Revista Analele Banatului S.N. Arheologie-Istorie

Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu

Arhitectura epocii Latene din Munții Șureanu (Sebeșului). O analiză metodologică / The Architecture of the Late Iron Age in the Șureanu (Sebeșului) Mountains. A Methodological Approach

1 Ianuarie 2015

Abstract

The author is challenging the Romanian outdated methodology of research of the well-known Dacian citadels from the late Iron Age excavated during the last 70 years. He is stressing the danger for the health of the Romanian society of the so-called “dacomania”, a trend originated from the communiste period which developed and became stronger and stronger. The duty of the academic community is to fight using the correct research methodology, otherwise it will be vulnerable in front of the irrationale propaganda. The first part of the study deals with the architecture of the Dacian citadels from the Șureanu (Sebeșului) Mountains from south-western Transylvania. The focus of the author’s considerations is concentrated on the building technique of the defense stone-walls. As stone walls are rare during the Iron Age on the territory of Romania, the massive fortifications found in the mountains mentioned above are spectacular. This evolution was explained as a consequence of the development of the Dacian political structures till to a state stage during the 1st century BC. Then Burebista, the first king established his residence at Sarmizegetusa and after conquered the Greek cities from the Black Sea shore, used Greek builders for his citadels. The influence of the Hellenistique building technology is obvious. But the structures were named by Romanian researchers in the field “murus Dacicus” a local original type of fortification wall. The main local feature was consider the using of the wood to link the stone blocks of the wall. The wooden beams were fixed in the blocks faces in some special cuts in the shape of dovetail. The author is offering examples from France, where at Mont Saint Odile and at Frankenbourg in Alsace, there are massive fortifications using the same technique of sticking together the stone blocks. Even their chronology is not well established, it is very probable that the technique arrived in northern Gaul from the Southern Greek cities, maybe by Etruscan intermediary. So he rejects the concept of “murus Dacicus”, the original local Dacian contribution being unrecognizable. The second analysis, more extended is dedicated to the so-called Dacian temples from Sarmizegetusa Regia (Grădiștea Muncelului). The author doubts concerning the identification as sanctuaries of the rows of round stone bases uncovered by the archaeologists. His first objection is based on the archaeological inventory recovered. There are only iron nails and iron elements used in assembling the beams of roofs. In prehistory the possibility of identification of a building as a sacred one is based on cult objects, or cultic structures (as ritual altars, hearths etc.), giving as examples the Neolithic sanctuary at Parța, or buildings from the Iron Age at Popești, or Cârlomănești in Southern Romania. In the reconstructions proposed by several architects and archaeologists as Dinu Antonescu, I. H. Crișan, I. Glodariu is starting from the idea of the using of columns on the stone round bases, resulting a roofed “forest of columns”. It is missing the essential element of a temple: cella, the sacred room. There are also missing any traces of rituals, no animal bones, or votive objects deposits being identified. The author is comparing the plan of the structures from Sarmizegetusa Regia with the plan of the earlier wooden structures identified by geophysical surveys at Mont Lassois (France). The conclusion is that the rows of stone bases are nothing but the bases of granaries elevated from the soil on short stone feet to protect the cereals from moisture and mice (so-called “staddle stones” in England). The European prehistoric sites the system was used. The Romans developed it in big buildings in stone, the horrea. In Northern Spain they are still called horreos and are still functioning, being the best analogies for the buildings vanished at Sarmizegetusa Regia. Some Roman, or Greek technical adviser offered this solution for stockpiling supplies at Sarmizegetusa. It seems normal to the author to exist huge public granaries in an Iron Age settlement which became almost a town, because of the geographical position in the mountains at high altitude with no possibility of local agriculture. The subsistence during the winter of the inhabitants was based on the cereals from the Mureș valley, at approximately 50 km away. The central power had the duty of organizing this supplying system for the community. Starting with the first Austrian researches from the 19th century in the area were reported finds of big quantities of burnt cereals. The Dacians used to have buildings on elevated bases, as are illustrated on Trajan’s Column. It cannot be identified at Sarmizegetusa Regia any temple, nor a “sacred area”, as buildings of the same type were identified at other citadels in the area, as at Costești, for example, where their topographical position is diverse (inside the fortification and outside). The interpretation of a Dacian state with a strong theocratic profile and the fanatical religious feelings of the Dacian warriors is rejected as with no documentary support. At the same time the author is rejecting the interpretation of the systematical destruction of the Dacian buildings by the Romans on religious grounds, giving as example the Latin authors’ different statements and attitude towards the Jews and the Dacians: hate for the Jews, sympathy for the Dacians.