzi 1979b, p. 133;
Ferenczi 1983, p. 181; Glodariu 1983, p. 94; Glodariu
et alii 1996b, p. 74, 83; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52.
Cristian Dima

135 466185.947 356380.453 1 TL1 Cetă- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1974a, p. 223–224, 235–236, 242, 243, 245,
ţuie de Sus 249; Glodariu 1983, p, 25–154; Antonescu 1984,
p. 33, 36, 99–117; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 27–32, 49–60; Glodariu et alii 1994b, p. 50–62;
Iaroslavschi 1997a, 59; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31;
Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215, 217; Glodariu et alii 2004a,
p. 103–104; Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó 2004, p. 47–54;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 52–53; Pescaru et alii 2014, p. 3–28
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
136 466086.504 356314.302 1 TL2 Cetă- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1974a, p. 223–224, 235–236, 242, 243, 245,
ţuie de Sus 249; Glodariu 1983, p, 25–154; Antonescu 1984,
p. 33, 36, 99–117; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 27–32, 49–60; Glodariu et alii 1994b, p. 50–62;
Iaroslavschi 1997a, 59; Glodariu et alii 2000, p. 31;
Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215, 217; Glodariu et alii 2004a,
p. 103–104; Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó 2004, p. 47–54;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 152–153; Pescaru et alii 2014,
p. 3–28.
137 466068.847 356450.255 1 TL3 Cetă- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1974a, p. 223–224, 235–236, 242, 243, 245,
ţuie de Sus 249; Glodariu 1983, p, 25–29, 31 34–37, 40, 88–91,
98–99, 103, 107, 112–115, 117–118, 120, 123–126,
128–128, 153–154; Antonescu 1984, p. 33, 36, 99–117;
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 27–32, 49–60;
Glodariu et alii 1994, p. 56–57; Glodariu et alii 1994b,
p. 50–62; Iaroslavschi 1997a, 59; Glodariu et alii 2000,
p. 31; Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215, 217; Glodariu et alii
2004a, p. 103–104; Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó 2004,
p. 47–54; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52–53; Pescaru et alii
2014, p. 3–28.
138 465250.343 357142.891 1 Mătănii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 27; Daicoviciu et alii
Archaeological sites Repertory

Mill de Sus 1955, p. 228; Ștefan 2005, p. 208.

139 465357.172 356982.345 1 Șesul Ciorii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 88; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
de Sus
140 464674.188 356819.407 1 Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 47; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
de Sus
141 464964.969 356984.357 1 Perţii Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 144–146; Glodariu 1983, 93;
Meadow de Sus Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 65; Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 61, 184–185, 251; Glo-
dariu et alii 1996b, p. 66, 67; Pescaru, Pescaru, Bodó
2004, p. 48, 49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 54; Ștefan 2005,
p. 208; Pescaru et alii 2014, p. 8.
275
 276

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
142 465381.79 356798.04 1 Dealul Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Glodariu, Iarsolavschi,
Mare de Sus Rusu 1988, p. 62; Luca et alii 2005, p. 54; Ștefan 2005,
p. 207.
143 465295.288 356733.276 1 Curmătura Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iarsolavschi, Rusu
Faeragului de Sus 1988, p. 64; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 159, 184, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 66; Pescaru,
Pescaru, Bodó 2004, p. 48; Luca et alii 2005, p. 52;
Pescaru et alii 2014, p. 9–10; Ștefan 2005, p. 204–205.
144 465620.303 356806.142 1 Făerag Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 67, 68, 75, 137,
Plateau de Sus 138, 142, 146, 184, 247, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 64,
66; Ștefan 2005, p. 204; Luca et alii 2004, p. 55; Pescaru
et alii 2014, p. 9–10.
145 465530.048 356769.86 1 Făerag Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 67, 68, 75, 137,
Plateau de Sus 138, 142, 146, 184, 247, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 64,
66; Luca et alii 2004, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 204; Pescaru
et alii 2014, p. 9–10.
146 465434.555 465434.555 1 Făerag Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 67, 68, 75, 137,
Plateau de Sus 138, 142, 146, 184, 247, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 64,
66; Luca et alii 2004, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 204; Pescaru
Cristian Dima

et alii 2014, p. 9–10.

147 464362.838 357643.177 1 Curmătura Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
Tocaciu de Sus 1988, p. 71; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 185; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 74; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 55.
148 464540.315 356732.97 1 La Vămi Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
de Sus 1988, p. 64; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 197, 252; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 74; Pescaru,
Pescaru, Bodó 2004, p. 49–50; Glodariu et alii 2004a,
p. 103–104; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206;
Pescaru et alii 2014, p. 6–7.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
149 465400.255 357243.749 1 Chişetoare Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 227–228; Daicoviciu, Feren-
Peak de Sus czi, Glodariu 1989, p. 154, 185, 251; Glodariu 1983,
90–91; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu p. 1988, 71; Glo-
dariu et alii 1996b, p. 73; Pescaru et alii 2004, p. 48–49;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
150 465271.166 357204.198 1 Chişetoare Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 227–228; Glodariu 1983,
Peak de Sus 90–91; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu p. 1988, 71; Dai-
coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 154, 185, 251;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 73; Pescaru et alii 2004,
p. 48–49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
151 464985.921 357227.95 1 Todirici Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, 94; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
Peak de Sus p. 71; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 185,
251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 74; Pescaru et alii 2004,
49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 208; Pescaru
et alii 2014, p. 6.
152 23.16674 357311.296 1 Todirici Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, 94; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
Peak de Sus p. 71; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 185,
251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 74; Pescaru et alii 2004,
49; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 208; Pescaru
et alii 2014, p. 6.
Archaeological sites Repertory

153 465219.11 357386.789 1 Todirici Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 94; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
Stream de Sus 1988, p. 71; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 185, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 73; Luca et alii
2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206; Pescaru et alii 2014,
p. 6.
154 465307.956 357336.659 1 Todirici Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 94; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
Stream de Sus 1988, p. 71; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 185, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 73; Luca et alii
2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206; Pescaru et alii 2014,
p. 6.
155 465592.978 357174.797 1 Chişetoare Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 161, 185, 251;
Meadow de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
277
 278

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
156 465166.333 356540.884 1 Popii Mea- Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
dow de Sus 1988, p. 64; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 184, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 66; Luca et alii
2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206.
157 464688.387 356685.724 1 Mihu Costeşti Orăştioara HD 3 K Glodariu 1983, p. 93; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
Tower de Sus 1988, p. 64; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 196–197, 252; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 66; Luca et alii
2005, p. 55; Ștefan 2005, p. 206; Pescaru et alii 2014,
p. 7.
158 489304.82 332772.53 1 Piatra Cozia Cârjiti HD 3 F Floca 1969, p. 14–15; Floca 1972, p. 15; Glodariu
Coziei 1974a, p. 207; Andriţoiu 1978, p. 67; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi 1979, p. 54–164; Floca 1981, p. 15; Crişan 1986,
p. 249; Florea 1998, p. 68- 69; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Glodariu 1989, p. 77; Medeleţ 1994, p. 203; Rustoiu
1996a, p. 67; Crăciun 2004, p. 128; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 56.
159 519912.279 410103.645 3 Crăciunelu AB 1 A Popescu 1940, p. 194, 196, 198; Moga, Ciugudean
de Jos 1995, p. 85.
160 503822.75 335124.37 3 Crăciuneşti Baiţa HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 60; Luca et alii 2005,
Cristian Dima

p. 56–57.
161 571781.43 338991.61 3 Crăguiş Unirea HD 3 A Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 95; Luca et alii 2005, p. 58.
162 524112.84 383873.63 1 Piatra Craiva Cricău AB 2 E Pârvan 1926, p. 505; Berciu, Popa 1963, p. 157–159;
Craivii Macrea at alii 1966, p. 45–47; Berciu, Moga 1972,
p. 68–71; Moga 1987; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 84.
163 524292.846 383906.625 1 Piatra Craiva Cricău AB 2 G Herepei 1901, p. 76–77; Macrea at alii 1966, p. 45–53;
Craivii Moga 1981, p. 103–117; Glodariu 1983, p. 95–96;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 33–34; Popa 2008, p. 357–365.
164 524506.969 382989.128 1 Piatra Craiva Cricău AB 2 G Rustoiu 2007, p. 83–98; Plantos 2015, p. 251–263.
Craivii
165 520615.472 389470.857 3 Protestant Cricău AB 1 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 86; Gheorghiu 2005,
Church p. 33–34.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
166 475878.99 366236.25 3 Dumitres- Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 210.
cu Vanea’s
Garden
167 476093 367644.73 1 Colnic Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 51–163; Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 56, 70, 87, 164, 171, 172,
230, 233; Pinter, Căstăian, Țuţuianu 2000, p. 34; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 59.
168 475117.49 365070.52 3 Berianu Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 158; Daicoviciu,
Hill Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 165, 210; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 163; Luca et alii 2005, p. 59–60.
169 475845.25 367910.63 1 Muchea Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 158; Daicoviciu,
Cetăţii Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 165, 210; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 163–164; Luca et alii 2005, p. 60.
170 476038.8 365557.53 3 La Dos Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 158; Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 164, 210; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 164; Luca et alii 2005, p. 60.
171 474761.2 366323.43 3 Stâna Mea- Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu1988, p. 158; Daicoviciu,
dow Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 164, 165, 210; Luca et alii
2005, p. 60.
172 475139.76 367936.87 1 Padeşul de Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 158–159; Daico-
Archaeological sites Repertory

Sus viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 165, 210; Glodariu

et alii 1996b, p. 164; Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii
2005, p. 60.
173 474701.24 367001.21 1 Suciu Hill Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iarsolavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 159; Daicovi-
ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 210; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 164; Luca et alii 2005, p. 60.
174 475369.38 367623.66 1 Pietrele Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 210; Luca et
Caprei alii 2005, p. 60.
175 474209.28 367524.31 3 Cărbunari Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 209; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 60.
279
 280

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
176 474520.27 367492.92 3 Glajerie Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavaschi, Rusu 1988, p. 159; Daicovi-
ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 210; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 164; Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 60.
177 455992.86 328900.12 3 Cucuiuş Densus HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, p. 282; Luca et alii 2005, p. 61.
178 475567.51 367022.39 1 Gruieţ Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 C Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 158; Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 165, 210; Glodariu et a alii
1996b, p. 164; Luca et alii 2005, p. 60.
179 474461.6 366829.64 1 Golu Cucuiuş Beriu HD 3 E Glodariu 1982, p. 28; Glodariu 1983, p. 56–57, 61, 66–
67, 103, 128, 154; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 157; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 70, 87,
164, 171, 209, 254; Florea, Glodariu, Gheorghiu 1994,
p. 20; Căstăian 1995, p. 121; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 162; Florea, Glodariu, Gheorghiu et alii 1996, p. 37;
Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005, p. 59.
180 482895.092 373004.385 1 Via Valley Cugir AB 1 A Gheorghiu 2005, p. 36; Popa 2011, p. 679.
181 479718.89 374515.369 2 Chiciura Cugir AB 1 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 87.
Hill
Cristian Dima

182 482205.618 482205.618 1 După Ce- Cugir AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 94, pl. 7/1–2, 5; Popa 2011, p. 685.
tate
183 486376.279 373359.265 1 La Arini Cugir AB 2 A Gheorghiu 2005, p. 36; Popa 2011, p. 685.
184 484787.3 373422.53 1 La Bălţi Cugir AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 90, 93–94, pl. 7/6–7; Popa 2011, p. 683.
185 483665.942 372186.326 1 Stadium Cugir AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 94–95, 127–128, fig. 4/3; Gheorghiu
Park 2005, p. 36; Popa 2011, p. 688.
186 482820.503 372847.453 1 Sub Coastă Cugir AB 1 A Popa 2011, p. 688.
187 482177.394 373130.829 1 Fortress Cugir AB 2 B1 Preda 1966, p. 64, 75; Preda 1973, p. 297, 298, 333,
379; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 88; Popa 2011, p. 680.
188 482177.394 373130.829 1 Fortress Cugir AB 2 B1 Preda 1966, p. 64, 75; Preda 1973, p. 297, 298, 333,
379; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 88; Popa 2011, p. 680.
189 482820.503 372847.453 1 Sub Coastă Cugir AB 1 B1 Floca 1958, p. 95–107; Preda 1973, p. 29, 35, nr. 8;
Popa 2004, p. 106–108, 110–113; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 35–36; Popa 2011, p. 688.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
190 484599.061 372035.999 1 Țara Cugir AB 2 B2 Popa 2004, p. 114, pl. 1/2; Popa 2011, p. 690.
Vânturilor-
Alunu Hill
191 482177.394 373130.829 1 Fortress Cugir AB 2 E Pârvan 1926, p. 114, 779; Daicoviciu 1945, p. 28; Flo-
ca 1958, p. 95–97; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 87–88;
Popa 2011, p. 680.
192 482114.337 373028.731 1 Fortress Cugir AB 2 G Crişan 1980, p. 81–86; Crişan, Medeleţ 1979, p. 105–
107; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 88; Popa 2011, p. 680;
Teleagă 2014, p. 295–318; Teleagă et alii 2014, p. 305–
336.
193 459888.916 380835.585 2 La Horn Cugir AB 2 I Popa 2004, p. 101; Popa 2011, p. 686.
194 461452.073 377733.985 1 Bătrâna Cugir AB 1 I Glodariu 1975b, p. 116; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979,
p. 17–18; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 75; Oltean 2007, p. 39;
Popa 2011, p. 678.
195 457074.775 376985.202 1 Negru Hill Cugir AB 2 I Luca et alii 2008, p. 28, nr. 21.3; Popa 2011, p. 682.
196 456861.467 379527.098 1 Gropşoara Cugir AB 2 I Daicoviciu et alii 1989, p. 214; Popa 2011, p. 684.
197 459442.094 373725.809 1 Șteaua Cugir AB 1 I Popa 2011, p. 689.
Mare
198 494108.354 396951.809 3 Dârgău Cut Câlnic AB 3 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 89; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 36.
Fountain
Archaeological sites Repertory

199 390441.176 394969.453 3 Daia Română AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 90; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 36.
200 543034.639 405300.063 3 Decea Mirăslău AB 1 A Glodariu 1974a, p. 270; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 90.
201 543034.639 405300.063 3 Decea Mirăslău AB 1 B1 Winkler 1958, nr. 199; Preda 1973, p. 303, nr. 6; Moga,
Ciugudean 1995, p. 90.
202 489006.35 338304.63 3 Microraion Deva Deva HD 3 A Crişan 1965, p. 139; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Floca
1975, p. 409; Floca 1977, p. 174–175; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 64.
203 486349.71 337944.27 2 Deva Deva HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80, 82; Mitrea 1971a, p. 399,
403; Mitrea 1971b, p. 119, 123; Winkler 1972, p. 51–
54; Glodariu 1974a, p. 256, 263, 270, 282; Glodariu
1975a, fig. 4, 30; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Floca 1977,
p. 175; Crăciun 1998, p. 64, 70; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
281
 282

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
204 485923.75 338526.78 2 Deva Deva HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80, 82; Mitrea 1971a, p. 399,
403; Mitrea 1971b, p. 119, 123; Winkler 1972, p. 51–
54; Glodariu 1975, fig. 4, 30; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38;
Floca 1977, p. 175; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 51; Cră-
ciun 1998, p. 64, 70; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
205 485886.84 336206.16 3 Deva Deva HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80, 82; Mitrea 1971a, p. 399,
403; Mitrea 1971b, p. 119, 123; Winkler 1972, p. 51–
54; Glodariu 1975, fig. 4, 30; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38;
Floca 1977, p. 175; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 51; Cră-
ciun 1998, p. 64, 70; Luca et alii 2005, 65.
206 486691.43 337844.05 3 Deva Deva HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80, 82; Mitrea 1971a, p. 399,
403; Mitrea 1971b, p. 119, 123; Winkler 1972, p. 51–
54; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Floca 1977, p. 175; Crăciun
1998, p. 64, 70; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 51; Crăciun
1998, p. 64, 70; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
207 489845.19 336902.55 1 Fortress Deva Deva HD 2 F Róska 1942, p. 67–68, nr. 36; Crişan 1965, p. 139; Ale-
Hill xandrescu 1966, p. 167, 176; Floca 1972, p. 14, 15; Dai-
coviciu 1972, p. 145, 188, 226, 269; Glodariu 1974a,
p. 224; Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Floca 1975, p. 407–410;
Cristian Dima

Floca 1977, p. 174;Glodariu 1982, p. 28–29; Glodariu

1983, p. 95, 97, 128, 154; Rustoiu 1997, p. 100; Măr-
ghitan 1998a, p. 327; Luca et alii 2005, p. 63.
208 486751.25 337753.26 1 Ceangăi Deva Deva HD 3 H Róska 1942, p. 67, nr. 36; Floca 1969, p. 13, 14; Luca
Cemetery et alii 2005, p. 62.
209 488640.98 336882.63 2 Deva Deva HD 3 H Floca 1969, p. 20; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
210 485860.45 338030.08 2 Deva Deva HD 3 I Róska 1942, p. 256, nr. 45; Wollmann 1973, p. 108;
Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Ferenczi 1979a, p. 266–267;
Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu1989, p. 55; Wollmann
1996, p. 270, 282; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
211 497493.884 410384.176 3 Doştat AB 1 A Preda 1973, p. 38, 434, nr. 24; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 91; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 37–38.
212 493822.817 403157.446 2 Draşov Spring AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 92; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 38.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
213 480859.27 330133.2 3 Dumbrava Dumbrava Peştişu Mic HD 3 A Luca, Roman, Băicoană 1997, p. 18; Luca, Roman,
Cave Diaconescu 2004, p. 35–36; Luca et alii 2005, p. 65.
214 450624.51 354395.52 3 Cocoşu Federi Pui HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 83, nr. 9; Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 190;
Cave Nemeş 1991, p. 34–35; Ciugudean 2000, p. 71; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 68.
215 453145.17 355015.7 3 Izvor Federi Pui HD 3 E Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22–23; Tatu, Popa,
Maxim 1991, p. 95; Moraru, Tatu 1993, p. 266; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 68.
216 451917.95 355113.42 3 Fâneaţa Federi Pui HD 3 H Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 95; Luca et alii 2005, p. 67.
217 451917.95 355113.42 3 Fâneaţa Federi Pui HD 3 I Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 95; Luca et alii 2005, p. 67.
218 450148.06 354289.79 3 Hotar Fizeşi Pui HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 37; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 95;
Luca et alii 2005 p. 69.
219 521063.464 393626.588 3 Galda de jos AB 2 A Crişan 1969, p. 263; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 38.
220 460167.19 348300.07 3 Gantagii Gantaga Bretea Ro- HD 3 D Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 96; Luca et alii 2005, p. 70
Valley mana
221 492848.28 361414.08 3 Via Sub Geoagiu Geoagiu HD 3 A Winkler 1958, p. 405; Glodariu 1971, p. 76; Glodariu
Piatră 1974a, 267; Crăciun 1998, p. 71; Luca et alii 2005, p. 71
222 469726.95 330292.85 3 Ghelari Ghelari Ghelari HD 3 I Daicoviciu 1972, p. 52, 168–169; Glodariu, Iarosla-
Mine vschi 1979, p. 14, 18; Boroneanţ 2000, p. 127; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 73; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 57–58;
Archaeological sites Repertory

Roman, Ioan, Turle 2016, p. 243–256.

223 504466.967 401146.936 3 Gherzuini Ghirbom Berghin AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 98; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 39.
224 470538.22 328282.39 3 Govajdia Ghelari HD 3 E Róska 1942, p. 99, nr. 45; Luca et alii 2005, p. 55.
225 462020.11 362664.64 1 Cave 1 of Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 72; Glodariu et
Vârtoapele Munte de Sus alii 1996b, p. 75; Boroneanţ 2000, 78–79; Luca et alii
Peak 2005, p. 75.
226 453745.92 373945.27 1 Titiana Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Daicoviciu et alii 1962, p. 473–474; Daicoviciu 1964,
Munte de Sus p. 122–123; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 159, 216–217, 218, 220, 254; Luca et alii 2005, p. 74
283
 284

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
227 458801.92 368091.03 3 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
228 459174.01 367871.85 1 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
229 459365.06 368326.77 2 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
Cristian Dima

iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii

2005, p. 76–77.
230 459785.26 369338.72 3 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
231 461171.368 368911.036 1 Căprăreaţa Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 426–446.
Munte de Sus
232 462318.546 363189.471 1 Cornu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 426–446.
Pietrii Munte de Sus
233 458940.928 364639.301 1 Gerosu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
234 460090.38 364304.03 1 Popii Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 73–74; Daico-
Munte de Sus viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 156, 191, 220, 252;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 76; Luca et alii 2005, p. 81.
235 458661.82 367578.42 3 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
236 459483.71 367595.48 3 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
237 460914.45 362173.42 1 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
Archaeological sites Repertory

1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-

iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
238 458985.44 368100.55 3 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
285
 286

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
239 462278.48 364100.76 1 Rapa cu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B1 Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 79; Daicoviciu,
Galbeni Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 209; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 82; Iaroslavschi, Bozu 2001, p. 127–142; Luca et alii
2005, p. 82.
240 460364.98 368920.25 2 Căprăreaţa Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B2 Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 204–216; Daicoviciu 1972,
Munte de Sus p. 153; Morintz 1972, p. 339; Glodariu 1974a, p. 245;
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 300, 304–308; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi 1979, p. 8–164; Cociş 1983, p. 140; Florea 1987,
p. 86; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 149; Dai-
coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 164, 191, 251;
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 33, 46, 55; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 19,
21, 49, 58, 62, 64, 67, 86, 106, 107, 116; Crăciun 2000,
p. 79–80, 81–82, 83; Chişu, Benea 2001, p. 143–150;
Ferencz 2001, p. 151–158; Bodó, Ferencz 2004,
p. 286–297; Luca et alii 2005, p. 77.
241 460803.29 361091.97 1 Church Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B3 Daicoviciu 1964, p. 117; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glo-
Munte de Sus dariu 1989, p. 190, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 75;
Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005, p. 81.
242 456278.43 365934.69 1 Largă Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B3 Daicoviciu 1964, 117; Glodariu 1974a, p. 238; Glo-
Cristian Dima

Valley Munte de Sus dariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 148; Daicoviciu,

Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 190, 251; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 154; Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 81.
243 462245.02 364091.58 1 Rapa cu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 B3 Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 79; Daicoviciu,
Galbeni Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 209; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 82; Iaroslavschi, Bozu 2001, p. 127–142; Luca et alii
2005, p. 82.
244 462327.93 365746.18 1 Terasa Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 C Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 189; Daicoviciu et alii 1955,
Hărban Munte de Sus p. 216–219; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 188; Glodariu 1974a,
p. 213; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 74; Dai-
coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 154, 192; Gloda-
riu et alii 1996b, p. 77; Luca et alii 2005, p. 81.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
245 457737.51 366848.36 1 Brad Vall- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 C Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 148–149; Daico-
ley Munte de Sus viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 162, 190–191, 251;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 154; Luca et alii 2005, p. 81.
246 458565.16 372471.87 1 Muchea Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 C Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 149–150; Glo-
Tâmpului Munte de Sus dariu et alii 1996b, p. 155–156 Luca et alii 2005, p. 81.
247 459146.15 367860.43 1 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
248 463774.45 362265.81 1 Curmătura Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Florea 1987, p. 85; Glo-
Văii Rele Munte de Sus dariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 76; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 78.
249 462127.9 360859.07 1 Vârtoape Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Florea 1987, p. 85; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu
Munte de Sus 1989, p. 39, 61, 79, 128, 133, 172, 206, 253; Luca et alii
2005, p. 78.
250 464937.31 369150.39 1 Cioaca cu Grădiştea de Beriu HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 188; Daicoviciu et alii 1973,
Frasini Munte p. 84; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 73; Daico-
Archaeological sites Repertory

viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 160, 190, 206, 251;

Florea 1987, p. 85; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 75; Luca
et alii 2005, 78.
251 458089.95 364780.94 1 Gerosul Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 384; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 117;
Munte de Sus Florea 1987, p. 85; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 156,
190, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 79; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 78.
252 458990.76 359020.29 1 Cugereanu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Glodariu 1974a, p. 223;
Hill Munte de Sus Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 160, 190, 251;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 75; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
287
 288

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
253 464633.83 363958.92 1 Curmătura Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 84; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi,
Comăr- Munte de Sus Rusu 1988, p. 79; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
nicelului p. 160, 208, 253; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 82; Luca et
Cetei alii 2005, p. 78.
254 467721.42 357753.46 2 La Arie Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Munte de Sus Glodariu 1989, p. 160, 188; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
255 467542.5 357611.3 2 Dosul Dea- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83; Daicoviciu Ferenczi,
lului Munte de Sus Glodariu 1989, p. 118, 160; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
256 459836.95 365180.91 3 Cioaca lui Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 75; Daicoviciu,
Alexandru Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 92; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 76; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
257 459658.29 365232.28 3 Cioaca lui Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 74; Glodariu et
Rarjoi Munte de Sus alii 1996b, 76; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78,
258 460267 365854.85 1 La Arsuri Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 74; Glodariu et
Munte de Sus alii 1996b, p. 77; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78,
259 461101.429 363129.987 1 Anineş Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
260 461306.58 364179.8 1 Confluence Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 78; Daicoviciu,
Cristian Dima

of Anineş Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu1989, p. 207, 253; Glodariu et alii

with Gâr- 1996b, p. 80; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
bavu
261 460484.08 362952.63 1 Confluence Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 77; Daicoviciu,
of Small Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu1989, 207, 253; Glodariu et alii
Valley with 1996b, p. 80;Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
Anineş
Valley
262 462783.64 364283.95 1 Anineşu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu1989, p. 133; Luca et
Peak Munte de Sus alii 2005, p. 78.
263 460503.27 361862.76 1 Măgureanu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 384; Daicoviciu 1964,
Hill Munte de Sus p. 116–117; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 156, 191, 251; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 73; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 75–76; Luca et alii
2005, p. 78.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
264 461767.86 362092.05 1 Cocoş Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 317; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 117;
Munte de Sus Florea 1987, p. 85; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 75; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 158,
207, 253; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 77–78; Luca et alii
2005, p. 78–79.
265 460447.247 365701.47 1 Feţele Albe Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
266 463938.65 365653.44 1 Faţa Cetei Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 317; Daicoviciu p. 1964,
Munte de Sus 119; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 43, 151, 153; Glodariu, Ia-
roslavschi 1979, p. 70; Glodariu 1983, p. 35–36, 47;
Florea 1987, p. 86–87; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1988, p. 79–80; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu1989,
p. 42–253; Florea 1998, p. 149; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 82; Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005, p. 79.
267 465415.52 362005.2 1 Sub Bordul Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu 1964, p. 119–120; Glodariu, Iaroslavaschi,
Munte de Sus Rusu 1988, p. 80; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 157, 206, 253; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 83; Luca et alii
2005, p. 79.
268 456534.293 369734.964 1 Rudele Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
Archaeological sites Repertory

269 456781.163 368830.231 1 Rudele Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean

Munte de Sus
270 456812.79 366471.6 1 Rudele Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 384, 386–391; Daicoviciu
Munte de Sus 1964, p. 121; Glodariu 1974a, p. 225; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi 1979, p. 17–19, 48, 91, 112; Antonescu 1984,
p. 67; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 34–35,
154; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 61–255;
Glodariu et ali 1996b, p. 162; Bodó 1997, p. 51–56;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 79–80.
289
 290

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
271 456089.802 371930.833 1 Meleia Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 383; Daicoviciu et alii 1960,
Munte de Sus p. 308–315; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 121–122; Babeş 1971,
p. 378; Glodariu 1974a, p. 225–226; Glodariu, Ia-
roslavschi 1979, p. 17–163; Glodariu 1983, p. 23–24,
31, 152; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 35,
150–154; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 61-
255; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 156–62; Florea 1998,
p. 149–150; Crăciun 2004, p. 128; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 80.
272 457642.91 362930.79 1 Pustăiosu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1957, p. 270–276; Daicoviciu 1972,
Munte de Sus p. 162; Glodariu 1974a, p. 213; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
1979, p. 159; Glodariu 1983, p. 99; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi, Rusu 1988, p. 76; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Gloda-
riu 1989, p. 79, 155, 190, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 78–79; Bodó 1997, p. 51ü56; Luca et alii 2005, p. 80.
273 457914.71 371550.78 1 Tâmpu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Daicoviciu et alii 1957, p. 270–276; Daicoviciu p. 1972,
Munte de Sus 162; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17–19, 22, 30, 33,
42; Glodariu 1983, p. 23; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1988, p. 34–35; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
Cristian Dima

p. 39- 255; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 162; Iaroslavschi

1997a, p. 21, 50; Luca et alii 2005, p. 80.
274 461926.47 364525.13 1 Naştii Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 78; Daicoviciu,
Meadow Munte de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 79, 209, 253; Glodariu et
alii 1996b, 81; Luca et alii 2005, p. 80.
275 459724.61 363621.18 1 Muncelu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 73; Glodariu et
Hill Munte de Sus alii 1996b, p. 76; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 156, 191, 220, 252; Luca et alii 2005, p. 80–81.
276 458090.276 366913.771 1 Brad Valley Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
277 457509.656 367556.731 1 Brad Valley Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
278 460111.09 371842.84 1 Șesu Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
279 459157.662 370425.534 1 Șesu Hill
Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
280 460076.272 371107.546 1 Șesu Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
281 458332.159 369871.605 1 Șesu Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
282 458133.404 369278.031 1 Șesu Hill Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
283 460122.351 367794.074 1 Muncelu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Downhill Munte de Sus
284 460549.582 366368.921 1 Feţele Albe Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Munte de Sus
285 461031.669 368158.008 1 Muncelu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Downhill Munte de Sus
286 458511.599 363122.198 1 Pustăiosu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Peak Munte de Sus
287 458974.415 366792.271 1 Western Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
quarter Munte de Sus
288 459012.701 367240.085 1 Western Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
quarter Munte de Sus
Archaeological sites Repertory

289 459207.458 367591.336 1 Western Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean

quarter Munte de Sus
290 459122.504 23°16’57.18 1 Western Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
quarter Munte de Sus
291 459858.73 369016.822 1 Eastern Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
quarter Munte de Sus
292 460090.364 369043.361 1 Eastern Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
quarter Munte de Sus
293 461541.756 365619.838 1 Hărban Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Terrace Munte de Sus
294 461738.925 368033.309 1 Muncelu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Hill Munte de Sus
291
 292

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
295 461517.417 367371.493 1 Muncelu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Hill Munte de Sus
296 45°36’32.11 23°15’4.57 1 Pustăiosu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 D Inf. I. Oltean
Peak Munte de Sus
297 462911.704 364982.282 1 Hulpe Peak Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 E Daicoviciu 1972, p. 76, 137, 153; Glodariu 1982, p. 28;
Munte de Sus Glodariu 1983, p. 47, 100, 112, 114, 118, 124, 128, 130,
154; Florea 1987, p. 86–87; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi,
Rusu 1988, p. 78; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,
p. 42- 255; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 81; Glodariu et
alii 2004b, p. 130–131; Luca et alii 2005, p. 77; Peţan
2015, p. 123–171.
298 465248.88 362948.96 1 Comăr- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 E Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 382; Daicoviciu 1964,
nicelu Munte de Sus p. 119; Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 83, 84; Florea 1987,
Fortress p. 87; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 79;Daico-
viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 42, 156, 160, 208,
219, 253, 255; Glodariu et alii 1996b, 81, 175; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 77.
Cristian Dima
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
299 459469.78 368178.63 1 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 F Kuun, Torma, Téglás 1902, p. 19–21; Finály 1916,
tusa Regia Munte de Sus p. 11–43; Ferenczi 1924, p. 264–274; Macrea 1941,
p. 127–150; Daicoviciu et alii 1951, p. 95–126; Dai-
coviciu et alii 1952, p. 95–126; Daicoviciu et alii
1953, p. 153–219; Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 147–152;
Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 195–216; Daicoviciu et alii
1957, p. 256–263; Daicoviciu et alii 1960, p. 302–307;
Daicoviciu et alii 1962, p. 466–467; Macrea, Cri-
şan 1964, p. 355; Daicoviciu 1965, p. 383–386; Jakó
1966, p. 103–120; Jakó 1968, p. 433–444; Glodariu
1968, p. 362–363; Jakó 1971, p. 439–456; Jakó 1973,
p. 615–640; Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 62–70; Gloda-
riu 1974a, p. 207, 213, 250; Crişan, Moldovan 1975,
p. 191–106; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976, p. 75–77;
Crişan 1977, p. 149–153; Ferenczi 1977a, p. 155–170;
Ferenczi 1977b, p. 73–80; Daicoviciu et alii 1979,
p. 135–138; Daicoviciu 1980, p. 65–80; Floca 1981,
p. 13, 15; Iaroslavschi 1981, p. 166–173; Glodariu
1982, p. 28;; Iaroslavschi 1983, p. 371–382; Glodariu
1983, p. 7–154; Daicoviciu et alii 1983, p. 232–234;
Antonescu 1984, p. 16, 41, 51, 54, 184–188; Iarosla-
Archaeological sites Repertory

vschi 1986, p. 453–458; Crişan 1986, p. 153; Florea

1987, p. 87–88, 91; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu
1989, p. 35–256; Florea 1993b, p. 95–109; Mârza
1995, p. 201; Glodariu 1995, p. 124–129; Glodariu et
alii 1996a, p. 53–54; Rustoiu 1996b, p. 76–82; Rus-
toiu 1997, p. 112; Bodó 1997, p. 51–56; Mârza 1997,
p. 819–823; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 36–37; Glodariu et
alii 1998b, p. 65–66; Florea 1998, p. 80; Glodariu et
alii 2001, p. 94–95; Glodariu et alii 2002, p. 149–150;
Glodariu et alii 2004b, p. 13–131; Florea, Suciu 2004,
p. 73–74; Benea 2004, p. 9–38; Glodariu et alii 2005,
p. 166–167; Luca et alii 2005, p. 75–76; Iaroslavschi,
Mateescu 2011, p. 94–134; Mateescu, Gheorgiu 2015;
Neamţu, Florea, Gheorghiu, Bodó 2016.
293
 294

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
300 459935.038 365842.496 1 Feţele Albe Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 F Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1969, p. 465–474; Daicoviciu
Munte de Sus 1971, p. 257–262; Babeş 1971, p. 378; Morintz 1972,
p. 339; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 12- 326; Daicoviciu et alii
1973, p. 61–86; Morintz 1973, p. 377; Glodariu 1974a,
p. 225, 238; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976, p. 77–79; Glo-
dariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 54–164; Glodariu 1983,
p. 21–153; Florea 1987, p. 86, 91; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi, Rusus 1988, p. 79–80; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Glodariu 1989, p. 62–255; Florea 1993a, p. 35; Gloda-
riu et alii 1996b, p. 82; Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215–217,
218–219; Bodó, Ferencz 2002, p. 286–297; Luca et alii
2005 p. 79.
301 460808.21 361037.5 3 Lupoaia Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 F Róska 1942, p. 313, nr. 9; Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 85;
Munte de Sus Florea 1987, p. 85; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
p. 72–73; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 69,
160, 189–190, 251; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 75; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 81.
302 459270.89 368195.65 2 Sarmizege- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 H Winkler 1968, p. 211; Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Gloda-
tusa Regia Munte de Sus riu 1974a, p. 267, 271, 284, 298; Daicoviciu, Glodariu
Cristian Dima

1976, p. 76–77; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989,

p. 35, 152, 153, 194; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1992, p. 57–68; Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Rusto-
iu 1997, p. 15; Crăciun 1998, p. 65, 66, 71; Luca et alii
2005, p. 76–77.
303 460446.69 368910.92 2 Căprăreaţa Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 H Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 204–216; Daicoviciu 1972,
Munte de Sus p. 153; Morintz 1972, p. 339; Glodariu 1974a, p. 245;
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 300, 304–308; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi 1979, p. 8–164; Cociş 1983, p. 140; Florea 1987,
p. 86; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 149; Dai-
coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 164, 191, 251;
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 33, 46, 55; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 19–
116; Crăciun 2000, p. 79–80, 81–82, 83; Chişu, Benea
2001, p. 143–150; Ferencz 2001, p. 151–158; Bodó,
Ferencz 2004, p. 286–297; Luca et alii 2005, p. 77.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
304 457113.8 371086.27 1 Gura Tâm- Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 H Daicoviciu et alii 1955, p. 204–216; Daicoviciu 1972,
pului Munte de Sus p. 153; Morintz 1972, p. 339; Glodariu 1974a, p. 245;
Ferenczi 1977c, p. 300, 304–308; Glodariu, Iarosla-
vschi 1979, p. 8–164; Cociş 1983, p. 140; Florea 1987,
p. 86; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 149; Dai-
coviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 164, 191, 251;
Rustoiu 1996a, p. 33, 46, 55; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 19,
21, 49, 58, 62, 64, 67, 86, 106, 107, 116; Crăciun 2000,
p. 79–80, 81–82, 83; Chişu, Benea 2001, p. 143–150;
Ferencz 2001, p. 151–158; Bodó, Ferencz 2004,
p. 286–297; Luca et alii 2005, p. 77.
305 462111.476 362247.809 1 Dosul Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 I Daicoviciu et alii 1953, p. 189; Ferenczi 1977c, p. 301;
Vârtoape- Munte de Sus Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17, 22; Glodariu,
lor – Sub Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 34–35, 75; Daicoviciu,
Cununi Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 39–255; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 78; Iaroslavschi 1997a, p. 21, 50; Luca et alii
2005, p. 81; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 57–58.
306 461456.25 377804.23 1 Batrâna Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 I Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 17–18, 19, 22; Gloda-
Munte de Sus riu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 34–35; Iaroslavschi
1997a, p.21, 49–50; Luca et alii 2005, p. 81; Popa 2011,
p. 303; Iaroslavschi, Mateescu 2011, p. 57–58.
Archaeological sites Repertory

307 462763.985 363546.183 1 Cornu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 J Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 426–446.
Pietrii Munte de Sus
308 461780.28 368721.15 1 Muncelul Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 48–49; Ferenczi 1983,
Peak Munte de Sus p. 182; Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 429–446.
309 458924.4 369988.422 1 Șesu HillGrădiştea de Orăştioara HD 0 J Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439
Munte de Sus
310 462399.764 363231.106 1 Cornu Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 0 J Oltean, Hanson 2017, p. 435–439
Pietrii Munte de Sus
311 462367.44 364240.43 1 Anineşului Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 K Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 384; Daicoviciu 1964, 117;
Hill Munte de Sus Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
295
 296

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
312 461542.28 364118.46 1 Aninesului Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 K Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 73,79; Daicovi-
Hill Munte de Sus ciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 125; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 82; Luca et alii 2005, p. 78.
313 462216.24 364263.99
1 Arieşului Grădiştea de Orăştioara HD 2 K Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 208; Luca et
Hill Munte de Sus alii 2005, p. 81.
314 509769.818 397039.696 3 Hăpria Ciugud AB 3 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 105; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 39.
315 458852.73 340126.36 3 Hăţăgel Hăţăgel HD 3 A Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Crăciun 1998, p. 72;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 84.
316 455134.86 331030.43 3 Haţăgel Hăţăgel Densuş HD 3 A Crăciun 1998, p. 75–76; Luca et alii 2005, p. 85.
317 458222.97 342652.25 1 Gradiştea Haţeg HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 38; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 96;
Burnaz 1991, p. 681–688; Luca et alii 2005, p. 83.
318 474250.52 335778.63 1 Sânpetru Hunedoara HD 3 A Luca et alii 2003, p. 143–144; Sîrbu et alii 2005,
Hill p. 178–180; Luca et alii 2005, p. 87; Roman, Roman,
Tincu 2008, nr. 78; Roman, Tincu 2010, nr. 127.
319 475777.12 338137.08 3 Hunedoara HD 3 A Rusu 1975, p. 351; Zirra, Spânu 1992, p. 401–424,
fig. 3/55; Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12; Crăciun 1999,
p. 91; Luca et alii 2005, p. 89.
320 474256.45 336021.37 3 Hunedoara HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 296; Winkler 1958, p. 403–404;
Cristian Dima

Winkler 1970, p. 103; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80,

82; Glodariu 1974a, p. 257, 260, 271, 300; Glodariu
1975a, p. 237–248; Mihăilescu- Bârliba 1993, p. 39;
Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12; Luca et alii 2005, p. 89–90.
321 473994.12 336412.71 3 Hunedoara HD 3 A Crăciun 1999, p. 91, Luca et alii 2005, p. 90.
322 474597.22 336461.04 3 Hunedoara HD 3 B1 Róska 1942, p. 296; Winkler 1958, p. 403–404;
Winkler 1970, p. 103; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80,
82; Glodariu 1974a, p. 257, 260, 271, 300; Glodariu
1975a, p. 237–248; Mihăilescu- Bârliba 1993, p. 39;
Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12; Luca et alii 2005, p. 89–90.
323 475320.15 337543.44 3 Hunedoara HD 3 B1 Róska 1942, p. 296; Winkler 1958, p. 403–404;
Winkler 1970, p. 103; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 80,
82; Glodariu 1974a, p. 257, 260, 271, 300; Glodariu
1975a, p. 237–248; Mihăilescu- Bârliba 1993, p. 39;
Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12; Luca et alii 2005, p. 89–90.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
324 474306.31 335876.1 1 Castle Hunedoara HD 3 G Roman, Diaconescu 2002, p. 7–29; Sîrbu 2004,
Garden p. 736–737; Luca et alii 2005, p. 87–88; Sîrbu et alii
2005, p. 178–180.
325 473987.01 335665.06 1 Sânpetru Hunedoara HD 3 E Róska 1942, p. 296; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 50, 143, 168;
Hill Sîrbu et alii 2005, p. 178–180; Roman et alii 2007,
nr. 96; Roman, Tincu 2010, nr. 127.
326 517160.206 385426.834 3 Ighiu AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 111; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 40.
327 505999.482 380632.161 2 Piatra cu Inuri Vinţu de Jos AB 3 A Floca 1958, p. 106; Crişan 1969, p. 266, nr. 160; Glo-
Stânjenu dariu 1974a, p. 284, nr. 154; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 111; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 40.
328 505943.132 380417.341 3 Ioan Inuri Vinţu de Jos AB 1 B1 Floca 1958, p. 106; Glodariu 1974a, p. 284, nr. 154;
Marian’s Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 111.
Property
329 465171.66 333168.65 3 Izvoarele Teliucu HD 3 A Glodariu 1975a, fig. 4, 45; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976,
Inferior p. 80, 82; Luca et alii 2005, p. 91.
330 518888.245 358888.943 3 Izvorul Am- AB 3 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 113; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 40.
poiului
331 478511.95 350363.19 3 Măgura Jeledinţi Mărtineşti HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 147, nr. 37; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glo-
dariu 1989, p. 53, 55; Luca et alii 2005, p. 93.
332 477796.87 350499.76 3 Tihuţa Jeledinţi Mărtineşti HD 3 A Mărghitan 1975, p. 38; Andriţoiu 1979, p. 24–25; Luca
Archaeological sites Repertory

et alii 2005, p. 93.

333 501129.328 388595.726 2 Glod Lancrăm AB 3 C Popa, Totoianu 2000, p. 51–134; Popa, Simina 2004;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 40.
334 394272.145 389754.337 3 Limba Ciugud AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 93; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 38.
335 469185.31 360283.91 3 Piscul Ce- Ludeştii de Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1954, p. 154; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
tăţeaua Jos de Sus Glodariu1989, p. 177, 250; Luca et alii 2005, p. 96.
336 469931.11 357456.04 3 Vadu Rau Ludeştii de Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu 1972, p. 195; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Gloda-
Jos de Sus riu 1989, p. 78, 80, 177, 240; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 47; Luca et alii 2005, p. 96.
297
 298

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
337 470531.25 357866.07 3 Edge of the Ludeştii de Orăştioara HD 3 A Stoicovici, Winkler 1971, p. 478- 479; Glodariu 1974a,
Village Jos de Sus p. 299; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976, p. 73; Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 80; Medeleţ 1994, p. 204;
Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 47; Crăciun 1998, p. 333;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 96.
338 469205.07 362370.19 3 Zăvoaie Ludeştii de Orăştioara HD 3 A Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 81; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi,
Sus de Sus Glodariu 1989, p. 160, 177, 250; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 97.
339 457529.52 355630.94 1 Piatra Luncani Boşorod HD 3 A Daicoviciu 1954; Macrea, Crisan 1964, p. 359; Glo-
Roşie dariu 1968, p. 357–362; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 48–337;
Glodariu 1974a, p. 238, 242, 246, 250; Daicoviciu, Glo-
dariu 1976, p. 73–74; Ferenczi 1979a, p. 265, 268–269;
Floca 1981, p. 15; Crişan 1986, p. 153–154, 224–225;
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 159–164; Daico-
viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 53–164; Tatu, Popa,
Maxim 1991, p. 94; Zirra, Spânu 1992, fig. 3/78; Florea
1993a, 35; Rustoiu 1993a, p. 182, 183; Medeleţ 1994,
p. 203; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 165–169; Iaroslavschi
1997, p. 59; Rustoiu 1997, p. 104, 109; Crăciun 1999,
Cristian Dima

p. 92; Gheorghiu 2000, p. 215; Rustoiu 2002, p. 66;

Crăciun 2004, p. 129; Luca et alii 2005, p. 97–98; Ce-
tean, Peţan 2017, p. 803–826.
340 457007.33 356768.54 3 Luncani Luncani Boşorod HD 3 A Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 13- 252; Luca
Platou et alii 2005, p. 98.
341 456383.07 359417.98 1 Poiana Luncani Boşorod HD 3 A Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 201; Luca et
Omului alii 2005, p. 98.
342 457297.28 355845.78 1 Piatra Luncani Boşorod HD 3 B1 Glodariu 1968, p. 364; Glodariu 1971, p. 74, 76, 83;
Roşie Glodariu 1974a, p. 256, 267, 285; Pavel, Andriţoiu
1994, p. 79–121; Crăciun 1998, p. 67, 73–74; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 98.
343 457381.6 352315.95 1 Bogdan Luncani Boşorod HD 3 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 73; Daicoviciu,
Hill Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 190, 251; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 75; Luca et alii 2005, p. 98.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
344 459594.21 353498.64 3 Porumb Luncani Boşorod HD 3 D Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 199; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 98.
345 512201.02 420440.399 1 Sub Vii Lupu Cergău AB 3 B1 Glodariu, Moga 1994, p. 33–48; Moga, Ciugudean
1995, p. 122.
346 511296.255 420862.734 1 New ceme- Lupu Cergău AB 2 C Gheorghiu et alii 1999, nr. 79; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 41.
tery
347 505052.646 377728.895 3 Mătăcina Vinţu de Jos AB 2 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 285, nr. 174; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 41.
348 511109.936 356562.587 3 Nădăştia Almaşu AB 1 B2 Mărghitan 1970, p. 13; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 129.
Mare
349 470183.06 339246.73
3 Edge of the Nădăştia de Călan HD 3 A Zirra, Spanu 1992, fig. 3/66; Luca et alii 2005, p. 106.
Village Sus
350 546020.399 416948.486 2 Orchard Noşlac AB 2 D Daicoviciu 1940, p. 318; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 130.
351 504737.508 388950.421 3 Oarda AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 132; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 41.
352 502769.851 388129.978 2 Bulza Oarda AB 3 A Rustoiu, Rustoiu 2000, p. 177; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 41.
353 504042.005 388295.462 1 Cutina Oarda AB 1 A Rustoiu, Rustoiu 2000, p. 177–179; Gheorghiu 2005,
p. 42.
354 543031.971 412328.475 3 Ocna Mureş AB 3 B2 Horedt 1967, p. 576; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 135.
Archaeological sites Repertory

355 469707.68 354655.18 3 Bodiu Ocolişu Mic Orăştioara HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 127, nr. 184; Daicoviciu et alii 1960,
de Sus p. 316; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 113; Florea 1987, p. 82–83;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 109.
356 463382.7 358565.04 1 Grădiştea Ocolişu Mic Orăştioara HD 3 A Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 72; Daicoviciu,
Valley de Sus Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 189, 251; Glodariu et alii
1996b, p. 75; Pescaru, Bodó, Ferencz 2001, p. 165;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 109.
357 469574.35 354586.3 3 Pobrad Ocolişu Mic Orăştioara HD 3 D Daicoviciu et alii 1959, p. 385; Daicoviciu 1964, p. 113;
Fountain de Sus Glodariu 1983, p. 40; Florea 1987, p. 82; Glodariu, Ia-
roslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 46; Glodariu et alii 1996b,
p. 47; Luca et alii 2005, p. 109.
358 469702.2 355100.9 3 Păgână Ocolişu Mic Orăştioara HD 3 F Róska 1942, p. 127; Luca et alii 2005, p. 109.
Fortress de Sus
299
 300

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
359 469867.35 355301.39 3 Gradişte Ocolişu Mic Orăştioara HD 3 F Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 196; Luca et
de Sus alii 2005, p. 109.
360 451625.22 343071.58 3 Via Hill Ohaba de Sălaşu de HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 39; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 97;
Sub Piatra Sus Nemeş 1996, p. 345; Luca et alii 2005, p. 109.
361 448743.56 356492.83 1 Blidaru Ohaba Ponor Pui HD 3 I Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 22, 30; Luca et alii
2005, p. 110.
362 483793.04 359419.72 3 Orăştie Orăştie Orăştie HD 3 A Mărghitan 1970, p. 12; Zirra, Spânu 1992, fig. 3/69;
Crăciun 1999, p. 91; Luca et alii 2005, p. 113.
363 483569.52 359744.65 3 Orăştie Orăştie Orăştie HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 262, nr. 98; Glodariu 1974a, p. 287;
Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Crăciun 1998, p. 65,
72–73; Luca et alii 2005, p. 114.
364 483509.04 359974.65 3 Orăştie Orăştie Orăştie HD 3 B1 Róska 1942, p. 262, nr. 98; Glodariu 1974a, p. 287;
Mihăilescu-Bârliba 1993, p. 39; Crăciun 1998, p. 65,
72–73; Luca et alii 2005, p. 114.
365 471485.67 357853.98 3 Orăştioara de Orăştioara HD 3 A Mărghitan 1970, p. 11–12; Medeleţ 1975, p. 286; Zirra,
Sus de Sus Spanu 1992, fig. 3/70; Medeleţ 1994, p. 206; Rustoiu
1996a, p. 199; Luca et alii 2005, p. 114.
366 472658.96 357817.51 3 Orăştie Orăştioara de Orăştioara HD 3 B2 Téglás 1887, p. 75; Róska 1942, p. 91; Luca et alii 2005,
Cristian Dima

Sus de Sus p. 114.

367 473769.49 355846.13 3 La Feregari Orăştioara de Beriu HD 3 D Daicoviciu et alii 1973, p. 81; Florea 1987, p. 82; Luca
Sus et alii 2005, p. 114.
368 473270.02 357419.62 1 Piatra Gră- Orăştioara de Orăştioara HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 6–7; Ferenczi 1983,
diştii Sus de Sus p. 180.
369 449830.66 331948.27 3 Ostrov Rau de Mori HD 3 A Glodariu 1971, p. 76, 83; Luca et alii 2005, p. 115.
370 506411.092 385739.858 3 Pâclişa AB 2 A Crişan 1969, p. 270; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 43.
371 505639.721 386411.877 2 Podei Pâclişa AB 2 A Rustoiu, Rustoiu 2000, p. 179; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 43.
372 526233.291 419749.572 2 Dos Pănade Sâncel AB 1 B1 Mitrea 1966, p. 417; Glodariu 1983, p. 271; Moga,
Ciugudean 1995, p. 139; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 42.
373 491313.355 387308.79 2 Petreşti AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 141; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 43.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
374 436755.37 372430.09 3 Petroşani Petroşani HD 3 A Róska 1942, p. 223–224; Winkler 1970, p. 94; Gloda-
riu 1971, p. 76; Poporogu 1972, p. 228; Glodariu 1974,
p. 264; Palamariu 1979, p. 115; Crăciun 1998, p. 73;
Popa 2002, p. 146; Luca et alii 2005, p. 122.
375 439140.35 371437.61
3 Druglu Petroşani Petroşani HD 3 F Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 218; Luca et
Mare alii 2005, p.122.
376 488858.673 382265.424 2 Tekenyel Pianu de Sus Pianu AB 1 B1 Pârvan 1926, p. 614; Glodariu 1974a, p. 257; Moga,
Ciugudean 1995, p. 145; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 44.
377 448509.66 353682.82 1 Ponor Pui HD 3 F Moraru, Tatu 1993, p. 266; Luca et alii 2005, p. 124.
378 552731.871 375772.102 3 Poşaga de Sus Poşaga AB 2 B2 Arneth 1850, p. 9, 97; Pârvan 1926, p. 536, 551, 559;
Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 149.
379 487106.508 357283.066 1 Pricaz Turdaş HD 2 D Cercetare preventivă – A. Bolog, C. Dima – 2011.
380 487909.162 359244.668 1 Pricaz Turdaş HD 3 D Damian et alii 2012, nr. 169.
381 459078.2 360056.72 1 School Prihodişte Boşorod HD 3 D Tatu 1994, p. 199; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1999; p. 93–120;
Popa 2002, p. 149; Luca et alii 2005, p. 124.
382 447937.97 351416.29 3 Pui Pui HD 3 B2 Filipescu 1985, p. 43–46; Luca et alii 2005, p. 125.
383 448436.51 353497.47 1 Vad Pui Pui HD 3 D Glodariu 1983, p. 103; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu
1988, p. 38–39; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 98; Mora-
ru, Tatu 1993, 266; Luca et alii 2005, p. 125.
384 531109.206 401667.117 3 Rădeşti AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 150.
Archaeological sites Repertory

385 489947.39 315980.32 3 Pietrari Răduleşti Dobra HD 3 A Moga 1979, p. 645–650; Luca et alii 2005, p. 28.
386 487530.23 393414.63 2 Dosu Răduleşti Dobra HD 3 B1 Floca 1947, p. 35–69; Winkler 1969, p. 84–85; Floca
Valley 1972, p. 16; Moga 1979, p. 645–646; Rustoiu 1995,
p. 214; Crăciun 1998, p. 64, 74; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 129.
387 490202.383 393164.806 3 Răhău AB 2 A Neigebauer 1851, p. 259; Glodariu 1974a, p. 260; Dai-
coviciu 1940, p. 317; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 151;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 44.
388 489625.38 393412.636 2 Budirăul Răhău AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 152.
Ciobăne-
lului
301
 302

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
389 490030.245 393245.892 3 Case Valley Răhău AB 1 A Ackner 1851, p. 32–33; Preda 1973, p. 38; Moga, Ciu-
gudean 1995, p. 152.
390 490323.33 393240.83 2 Răhău AB 1 B1 Ackner 1851, p. 32–33; Neigebauer 1851, p. 259;
Pârvan 1926, p. 611; Glodariu 1974a, p. 290, nr. 238;
Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 152.
391 536017.631 386817.023 3 Curmătură Râmeţ AB 2 A Crişan 1969, p. 271, ne. 239; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 157.
392 487093.25 350118.7 1 Rapoltu Mare Rapoltu HD 3 A Mărghitan 1975, p. 41; Crăciun 1998, p. 74; Luca et
Mare alii 2005, p. 127.
393 446254.56 332611.9 3 Bordeiei Râu de Mori Râu de Mori HD 3 D Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 99; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 130.
394 455289.21 336994.43 3 Reea Toteşti HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, 209; Mărghitan1975, 41; Crăciun
1998, 74; Luca et alii 2005, p. 31.
395 551344.892 391554.646 1 Piatra Rîmetea AB 1 E Ciugudean 1980, p. 75; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 156.
Secuiului
396 484732.67 366272.61 3 Romos Romos HD 3 B1 Mărghitan 1975, p. 41; Crăciun 1998, p. 74; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 132.
397 478669.41 370257.02 3 Făget Hill Romoşel Romos HD 3 A Iaroslavschi, Rosu 1977, p. 85; Luca et alii 2005, p. 132.
Cristian Dima

398 477378.83 371259.57 1 Cioaca Romoşel Romos HD 3 D Andriţoiu 1979, p. 26; Luca et alii 2005, p. 132.
Grădiştii
399 536023.22 352342.332 3 Roşia Mon- AB 1 A Herepei, Cserni 1901, p. 52, 200; Moga, Ciugudean
tană 1995, p. 161.
400 450453.44 347384.98 2 Sălaşe Ruşor Pui HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 40; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 99;
Luca et alii 2005, p. 134.
401 451220.58 346500.45 2 Fortress Ruşor Pui HD 3 F Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 99; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 134.
402 453108.33 337930.52 3 Grigore Săcel Sântămărie HD 3 B1 Floca 1947, p. 35–69; Mitrea 1958, p. 497; Winkler
Iştoc’s Orlea 1969, p. 84–85; Floca 1972, p. 16; Glodariu 1974a,
Garden p. 291; Pavel 1983, p. 145–150; Nemeş 1996, p. 347;
Crăciun 1998, p. 64, 66, 75; Luca et alii 2005, p. 139.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
403 452962.68 337938.23 3 Sasa Săcel Sântămărie HD 3 B1 Floca 1947, p. 35–69; Mitrea 1958, p. 497; Winkler
Orlea 1969, p. 84–85; Floca 1972, p. 16; Glodariu 1974a,
p. 291; Pavel 1983, p. 145–150; Nemeş 1996, p. 347;
Crăciun 1998, p. 64, 66, 75; Luca et alii 2005, p. 139.
404 506250.85 338127.31 3 Sălişte Băiţa HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, 292; Luca et alii 2005, p. 139.
405 490367.768 375530.946 3 Săliştea Săliştea AB 1 A Preda 1973, p. 207, nr. 10; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 163.
406 489413.487 378928.077 2 Săliştea Săliştea AB 2 B2 Neigebauer 1851, p. 293; Pârvan 1926, p. 531–535;
Mărghitan 1970, p. 11; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 163;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 45.
407 476054.46 345669.63 3 Sântămăria Călan HD 3 A Crăciun 1998, p. 75; Luca et alii 2005, p. 141.
de Piatră
408 495143.925 368784.943 3 Sărăcsău Șibot AB 2 A Herepei, Cserni 1901, p. 120; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 164; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 45.
409 495560.686 369065.421 2 Sub Boacăş Sărăcsău Șibot AB 2 B2 Floca 1956, p. 7–18, 35–36; Mărghitan 1969, p. 324;
Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 164.
410 515073.379 386954.889 3 Șard AB 1 B1 Glodariu 1974a, p. 294, nr. 305; Moga, Ciugudean
1995, p. 180; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
411 448020.82 326899.59 3 Sarmizege- Sarmizege- HD 3 A Winkler 1958, p. 408; Iliescu 1958, p. 460; Mitrea
tusa tusa 1969a, 169–170; Mitrea 1969b, p. 549; Glodariu
Archaeological sites Repertory

1974a, 300; Palamariu 1979, p. 115; Crăciun 1998,

p. 74; Munteanu 2003, p. 119–120; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 137.
412 487460.994 389535.117 3 Săsciori AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 165; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 46.
413 495039.722 390929.769 1 Pripoc Sebeş AB 2 B1 Crişan 1969, p. 273, nr. 261; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
Bridge p. 167; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 46.
414 496156.749 389941.295 3 Sebeş AB 1 B1 Popescu 1940, p. 196, nr. 12; Mitrofan 1964, p. 211,
nr. 41; Wollmann 1970, p. 171; Glodariu 1974, p. 265,
268; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 168.
415 496038.496 389630.593 3 Sebeş AB 1 B1 Popescu 1940, p. 196, nr. 12; Mitrofan 1964, p. 211,
nr. 41; Wollmann 1970, p. 171; Glodariu 1974, p. 265,
268; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 168.
303
 304

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
416 498207.802 388293.617 2 Sebeş AB 2 D Protase 1962, p. 186–188; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 168; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 46.
417 499628.186 388287.724 2 Lancrăm Sebeş AB 3 D Popa, Simina 2004, p. 35–79.
-Glod
418 507575.109 393979.025 3 Șeuşa AB 1 B1 Pârvan 1926, p. 610; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 180.
419 505489.026 394455.446 1 Mill Path Șeuşa AB 2 D Paul, Ciută 1998, nr. 93; Paul, Ciută 1999, nr. 141;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
420 475024.7 364017.94 3 Sibişel Beriu HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, p. 292; Luca et alii 2005, p. 143.
421 447553.73 336259.69 3 Sibişel Râu de Mori HD 3 A Winkler 1966, p. 80, 81; Crăciun 1998, p. 75, Luca et
alii 2005, p. 143.
422 475019.96 363938.52 3 Sibişel Beriu HD 3 B1 Winkler 1969, p. 86–87; Luca et alii 2005, p. 143.
423 493965.727 370359.215 1 La Baltă Șibot AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 95–96, pl. 10–5; Popa 2011, p. 694.
424 494330.622 370613.125 2 Șibot Ciugud AB 1 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 181; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
425 495042.859 371001.797 3 La Baltă Șibot Ciugud AB 1 A Popa 2004, p. 95–96; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
426 493032.31 336353.38 3 Șoimus Șoimus HD 3 A Mitrea 1964, p. 573; Crăciun 1998, p. 75; Luca et alii
2005, p.151.
427 493638.002 336374.177 3 Vişin Hill Șoimuş Rădeşti AB 1 A Berciu 1942, p 61; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 182.
Cristian Dima

428 538110.62 415559.732 2 Șpălnaca Hopârta AB 2 D Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 184.

429 499628.186 388287.724 1 Spini Turdaş HD 2 H Inf. C. Popa.
430 497842.433 402379.733 3 Carpin Hill Șpring AB 1 B1 Pavel 1978, p. 91–101; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 185;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
431 396485.975 398212.826 2 Sub Mă- Straja Berghin AB 2 A Andriţoiu 1992, p. 125, nr. 101; Moga, Ciugudean
gură 1995, p. 177; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 46.
432 525777.993 396153.999 1 CAP Sta- Stremţ AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 178.
bles
433 526510.74 394721.789 3 Stremţ AB 2 D Ackner 1856, p. 21; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 178.
434 456866.38 342945.53 1 Orlea Subcetate Sântămărie HD 3 A Floca 1972, p. 13; Nemeş 1991, p. 81; Tatu, Popa,
Tower Orlea Maxim 1991, p. 101; Luca et alii 2005, p. 148–149.
435 461634.25 354793.88 1 Sec Peak Târsa Boşorod HD 3 B1 Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 164; Luca et alii
2005, p. 153.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
436 460864.24 357849.21 2 Voineag Târsa Boşorod HD 3 C Florea 1987, p. 87; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988,
Hill p. 164; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 64,
199, 252; Glodariu et alii 1996b, p. 170; Luca et alii
2005, p. 153.
437 460864.24 357849.21 2 La Păşune Târsa Boşorod HD 3 C Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 101; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 153–154.
438 461634.25 354793.88 1 Sec Peak Târsa Boşorod HD 3 D Glodariu, Iaroslavschi, Rusu 1988, p. 164; Luca et alii
2005, p. 153.
439 460880.66 356573 1 Luncani – Târsa Boşorod HD 0 J Daicoviciu, Ferenczi, 1951, p. 48–49; Ferenczi 1983,
„Târsa” p. 182; Teodor, Peţan, Berzovan 2013, p. 20–27.
440 495505.507 376492.15 1 Gura Lun- Tărtăria Săliştea AB 1 G Ciugudean, Ciugudean 1993, p. 77–79, fig. 1; Moga,
cii Ciugudean 1995, p. 186; Rustoiu 2002, p. 26; Gheor-
ghiu 2005, p. 47.
441 511776.548 381393.393 3 Tăuţi Meteş AB 1 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 187; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
442 523824.687 397832.165 3 Teiuş AB 1 B1 Vulpe 1975, p. 32, nr. 77; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 188; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 49.
443 523824.687 397832.165 3 Teiuş AB 2 B1 Preda 1973, p. 121, nr. 32, 417; Moga, Ciugudean
1995, p. 188.
444 510508.984 394924.587 1 Altă Soarte Teleac Ciugud AB 2 G Moga 1982, p. 87–91; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 190;
Gheorghiu 2005, p. 48.
Archaeological sites Repertory

445 471135.08 333540.1 3 Plosca Teliucu Infe- Teliucu HD 3 I Daicoviciu 1972, p. 52, 168–169; Mărghitan 1975,
rior Inferior p. 42; Rusu 1975, p. 352; Rusu, Pescaru 1995, p. 12,
13; Crăciun 2000, p. 80; Popa 2002, p. 197; Luca et alii
2005, p. 154.
446 472049.22 333920.63
1 Iron Mine Teliucu Infe- Teliucu HD 3 I Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 14, 18; Boroneanţ
of Teliucu rior Inferior 2000, p. 124; Luca et alii 2005, p. 154.
Inferior
447 522026.268 380302.025 2 Rupturi Țelna Ighiu AB 2 A Moga, Aldea 1975, p. 46–47; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 194; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 47.
448 519051.337 384047.386 3 Țelna Ighiu AB 2 A Wollmann 1973, p. 115; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 195.
449 519772.382 384534.7 2 Țelna Ighiu AB 2 D Moga, Aldea 1975, p. 46–47; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 194.
305
 306

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
450 522652.603 389268.941 3 Măgura Tibru Cricău AB 1 B1 Macrea, Berciu 1942, p. 169–202; Daicoviciu 1940,
p. 317; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 191; Gheorghiu
2005, p. 48.
451 497925.79 303747.85 3 Tisa Burjuc HD 3 B1 Winkler 1970, p. 27–42; Dumitraşcu, Mărghitan
1971, p. 59; Glodariu 1971, p. 80, 83; Glodariu 1974a,
266; Mărghitan 1975, p. 42; Crăciun 1998, p. 63, 66,
75; Popa 2002, p. 198; Luca et alii 2005, p. 155.
452 454730.02 335088.99 3 Toteşti Toteşti HD 3 A Nemeş 1991, p. 43; Medeleţ 1994, p. 204; Rustoiu
1996a, p. 35–36; Crăciun 1999, p. 92; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 155.
453 485073.17 354392.74 3 Turdaş Turdaş HD 3 A Winkler 1958, p. 409; Luca et alii 2005, p. 157.
454 485374.812 354237.794 3 Sub Pădure Turdaş Hopârta AB 2 A Blăjan 1972, p. 17–19; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 192.
455 484489.538 354249.101 2 Coasta Turdaş Hopârta AB 2 D Blăjan 1972, p. 17; Blăjan 1973, p. 751, nr. 19; Moga,
Furcilor Ciugudean 1995, p. 192.
456 484943.01 354006.652 2 Coasta Turdaş Hopârta AB 2 D Blăjan 1972, p. 11–17; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 193.
Viilor
457 481514.69 355298.34 3 Turmaş Mărtineşti HD 3 A Glodariu 1971, p. 76, 83; Glodariu 1974a, p. 268; Cră-
ciun 1998, p. 76; Luca et alii 2005, p. 157.
Cristian Dima

458 502352.268 409270.263 3 Ungurei Roşia de AB 1 B1 Pârvan 1926, p. 610; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 199;
Secaş Gheorghiu 2005, p. 48.
459 486546.83 347874.4 1 Uroi Simeria HD 3 D Róska 1942, p. 27; Daicoviciu 1972, p. 174; Gloda-
riu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 105; Hanson, Oltean 2000,
p. 43–49; Bălos, Ardeu 2002, p. 67–81; Bălos et alii
2004, p. 250–251; Pescaru et alii 2005, p. 287–288;
Pescaru et alii 2006, p. 281–282; Pescaru et alii 2007,
p. 286–287; Pescaru et alii 2008, p. 248–249; Pescaru
et alii 2009, p. 181; Bălos et alii 2010, p. 114; Pesca-
ru et alii 2011, p. 106; Băeştean et alii 2013, p. 113;
Băeştean et alii 2014, p. 84–85; Băeştean et alii 2015,
p. 122–123; Barbu, Bărbat 2017, p. 187- 216.
ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References
ty
460 486416.64 348258.91 1 Uroi Simeria HD 3 E Wollmann 1973, p. 106, 111; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi
+ I 1979, p. 105; Ferenczi 1979a, p. 265–266; Wollmann
1996, p. 257; Popa 2002, p. 207–208; Bălos et alii 2004,
p. 250–251; Pescaru et alii 2005, p. 287–288; Pescaru
et alii 2006, p. 281–282; Pescaru et alii 2007, p. 286–
287; Pescaru et alii 2008, p. 248–249; Pescaru et alii
2009, p. 181; Bălos et alii 2010, p. 114; Pescaru et alii
2011, p. 106; Băeştean et alii 2013, p. 113; Băeştean et
alii 2014, p. 84–85; Băeştean et alii 2015, p. 122–123;
Barbu, Bărbat 2017, p. 187- 216.
461 456387.85 350199.01 1 Birch Ursici Boşorod HD 2 D Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 93–120; Tatu 1994, p. 199;
Popa 2002, p. 102; Luca et alii 2005, p. 162.
462 456698.32 350411.78 1 Muntean’s Ursici Boşorod HD 2 D Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 102; Luca et alii 2005,
Garden p. 162.
463 486019.07 368039.65 3 Vaidei Romos HD 3 A Mărghitan 1970, p. 11; Horedt 1973, p. 165; Luca et
alii 2005, p. 163.
464 465259.18 348557.84 3 Vâlcele Bretea Ro- HD 3 A Glodariu 1974a, p. 273; Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976,
mână p. 80; Glodariu 1983, p. 52, 154; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 166.
465 463738.46 347882.62 3 Vâlcele Bune Bretea Ro- HD 3 B1 Róska 1942, p. 16; Glodariu 1974a, 273; Glodariu
Archaeological sites Repertory

mână 1975a, fig. 4, 90; Crăciun 1998, p. 63; Luca et alii 2005,
p. 167.
466 448097.42 335278.48
1 Țigan Daljii Valley Râu de Mori HD 3 A Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 102; Tatu 1994, p. 199;
Valley Luca et alii 2005, p. 164.
467 544055.474 389675.048 3 Vălişoara Livezile AB 2 A Róska 1942, p. 102, nr. 15; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 204.
468 507272.5 507272.5 3 Vălişoara Vălişoara HD 3 A Glodariu 1971, p. 76, 84; Glodariu 1974a, p. 261; Luca
et alii 2005, p. 166.
469 491373 329956.78 3 Veţel Veţel HD 3 A Mitrea 1971a, p. 409; Crăciun 1998, p. 76; Luca et alii
2005, p. 168.
470 487009.106 372674.68 2 Militari Vinerea AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 96–97, 103–104, pl. 8/2–5; Popa 2011,
p. 701.
471 491450.584 372250.142 2 Tăbărâşte Vinerea AB 2 A Popa 2004, p. 96, 129, pl. 9; Popa 2011, p. 702.
307
 308

ID X Stereo70 Y Stereo70 P Point Locality Commune Coun- D T References

ty
472 487672.928 370904.119 2 Bonţii Vinerea AB 2 A Róska 1942, p. 85, nr. 25; Popa 2005, p. 10; Popa 2011,
Shallow p. 703; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50.
473 490182.997 372567.998 2 Grochi Vinerea AB 2 A Popa 2011, p. 704.
Valley
474 501576.192 403600.577 3 Vingard Spring AB 2 A Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 206; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50.
475 499332.898 382760.19 2 Sibişeni Vinţu de Jos AB 2 A Róska 1942, p. 22, nr. 86; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
Ravine p. 207.
476 500380.858 382710.177 3 Vinţu de Jos AB 2 A Róska 1942, p. 22, nr. 86; Glodariu 1974a, p. 296,
nr. 344; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 207; Gheorghiu
2005, p. 50.
477 500285.197 384407.001 2 Popii Mea- Vinţu de Jos AB 2 D Moga, Ciugudean 1995, p. 207; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50.
dow
478 424138.11 365362.28 1 Pass Vălcan Vulcan Vulcan HD 3 B1 Róska 1942, p. 308; Daicoviciu 1972 p. 193, 326, 332;
Glodariu 1974a, p. 296; Mărghitan 1975, p. 42; Daico-
viciu, Ferenczi, Glodariu 1989, p. 101; Crăciun 1998,
p. 73; Luca et alii 2005, p. 169.
479 501606.33 381821.196 3 Vurpăr Vinţu de Jos AB 2 A Crişan 1955, p. 147, nr. 86; Moga, Ciugudean 1995,
p. 210; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50
Cristian Dima

480 447326.7 321304.5 3 Tapae Zeicani Sarmizege- HD 3 F Tatu 1983, p. 165–170; Tatu, Popa, Maxim 1991, p. 98;
tusa Luca et alii 2005, p. 171–172.
481 473888.37 333479.66
3 Ioan Man- Zlaşti Zlaşti HD 2 A Luca et alii 2005, p. 172.
sion (for-
mer Ohaba
bath)
482 513732.804 363106.109 3 Zlatna AB 2 A Pavel 1980, p. 171; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50.
483 513895.992 362850.303 2 Vatra ora- Zlatna AB 2 A Lipovan 1994, p. 203–204; Gheorghiu 2005, p. 50.
şului
484 484983.185 355266.528 1 Turdaş HD 3 D Luca et alii 2012.
 I NDEX

A B
access road 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 76, 77, 164, 171, 184, Băile Figa 146, 175, 178
188, 189 Bălan 23, 234, 236, 262
Accumulated Cost Surface 196, 197, 205 Bănița 32, 55, 78, 94, 142, 152, 155, 156, 171, 185,
Agighiol 72, 92, 236, 256 197, 261
Aiud 145, 175, 176, 245 Barboși 28, 152, 168
Alba 19, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 60, 64, 68, Barcău 23
70, 73, 74, 75, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, Bâtca Doamnei 28
112, 145, 175, 176, 180, 188, 192, 226, 229, Bătrâna Hill 191
233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 243, 248, Bătrâna Mountain 25, 51, 138, 139, 169, 189, 191
249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 260 Bâzdâna 148
Alba valley 31, 34 Beiuș 23
altimetric profile 215, 222 Bejan 26, 144, 159, 167
analysis criteria 181 beneficiary 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, 133, 134, 167, 171, 226
andesite 66, 142, 144, 173, 174, 211, 225, 226 Berindia 36, 62, 78, 94, 239
Anineș Hill 205 Beriu 33, 189, 251, 262, 277, 278, 285, 298, 302
anisotropic 195, 197, 202, 209 Bezid 137
Antiquity 13, 17, 18, 30, 147, 163, 171, 173, 175, Biborțeni 137
188, 196, 202, 206, 223, 224, 225, 229, 250 Bicaz Pass 28, 169
Apa Grădiștii 30, 31, 33, 185, 205, 206 Biharea 158, 239
Apa Orașului 24, 25, 177, 187, 190, 209, 222 Bistra 25
Apoldu de Sus 146 Bistrița valley 28, 169
Apuseni Mountains 30, 141, 157 Bîzdâna 152, 168
ArcMap 9, 19, 192, 196 blacksmith 50, 65, 67, 117, 119, 120, 127, 147
Ardeu 11, 35, 64, 75, 77, 94, 141, 150, 153, 154, Bobâlna 177, 178
157, 160, 161, 167, 170, 185, 188, 197, 234, Bodoc 23
240, 241, 250, 251, 260, 304 Brad 23, 28, 36, 44, 61, 64, 65, 95, 96, 97, 98, 148,
Argeș river 28 150, 152, 160, 163, 168, 252, 257, 262, 285,
ASTER 193 288
axle 40, 41, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 80, 81, 87, 98, Bran Pass 29, 169
174, 225 Brașov Basin 22
Brusturelu 189
Bunești 177
310 Cristian Dima

burial chariot 68, 72, 73, 76, 77 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 238, 244, 251,
271, 298
C Costești - Cetățuie 31, 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 55, 64,
68, 69, 75, 77, 78, 80, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
Călan 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 93, 144, 225, 254, 263, 103, 104, 105, 106, 141, 143, 152, 156, 159,
264, 297, 301 166, 172, 185, 186, 187, 188, 197, 201, 204,
Căpâlna 25, 29, 32, 33, 75, 141, 143, 148, 152, 157, 205, 206, 207, 211, 225
167, 172, 185, 191, 244, 249, 264 Costești – Cetățuie 25, 30
Căprăreața 50, 51, 55, 65, 66, 117, 118, 119, 120, Costești - Prisaca 189, 266
127, 154, 169, 174, 205, 211, 282, 284, 292 Cost Path 196, 202, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 234,
Cârlomănești 148 245
Cârța 137 Covasna 23, 30, 135, 137
Cart fitting 103, 105, 127 Cozia 167, 276
carts 8, 18, 27, 36, 39, 46, 51, 54, 66, 70, 78, 84, 89, Cozla 28
91, 92, 93, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177, 187, 224, Cozmeni 135, 136
225, 246 Crasna 23, 177
Cașinul Nou 137 Crișana 29
Cățelu Nou 152, 169 Crișan Hill 189
Ceata 33, 189, 205 Crișeni-Berchieș 177
Cetățeni 28, 148, 152, 169 Crișul Alb 23
Cioaca Ulmului 33, 189 Crișul Negru 23
Cioclovina 31, 34, 142, 143, 266 Crișul Repede 23
circulation paths 189 Criș Valley 165
citadels 8, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 152, 153, Cugir 24, 25, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 45, 46, 50, 52, 64,
155, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167, 170, 171, 172, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 93, 108, 109,
173, 174, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 187, 189, 110, 111, 112, 141, 170, 177, 188, 191, 197,
192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 205, 209, 209, 225, 237, 241, 252, 253, 256, 278, 279
227 Cugir valley 24, 34, 177
Ciuc Basin 23 Curmătura Faeragului 206, 274
civil settlements 8, 16, 22, 24, 147, 182 customs 70, 92, 93, 163, 165, 167, 176, 177
clamps 104
Cluj 11, 22, 50, 66, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120,
D
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, Dacian Kingdom 14, 24, 27, 28, 35, 135, 153, 166,
130, 144, 145, 177, 229, 230, 231, 234, 236, 167, 169, 191, 242
237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, Dacian settlements 14, 16, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 144,
248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 258 147, 148, 150, 152, 159, 164, 165, 166, 168,
Cojocna 177 170, 177, 178, 187, 189, 226
Comărnicel 32, 140, 190, 262 Dâmbovița river 28
commercial routes 28, 166, 194 Dănești 137
commodities 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 29, 35, 39, 55, 222 Danube 28, 72, 88, 92, 153, 174, 175, 178, 188, 255
communication paths 7, 15, 181, 223 Dealul de Groape 189
construction site 71, 171, 172 Dej 177, 178
Copăcel 138, 141, 152, 168, 236 Delnița 137
copper 23, 25, 65, 141, 151, 155, 156, 168, 226 Deva 26, 98, 113, 115, 117, 128, 129, 144, 146, 159,
Cornu Pietrii 191, 282, 293 167, 173, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239,
Costești - Blidaru 25, 31, 35, 36, 52, 53, 78, 143, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 258,
172, 185, 186, 187, 197, 201, 204, 206, 211, 279, 280
 Index 311

Digital Elevation Maps 192, 193, 194, 196, 250
digital terrain model 193, 196
Digital Terrain Model 193, 194, 220
Ditrău 23
Doboșeni 23, 135, 136
Dosul Vârtoapelor Hill 25
draught pole 41, 42
Dumitra 23
dwelling towers 185
E Geto-Dacian 13, 14, 15, 17, 27, 28, 29, 36, 68, 76,
Eastern Carpathians 22, 23, 135, 136, 141, 166,
168
economic 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 28, 29, 39, 133, 137,
145, 146, 153, 160, 165, 167, 171, 173, 174,
181, 184, 186, 188, 202, 226, 227
EU-DEM 193, 194, 213, 215
exploitation 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 133, 134, 135,
136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 150,
151, 167, 168, 169, 176, 177, 178, 179, 187,
189, 209, 217, 223, 226, 227, 245
extra-Carpathian 7, 13, 16, 22, 28, 29, 77, 142,
146, 148, 160, 161, 166
F 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293,
Faerag Hill 30
Faerag valley 31, 185, 206
Federi 138, 140, 249, 281
felloe 40, 41, 105, 106
felloe clamp 41, 105, 106
ferrous ore 23, 138, 140, 141, 168
fieldwalk 188, 189
Figa 23
finished product 9, 18, 25, 26, 134, 135, 139, 140,
141, 147, 161, 167, 168, 170, 224, 226
fixing clamp 44, 60, 132
fixing plate 44, 60, 63, 94, 106, 107, 112, 128, 132
Fixing rivet 94, 105, 108, 126, 127
Focal Density 206, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216
Focal Mobility 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 216,
218
forging kiln 138, 151, 154, 161
fortifications 16, 24, 28, 39, 77, 137, 141, 142, 144,
146, 150, 153, 160, 161, 162, 165, 172, 175,
177, 178, 185, 187, 188, 191, 211, 224, 226
fortified civil settlements 22
fortified settlements 8, 14, 22, 24, 30, 63, 64, 74,
78, 137, 142, 145, 148, 153, 155, 164, 167,
168, 170, 171, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 189
front pivot 41, 42, 55, 78
G
Gârbou 178
geographical coordinates 184
geospatial databases 9, 192
geospatial information 182
133, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 157, 159,
160, 162, 163, 166, 168, 181, 225, 248, 255
Ghelari 26, 140, 281
GIS applications 193
GIS database 19, 182, 184, 189, 194
Global Mapper 9, 19, 192
Godeanu 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 211, 217
Godeanu valley 31
gold 23, 25, 26, 82, 88, 141, 155, 233, 259
Grădiștea de Munte 31, 33, 45, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55,
65, 67, 70, 78, 139, 142, 144, 148, 152, 153,
156, 163, 169, 170, 189, 213, 234, 237, 238,
242, 244, 246, 247, 249, 281, 282, 283, 284,
294
Grădiștea Hill 156
grave 27, 36, 52, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 91, 188, 235, 255
Greek 13, 23, 28, 29, 34, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 137,
147, 166, 168, 172, 174, 255
guide ring 43, 44, 61, 94, 106, 107, 112, 128, 131,
132
Gurghiu 23
Gușterița 145
H
harnessed 91, 93
Herculian 23, 135, 136
Hills of Silvania 16, 23
hound 36, 41, 42, 54, 55, 63, 68, 70, 74, 103, 115,
224
Hulpe Peak 33, 189, 191, 201, 204, 205, 290
Hunedoara 11, 19, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
71, 75, 77, 85, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
312 Cristian Dima

119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, K

128, 129, 130, 138, 140, 142, 148, 155, 158,
177, 183, 184, 188, 229, 233, 234, 235, 236, Kassel Wagen 82
237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, king pin 42, 103, 114
247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255,
294, 295 L
Huniady Castle Garden 140, 148, 161
landscape 9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 147, 150, 181,
189, 193, 226, 227
I landscape archaeology 17, 181, 189, 227
Ialomița river 28 Late Iron Age 60, 79, 82, 88
import products 14, 27, 28, 29, 133, 153, 162, 166, LCP analysis 196, 197, 202, 205, 206, 211, 222
223 lead 7, 15, 25, 26, 31, 55, 82, 84, 89, 168, 181, 225
ingots 142, 151, 154, 156, 157, 167, 168, 169, 170 Least Cost Path 196
intra-Carpathian area 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, LIDAR 19, 139, 184, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 206
21, 22, 28, 29, 35, 54, 65, 77, 133, 135, 137, limestone 26, 34, 35, 66, 136, 142, 143, 144, 171,
142, 145, 146, 152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 172, 173, 174, 187, 211, 225, 226
162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 175, 176, 178, 181, Limpert 26, 170
223, 226 linchpin 36, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 68, 70, 78, 98, 110,
iron 9, 14, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 35, 36, 42, 44, 45, 46, 130, 254
47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, local production 13, 28, 29, 133, 161, 164, 165,
67, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 167, 179, 239
89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, Lotru river 29
106, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, Lueta 23
120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, Lunca Ciurei 149
134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 147, Luncani - Piatra Roșie 25, 31, 36, 62, 64, 76, 77,
150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164, 167, 79, 87, 143, 156, 161, 166, 172, 185, 187,
168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 182, 190, 217, 225, 197, 201, 204, 205
226, 235, 246, 254, 259 Luncani Plateau 31, 33, 164, 205
iron bloom 15, 18, 51, 66, 134, 135, 138, 140, 150,
151, 154, 156, 225, 246 M
iron deposits 135, 137
iron ore 22, 23, 25, 26, 35, 65, 134, 135, 136, 137, Mădăraș 23, 135, 136
138, 139, 140, 141, 155, 167, 168, 169, 170, Măgura 23, 25, 26, 32, 34, 54, 81, 130, 142, 143,
182, 217 144, 148, 171, 172, 187, 209, 210, 211, 217,
iron ore deposits 22, 23, 25, 135, 136 222, 233, 234, 239, 248, 249, 251, 263, 295,
iron ore reducing 136, 137, 138, 169 304
iron slag 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 151, 154, 155 Măgura Călanului 26, 34, 142, 143, 144, 171, 172,
isotropic 195, 196, 197, 202 187, 209, 210, 211, 217, 222, 249, 263
Măgura Hill 25
Măgura Moigradului 81, 148, 239, 248
J Măgura Uroiului 26, 142, 144, 171, 233, 234, 251
Jabenița 23 Măgurii hill 143
JAXA 193 Măieriște 177
Jibou 178 Maramureș 23, 145, 178
Jigodin 146 Melea 139, 205, 211, 216
Jiu valley 29, 32 melting kilns 151
Jolotca 23 merchandise 7, 15, 133, 134, 167, 227
 Index 313

Merești 23, 149 Oituz Pass 28, 29, 169

Metaliferi Mountains 141 Olt river 22, 29, 175
metallurgical workshops 137, 141, 166, 167 oppida 47, 54, 61, 82, 242, 246
metallurgy 23, 148, 150, 153, 155 Orăștiei Mountains 30, 161
metal tyre 66, 68, 110, 111, 123, 124, 125, 126 ores 22, 23, 26, 135, 139, 141, 151, 167, 169
Miercurea Sibiului 80, 81, 85 Ortelec 177
military aristocracy 171 orthophotoplans 9, 184, 190, 191, 192
Military Map 189, 217 outlets 18, 19, 133, 134, 146, 163, 164, 166, 205,
miniature wheel 81, 82, 83 209, 224, 227
Miniature wheel 79
Mirșid 178 P
Misentea 137
Mlaca 25 Pădurea Craiului 23
Moigrad 23, 177 pars pro toto 52, 70, 71, 73, 77, 91, 93
Moldovenești 177 pathways 13, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 34, 142, 165,
Muncel 32, 33, 169, 205, 211, 217, 222 169, 171, 181, 191, 192, 194, 195, 209, 240
Muncelul Mic Mountains 25 Pătru Peak 32, 191, 262
Mureș river 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, Pecica 29, 157, 255
31, 33, 35, 142, 144, 147, 157, 158, 165, 166, Peretu 88, 236
174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 188, 192, 226 peripheral settlement 181, 209
photogrammetry 190, 193
Pianul 25
N Piatra Coziei 26, 276
Nădrag 26 Piatra Craivii 30, 60, 61, 63, 74, 77, 79, 80, 85, 106,
natural resources 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 133, 134, 135, 107, 108, 138, 141, 154, 156, 166, 167, 170,
165, 178, 223, 224, 226 188, 235, 249, 252, 253, 276
nave band 40, 45, 123 Pietroasa Top 26
nave hoop 36, 40, 45, 46, 50, 66, 68, 70, 99, 108, Pietroasele-Gruiu Dării 148
109, 110, 113, 122 Pietrosul 31
nave lining 36, 41, 46, 47, 50, 68, 70, 100, 101, 102, Piscu Crăsani 28, 87, 148
103, 113, 114, 115, 131, 132 Plopiș Mountains 23
nave linings 36, 46, 47, 68 Poiana 22, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 63, 130, 140, 141,
necropolis 39, 45, 84, 89, 91, 108, 109, 110, 111, 145, 150, 152, 160, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170,
112 173, 205, 206, 211, 216, 217, 241, 247, 251,
Negru Hill 25, 32, 51, 139, 189, 261, 279 253, 256, 257, 296
non-ferrous 8, 22, 23, 26, 135, 141, 153, 155, 168, Poiana Omului 34, 164, 205, 206, 211, 216, 217,
178 256, 296
Poiana Perții 173
O Poiana Ruscă 22, 26, 140, 141, 169, 170, 247, 253
Poiana Ruscă Mountains 22, 26, 140, 169, 170
Ocna Mureș 145, 174, 175, 176 pole axle 41, 42, 116
Ocna Sibiului 22, 145, 146, 177 pole pin 42, 116
Ocna Șugatag 23 Ponorici 31, 34, 138, 140, 142, 143, 241
Ocnița 89, 146, 163, 178, 180 Popești 29, 77, 89, 152, 169, 257
Ocolișul Mic 143, 211 practiced routes 13, 134, 195
Odorhei 23 Praid 23, 179, 180
Odorheiu Secuiesc 146 Pravăț 25, 34
Ohaba Ponor 138, 140, 298 predictability analyses 19, 181
314 Cristian Dima

predictability methods 179 Rugaie Hill 189

predictable roads 202 Runcul Cailor Hill 25
Presbe 189
Prihodiște 31, 33, 34, 164, 211, 217, 299 S
Prisaca 32, 189, 191, 205, 222, 272
product exchanges 14, 35, 133, 164, 224 Sacalasău 146
production centre 7, 15, 18, 27, 133, 134, 135, 150, Sălacea 177
157, 160, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 184, 205, salt deposits 22, 175, 176, 227
209, 223, 226 salt exploitation 145, 146, 175, 178, 179
products 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, Sânpaul 23, 179
133, 134, 135, 137, 140, 146, 147, 148, 149, Sânpetru Hill 26, 140, 141, 148, 149, 240, 294, 295
152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, Sântămăria de Piatră 142, 264, 301
163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 175, 177, Sântimbru 137, 159
179, 181, 186, 194, 223, 224, 225, 226 Sărăţel 146
Prut river 28 Sărmășel 22
Pui 31, 241, 249, 261, 281, 298, 299, 300 Sarmizegetusa Regia 9, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35,
Pustâiosul 31 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 65, 66, 67,
78, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120,
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 135, 139,
Q 142, 143, 144, 147, 153, 162, 164, 166, 169,
QGIS 9, 192 170, 172, 174, 191, 194, 195, 201, 203, 204,
205, 208, 209, 211, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219,
R 220, 221, 222, 225, 226, 237, 238, 242, 243,
244, 245, 246, 248, 250, 282, 283, 285, 291,
Răcătău 28, 152, 160, 169 292
Radovanu 77, 148, 152, 169 Satellite images 182
Râșnov 141, 168, 236 Săvârșin 89, 152, 157
Râul Negru 29 Sebeș 25, 29, 32, 33, 158, 191, 231, 252, 301, 302
raw material 14, 18, 22, 35, 66, 133, 134, 138, 141, Second Iron Age 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 45, 133,
147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 157, 160, 161, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 157, 165, 174, 178,
162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 209, 223, 226 239
raw materials 14, 18, 22, 35, 66, 133, 134, 138, 147, Șercaia 135, 138, 155, 244
160, 161, 167, 168, 169, 223 Șes Hill 191, 209
raw product 9, 133, 166, 169 Shuttle Radar Topography Mission 193
reducing kiln 135, 136, 137, 138, 151, 168, 170 Sighișoara 61, 63, 75, 79, 80, 81, 86, 131, 148, 149,
reduction kiln 65, 136, 141, 152 152, 157, 161, 231
remote sensing 19, 181, 184, 192, 193, 254 Sighișoara - Wietenberg 80, 149
resource 8, 9, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 134, 137, 141, 145, Șimleu 23, 141, 177
146, 173, 175, 179, 217, 226, 254 Șimleul Silvaniei 23, 148, 157
road-path 31 Sîncrăieni 137
Rodna Pass 28 Sîngeorzu Nou 146
routes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, Sînpaul 146
28, 31, 33, 35, 133, 134, 135, 150, 165, 166, Sînpetru 146
167, 170, 175, 177, 178, 179, 181, 189, 192, Siret river 23, 28, 137, 161, 163, 168, 226
195, 196, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, skamels 41
209, 211, 213, 215, 216, 223, 224, 226, 227 slope analysis 195, 209, 211, 216
Rudele 139, 205, 211, 216, 217, 235, 287 Slope Analysis 179
Rudele Hill 25, 139 Slope Direction 179
 Index 315

Solotvino 23, 145, 167, 178 trade 8, 14, 15, 17, 23, 27, 29, 35, 54, 133, 145, 146,
Someșan Plateau 22 147, 150, 152, 153, 155, 161, 162, 163, 164,
Someș river 29, 165, 174, 177, 178 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 178,
Someșul Cald 177 179, 188, 223, 224, 226
Sovata 23, 179 trade routes 171, 178
Șpălnaca 145, 302 trading 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26,
spatial analysis 9, 182, 184, 192, 193, 195, 205, 213 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 77, 133, 134,
spatial databases 181 137, 146, 150, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165,
Spini 158, 160, 302 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176,
spoke 40 177, 179, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 205, 209,
SRTM 193, 194 216, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227
statistically analysed 181 trading centre 13, 18, 30, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168,
Șteaua Mare Mountain 25, 51, 140 170, 225
Șteaua Mică 211, 217 trading relations 7, 9, 13, 27, 29, 35, 133, 137, 168,
Stereo 18, 19, 184 186, 223, 224
stone source 142, 171 trading route 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
Strâmbu Hill 25, 135, 138 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 77, 133,
Strei valley 24, 25, 77, 177, 209 134, 146, 150, 157, 160, 164, 165, 166, 167,
supplier 134, 226 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181,
Șura Mică 158, 243 184, 187, 188, 209, 216, 223, 224, 226, 227
Șureanu Mountains 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, trading site 18, 28, 29, 30, 134, 164, 166, 167, 205,
26, 30, 33, 34, 39, 46, 47, 85, 138, 142, 143, 209
144, 147, 153, 155, 159, 164, 167, 169, 170, transport 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 34,
172, 173, 174, 177, 181, 187, 191, 193, 248 36, 39, 66, 71, 91, 133, 134, 135, 138, 144,
149, 151, 162, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173,
T 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 187, 209, 211,
217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227
Tâmpu Hill 135, 138, 169, 211 transportation means 173
Tâmpu Valley 138 transport routes 18, 173
tangarms 41, 42, 55 Trascău Mountains 24, 26
Țara Bârsei 29 Trotuș valley 28, 169
Târgu Ocna 175 Turda 22, 176, 177
Târnave Plateau 22
Târsa 31, 34, 164, 190, 217, 256, 302, 303
Tășnad 177
U
Teliuc 26, 140 Uioara de Jos 145, 175, 176
terret 36, 43, 44, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73,
74, 78, 94, 104, 106, 107, 112, 113, 128, 131, V
132, 224, 247
Thrace 89, 91, 236, 246, 256 Vaidei-Ogra 22
Thracian 60, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 84, 86, Vâlcan Pass 29
88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 147 Valea Florilor 145, 146, 177
Tilișca 29, 30, 33, 75, 131, 132, 152, 154, 157, 167, Valea Largă 205
191, 247 vehicles 7, 14, 15, 18, 27, 36, 39, 51, 55, 67, 172,
Tomești 137 173, 174, 206, 223, 224, 225
Toplița 26, 170 Vețel 26, 305
tower-houses 31, 70, 142, 143, 153, 170, 172, 173, Vinerea 25, 192, 305, 306
185, 186, 209 Vișea 177
316 Cristian Dima

visibility analyses 181, 193 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 134, 135, 137, 138,
Voineag Hill 31, 303 141, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,
votive offerings 82, 83, 84, 88, 246 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165,
167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 182, 187, 189, 217,
W 225, 226, 227

Wagon box 42, 103

wagon model 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90,
Y
91, 93, 239 yoke 40, 42, 43, 44, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 70,
wagon models 84, 88 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 84, 89, 94, 95, 107, 128,
watershed 196, 197, 198, 202, 254 129, 130, 173, 224
watershed analysis 196, 197 yoke fitting 95, 96, 97, 98, 239
wheel 40, 44, 50, 51, 82, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121,
122 Z
wheel axle 42
Wheel fitting 50, 51, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Zalău 81, 177, 229, 231
wheel model 80, 82, 83, 85, 88 Zalnoc 177
wheel nave 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 225 Zărand mountains 23
workshop 14, 18, 19, 22, 26, 35, 50, 54, 55, 65, 66, Zăuan 177
67, 76, 87, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, zinc 25
P LATES
 Plates

Pl. 1. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD.
319
 320
Cristian Dima

Pl. 2. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD.- Isolated discoveries.
 Plates

Pl. 3. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of Mureş the river and Șureanu Mountains –
321

2nd c. BC – I c. AD. – Monetary Hoards, Adornment deposits, Tools deposits.

 322
Cristian Dima

Pl. 4. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD. – Cilvil settlements.
 Plates

Pl. 5. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd
323

c. BC – I c. AD.- Citadels, fortified settlements, Trade stations, Outlets, Customs.

 324
Cristian Dima

Pl. 6. Archaeological sites repertory– Midle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD.- Funerary contexts.
 Plates

Pl. 7. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu
325

Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD.- Workshops and production centers.

 326
Cristian Dima

Pl. 8. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD. – Expoloatation sites.
 Plates

Pl. 9. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – 2nd c. BC – I c. AD.- Dwelling Towers.
327
 328
Cristian Dima

Pl. 10. Archaeological sites repertory– Middle course of the Mureş river and Șureanu Mountains – Roman march camps.
 Plates

Pl. 11. Predictable roads analysis overlaped on Austrian Maps – First Topographic Survey (1769–1773) – MAPiRE – Arcanum Project.
329
 330
Cristian Dima

Pl. 12. Predictable roads analysis overlaped on Austrian Maps – Second Topographic
Survey (1853–1858; 1869–1870) – sursa MAPiRE – Arcanum Project.
 Plates

Pl. 13. Predictable roads analysis overlaped on Austrian Maps – Third Topographic Survey (1869–1887) – MAPiRE – Arcanum Project.
331
 332
Cristian Dima

Pl. 14. Predictable roads analysis overlaped on Military Maps know as PDTM (source: geo-spaţial.org)
 Plates

Pl. 15.Fieldwalking route research data validation – Phase 3

333
 334
Cristian Dima

Pl. 16. Focal Mobility analysis (MADO) – Black colour – MADO for Roman troops patwhays (Oltean,
Fonte 2021): Red Colour – MADO – Sarmizegetusa Regia Comercial routes.
 Plates

Pl. 17. LCP analysis – Red colour – LCP for Roman troops patwhays from Muncel – Prisaca – Costeşti – Cetăţuie
335

(Oltean, Fonte 2021): Green Colour – LCP for Sarmizegetusa Regia comercial route to Costeşti – Blidaru.