Revista Analele Banatului S.N. Arheologie-Istorie

Gelu A. Florea

Despre temple, hambare şi arheologia ritualului / About Temples, Granaries and the Archaeology of Ritual

1 Ianuarie 2016

Abstract

This text is a response to a paper published by C. H. Opreanu in the previous issue of this periodical (Analele Banatului 23, 2015). The mentioned author is reevaluating archaeological data from earlier excavations in the Dacian fortresses from the Orăștie Mountains, especially regarding the ashlar masonry of the so called “murus Dacicus” and the complex stone and timber structures – the specific Dacian temples (1st century BC – 1st century AD). First, his critical approach seeks to change the terminology referring to the denomination of the abovementioned building technique used to erect the ramparts of the indigenous fortresses (Costești, Blidaru, Piatra Roșie, Căpalna, Bănița, Sarmizegetusa Regia, etc.), arguing that it obviously bears the mark of Greek architects and that the local (Dacian) contribution is inexistent. He is emphasizing that the use of this expression is misleading, exaggerating the importance of the indigenous civilization. In fact, nobody denied the Greek influence in the matter of the mentioned architecture of the fortresses (the specific masonry and the details of the plans), and the present paper shows that the “murus Dacicus” concept is a modern terminological construct (not mentioned by any ancient textual source), an artificial convention invented by the archaeologists which were excavating the Dacian Late Iron Age monuments, after the WW II, in order to identify this particular type of structure found in the Orăștie Mountains and to associate it with the local civilization. The expression was widely adopted and used in the Romanian archaeology ever since, so it would be difficult to eliminate it. As it is the case of “murus Gallicus” (which is a generic label designating various structures of earth, stone and timber ramparts), this term defines a few variants of the original prototype (Hellenistic masonry), which were identified on the sites from the Orăștie Mountains. The best solution would be to assume and explain the conventional nature of the expression, if it cannot be ruled out right away. The second debated issue is specific mainly to the archaeology of ritual, with an emphasis on the structures found in Sarmizegetusa Regia, the capital of the Dacian kingdom, and in a few other sites, traditionally identified as indigenous temples. Opreanu is challenging the sacred character of these rectangular buildings, consisting of ranges of columns based on stone disks and surrounded by stone pillars, and is arguing their mundane purpose (granaries). His main objection resides in the discovery of some carbonized grains and other “secular” artefacts (nails, blacksmith and carpentry tools, a weapon etc.) within the premises. In his opinion, only the presence of the images of the worshiped deities within a cella, of “animal bones or votive objects deposits” would be relevant for the identification of a temple. On the other hand, his analysis ignores the presence of the monumental stone altar in the sacred area of Sarmizegetusa Regia, placed in the vicinity of these structures. The present response pleads for a more appropriate approach, specific to the archaeology of ritual, other than this Manichean view regarding the “sacred” and the “profane” character of Iron Age artefacts and structures (cf. R. Bradley, P.S. Wells, M. Poux, etc. – see notes nos. 33, 36–37). The paper also emphasizes a few of Opreanu’s mistakes and inaccuracies in presenting some discoveries coming from Late Iron Age sites in France and in Romania, cited in his study.