Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia's sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century

Abstract

Researches undertaken by the authorities and enthusiasts at Grădiştea Muncelului (the ancient Sarmizegetusa Regia) in the nineteenth century produced a number of documents still little known today, despite their value. Although the diggings were chaotic and resulted in extensive damage to the site, they are important because sometimes they record a conservation status of the monuments superior to the present one and even monuments that are now lost or have escaped the attention of archaeologists. This latter category includes a stone structure excavated in the mid-19th century by Lugosi Fodor András and reported by some other scholars who have visited the ruins of the capital of the Dacian Kingdom. The building, interpreted as a “cold water bath”, has remained unexplored until now by archaeologists. The present paper aims to reassess the documentary information concerning this novel monument.

Full text

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN
ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE
ReDIVA
THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNAL
OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
III/2015

EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor-in-chief: Aurora Peţan, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Assistant editor: Raluca-Eliza Bătrînoiu, University of Bucharest
Szabó Csaba, University of Pécs
Mariana Vasilache, Moldova State University, Chişinău
Laura Draşovean, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Berlin
Xenia Păuşan, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Cover and image processing: Marian Coman
Technical editing and printing: Dacica Publishing House
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Alexandru Barnea, University of Bucharest
Berecki Sándor, Mureş County Museum
Florin Draşovean, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Florin Gogâltan, Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca
Nagy Levente, University of Pécs (Hungary)
Ioan Piso, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Horea Pop, Zalău County Museum of History and Art
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj-Napoca
Szabó Ádám, University of Pécs (Hungary)
Livio Zerbini, University of Ferrara (Italy)
Nelu Zugravu, “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi
www.rediva.ro
All correspondence will be sent to the email: contact@rediva.ro
ISSN 2344-5548; ISSN-L 2344-5548
The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed in this volume. Each
author assumes responsability for the scientic content of the text.
This volume was printed with the nancial support of Dacica Foundation.
Copyright © Dacica Group 2015
www.dacica.ro

CONTENTS
STUDIES
Petru CioCani, andrea Jozsa
Discontinuity in the archaeological research: Neolithic
and Eneolithic sites in the surroundings of Dudeştii Vechi 9
Laura-simona draşovean
Small lithic assemblages from the Bronze Age tell
Pecica-Şanţul Mare (2008-2011 campaigns) 53
Raluca-Eliza BătRînoiu
The dynamics of habitation in Wallachia during
the 4th – 1st centuries BC 71
auRoRa PEţan
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa
Regia’s sacred zone recorded in writings of the 19th century 110
Csaba szabó
Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and sacralized spaces
in the settlements of Apulum 123
REVIEWS
Nicholas Márquez-Grant, Linda Fibiger (Editors),
The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains
and Legislation, 2011 (Kathryn Grow allen)163
Julietta Steinhauer, Religious Associations in the
Post-Classical Polis, 2014 (Csaba szabó)168
Radu Harhoiu, Daniel Spânu, Erwin Gáll, Barbari la Dunăre
[Barbarians at the Danube], 2011 (serGiu-Gabriel enaChe)172

Aurora PEŢAN
ReDIVA III/2015, p. 110-122
ANOTHER UNKNOWN STONE STRUCTURE
IN SARMIZEGETUSA REGIA’S SACRED ZONE
RECORDED IN WRITINGS OF 19TH CENTURY
Aurora PEŢAN
PhD Candidate, „Babeş-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, RO
apetan@gmail.com
Abstract. Researches undertaken by the authorities and enthusiasts at
Grădiştea Muncelului (the ancient Sarmizegetusa Regia) in the nineteenth
century produced a number of documents still little known today, despite
their value. Although the diggings were chaotic and resulted in extensive
damage to the site, they are important because sometimes they record
a conservation status of the monuments superior to the present one
and even monuments that are now lost or have escaped the attention of
archaeologists. This latter category includes a stone structure excavated
in the mid-19th century by Lugosi Fodor András and reported by some
other scholars who have visited the ruins of the capital of the Dacian
Kingdom. The building, interpreted as a “cold water bath”, has remained
unexplored until now by archaeologists. The present paper aims to reassess
the documentary information concerning this novel monument.
Keywords: Dacian fortresses, Sarmizegetusa Regia, sacred area, Dacian
architecture, 19th century archaeological researches
The researches carried out by the authorities, as well as
by history fans at Grădiştea Muncelului (today Grădiştea de
Munte) during the 19th century, resulted in several documents
and reports which, in spite of the valuable information they
contain, are still quite unknown and seldom used nowadays.
The diggings done in those times were chaotic and they
seriously impaired the site, but those who worked there
mentioned for some monuments a stage of conservation that
was superior to the one we nd today and even some original
monuments, now gone or unknown to the archeologists.
Among these, it is to be mentioned a construction dug out by

111
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
Lugosi Fodor András in mid 19th century, and considered by
him as “a cold water bath”, also mentioned by other scholars
who visited the ruins of Grădişte. They mentioned what they
had seen there and drew up sketches of the relics, among
which, the building revealed by Fodor. The text herein turns
into account the documentary information related to this long
gone monument.
Lugosi Fodor András (?-1859) was a physician from
Hunedoara, fond of antiquities. He visited Grădiştea
Muncelului twice, rst in 1844 and then in 1847, both visits
being dedicated to diggings. After his rst visit, impressed
by the ruins he found in the mountains, he took pains
towards organizing a large campaign, three years later, which
18 persons took part in, his friends Michael Ackner and
J.F. Neigebaur included. Yet, little did he publish on this, most
of the information to be found in his manuscripts1.
In each of Fodor’s two digging sessions, he managed to
reveal one monument found at Grădiştea Muncelului, both of
which remained unknown till today. In 1844 he discovered the
monument presented herein after. His second discovery, made
in 1847, was presented in another article2.
On his first visit at the ruins, in 1844, Fodor András’s
attention was immediately drawn by the spring lying east
of the fortress. This was also probably due to his prole as a
physician, one of his specializations being balneology.
According to the information in the manuscript3, Fodor
estimates the spring was about 189 m east of the fortress. 56.70 m
from the spring, downstream, at the spot where the second
1 The manuscripts are now in the University Central Library “Lucian Blaga”
of Cluj-Napoca, see Fodor mss.
2 Peţan 2014a.
3 I am very indebted to Conf. Dr. Bajusz István (“Babeş-Bolyai” University,
Cluj-Napoca) and to Bajusz Mátyás for transcription and translation of the
Hungarian texts. I also thank to Mr. Alexandru Müller (Stuhr, Germany) for
helping me translate the documents from German.

112
Aurora PEŢAN
large terrace starts, according to his manuscript, the stream
disappears under the ground into a hole, only to resurface
farther away4. In the published version, the distance to the
fortress is estimated at about 75 m, but the information in the
manuscript seems more likely to be true5; he also mentions
that the hole had a 15.8 cm diameter, and the point where the
water resurfaced was on the hill slope at about 18.9 m away6.
Intrigued by this characteristic and suspecting the existence of
an underground structure, he started digging at the slope end
of the stream and he discovered several worked stone blocks.
He went on digging and he discovered the lateral walls and
the oor, entirely made of worked stone blocks attached to one
another by metal clamps. The construction was about 5.67 m
long and 1.89 m wide, while its height was not mentioned7.
The eastern wall (the uphill one) was tted in its upper
brink with a zinc pipe8, partially preserved, having a diameter
of about 4 cm, through which the spring water was owing
into the stone construction.
On the opposite wall, Fodor discovered the opening of a
door, as well as its iron 5-cm thick hinges. The door corners
were attached by means of three sets of nails, of various
dimensions: some were 10.5, others 7.8 and others 5.2 cm in
diameter. Moreover, says the doctor, they were attached, in
4 Fodor mss, I, 32 (27).
5 The original data are: 100 steps in the published version, 100 fathoms in the
manuscript. The old units of measurement were converted as follow: 1 fathom
= 1.89 m (= 6 feet = 72 inches); 1 step = 0.75 m.
6 Fodor 1844, p. 303.
7 Yet, Al. Ferenczi claims that the walls of the construction were, at the
moment of their digging out 3.79 m high, information not found in Fodor’s
notes and which seems, at any rate, exaggerated, being probably based on a
confusion. Ferenczi also claims that the width of the construction is 3.79 m,
which is obviously wrong (Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, p. 84).
8 In the original document, the material in question is zinc („czin”), but
it is not unlikely that the material the pipe was made of should have been in
reality lead.

113
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
their turn, to 6 smaller nails, inserted into the large ones, in
order to help xing them. The opening of the door was 1.68 m.
At the foot of the eastern wall (the downhill one), left of the
door, at oor level, there was a stone chute for the water to
ow out of the stone room. This chute could be blocked from
the inside. There is a drawing of this piece made by Fodor and
included in table no. 49 under letter g (Fig. 3). In the description
of the piece, he says it was 0.63 m and 0.31 m high9.
After having emptied the room, Fodor found that inside, by
the walls, there were stone blocks positioned as chairs, each
one 0.63 m high and 0.47 m wide10.
The doctor’s conclusion was that the construction was a cold
bath used in antiquity by the inhabitants of the fortress.
Considering the fact that the construction was on the hill
slope and water and mud would permanently ow into it,
Fodor was worried about its plight after having been dug out.
Unfortunately, his worries proved true. On his next visit, only
three years later, what was left of the building was just the
northern wall11. It is very likely that this wall also disappeared
not long after.
Fodor’s sketch places this “bath” on the eastern edge of the
terrace where the large stone circle lies (Fig. 1). He represents
the construction plan by a succession of stones positioned
somehow rectangularly, with one rounded side, the spring
being labeled with letter K, its presence being carefully signaled
both on the terrace and inside the construction. The metallic
pipe through which the water was flowing into the stone
construction is labeled H, and the construction itself by letter
M. North-east of it, he signals large stone blocks, labeled by
letter I, also mentioned in his manuscript, located on a smaller
9 Fodor mss, I, 32 (27); II, 37.
10 Fodor mss, II, 36 (26).
11 Fodor 1847, p. 363.

114
Aurora PEŢAN
terrace below the “bath”, most probably the remnants of the
pentagonal tower dug out in 1804.
In Ackner’s sketch too, this “bath” is placed at the edge
of the large terrace, at the spot the spring ows down12. The
clearest location is given by Neigebaur on his sketch (Fig. 2),
where he tried to render by shading the two large terraces, east
of the fortress. On the edge of the large terrace, towards the
south-east, where the spring ows off the terrace downhill, he
placed letter M, designating „das Bad”. He offers some precious
details. „The bath” was located 75 m south-east from the
“stone pit” (the novel construction revealed by Fodor in 1847),
and the distance between it and the large stone circle was
52.50 m in the direction north-east. He also mentions that the
ruins were located at the mouth of a brook towards the Râul
Alb (= Godeanu valley), therefore they are very accurately
positioned, just as Fodor had done: the construction lay at the
spot where the spring in the sacred area was leaving terrace XI.
Neigebaur saw in that place broken stone masonry and stone
blocks spread all around. He also mentioned two stone chutes
having the diameter of 47 cm13. Unfortunately, he does not
mention their length, therefore it is hard to establish if they
were detached pieces of the lime canal from the sacred area
(whose diameter is very similar – 44-45 cm inside) or if they
were chutes belonging to the structure Fodor had dug out.
Neigebaur also noticed in the same place pieces of burnt
clay pipes with an interior diameter of 44.7 cm and 2.6 cm
thick walls14. This is a most precious piece of information.
The diameter of the pipes seems to coincide with that of the
12 Ackner 1856, tab. II.
13 Neigebaur 1851, p. 100, no. 6: Südöstlich von dort, 100 Schritte entfernt, an der
Mündung eines kleinen Baches in das Thal des Riu-Albe ndet sich Mauerwerk von
Bruchsteinen, mit umherliegenden Quadern und 2 Steinen, in welche ein halbzirkel
von 1 ½ Fuss durchmesser eingehauen sicht.
14 Neigebaur 1851, p. 102, no. 22: Bei den unter nr. 6 erwähnten Substructionen
befanden sich Bruchstücke von Rinnen aus gebranntem Thon, 1 Zoll Stark, von 1 Fuss
5 Zoll im Durchmesser.

115
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
stone chutes and it is very likely that they were positioned
right inside those chutes. But it is impossible to estimate where
they were located, whether they were or not connected to the
construction. But it is to be noticed that the large diameter of
the pipe suggests it is more likely to be a sewer than a feeding
pipe. Such pipes have been signaled in other parts of the site as
well, some having been discovered in the 19th century15.
In his historiographical study written in 192016, Al. Ferenczi
claims he has no longer seen on the site the traces of this
construction. He is quite confused as, in his times, the site
was hardly subject of research and the identications were
difcult. At rst, he had thought that Fodor’s “bath” was the
very same as M. Péchy’s “bath”, i.e. the building located south
of the fortress, investigated more intensely in the campaigns
of 1803 and 1804 and interpreted by Péchy as a Roman bath17.
But Fodor, Ackner and Neigebaur considered this one to be
a theatre18. Nevertheless, in his sketch, Ferenczi eventually
locates Fodor’s “bath” on the brook course, within the sacred
area, it is true, based on older documents only19.
Later researches no longer mention this construction.
No reconstruction has been attempted starting from the
data offered by Fodor and neither has been any attempt of
identifying it in the eld.
All the data – both those from the physician’s description
and those from cartographic representations – plead in favor
of locating this construction on the course of the spring, on
the edge of terrace XI, within its acclivity, below the level of
the terrace (Fig. 4). At the beginning of the 80’s, the course of
the spring was regulated by means of several arrangements
and no information could be found as to the way it looked
15 Finály 1916, p. 19; Jakó 1973, p. 629 sqq.; Jakó 1973, p. 634; see also Peţan 2013.
16 Partially published posthumously, in 1951, see Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951.
17 On this confusion, see Peţan 2014b, p. 438 and 443.
18 Peţan 2014b, p. 437 sqq.
19 Daicoviciu et al. 1989, g. 18.

116
Aurora PEŢAN
before the interventions. Along the course of the brook there
are now several concrete water tanks covered with cast iron
lids, the brook being conducted through a modern pipe (Fig. 5).
It opens onto the terrace batter through a visible plastic pipe xed
in the last decades as a “shower” for the students who are on
archeological practical training at Sarmizegetusa Regia (Fig. 6).
An interpretation of the function performed by this
construction can only be speculative, at this level of knowledge.
Yet, one may admit that Fodor’s descriptions exclude the
possibility of a tank or a reservoir / decanting tank, considering
the absence of any kind of hydro-insulation (which would
have drawn the doctor’s attention), as well as the existence of
a door and of other interior arrangements (Fig. 7). Fodor may
not have been too far from the truth since all the data point to
a human use inside this construction. Whether this was used
for sacred, religious or lay purposes, it is hard to tell. However,
we must consider the possibility that some information may
not have been recorded correctly by Fodor and therefore any
interpretation remains uncertain.
The construction technique, using worked blocks and
metallic clamps suggests we are dealing with an edifice
belonging to the Dacian epoch. But it is possible that the
construction might have been used by the Roman garrison that
was located here after 106. A keen archeological investigation
of this area could reveal further clues related to the construction
examined by Fodor in 1844 and ruined in the meantime, and it
might even determine its real functionality.
Bibliography
Ackner 1856 M. Ackner, Decennal-Aufzeichnung der archäologischen
Funde in Siebenbürgen vom Jahre 1845 bis 1855, Jahrbuch
der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Central-Comission zur
erforschung und erhaltung der baudenkmale I, 1856,
p. 93-103.

117
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
Daicoviciu,
Ferenczi 1951 Constantin Daicoviciu, Al. Ferenczi, Aşezările dacice
din Munţii Orăştiei, Bucharest, 1951.
Daicoviciu
et al. 1989 H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, Şt. Ferenczi, Cetăţi şi aşezări
dacice din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, vol. I, Bucharest,
1989.
Finály 1916 Finály G., A Gredistyei dák várak, Archeologiai Értesítő,
36, 1916, p. 11-43.
Fodor 1844 Fodor A., Római régiségek Hunyad vármegyében, Hon és
Külföld, 1844, p. 300-304.
Fodor 1847 Fodor A., Utazás nemes Hunyadvarmegyében régiségek
kinyomozása végett, Hon és Külföld, 1847, p. 362-364.
Fodor mss. Lugosi Fodor András Kézirata [Date arheologice din
Transilvania], vol. I-VIII, Central University Library
”Lucian Blaga”, Cluj-Napoca, Special Collections, no. 754.
Jakó 1973 S. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la
Grădiştea Muncelului în anii 1803-1804 (IV), Acta Musei
Napocensis, X, 1973, p. 627-639.
Neigebaur
1851 J.F. Neigebaur, Dacien. Ueberresten des klassischen
Alterthums, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Siebenbürgen,
Kronstadt, 1851.
Peţan 2013 A. Peţan, The water supply of Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
precinct, în: A. Stavilă, D. Micle, A. Cîntar, C. Floca,
S. Forţiu, Sorin (eds.), ArheoVest, nr. I. In Memoriam
Liviu Măruia, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi
Istorie, Timişoara, 7 decembrie 2013, JATEPress Kiadó,
Szeged, 2013, Vol. I, p. 241-252.
Peţan 2014a A. Peţan, An unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa
Regia’s sacred zone recorded in writings of the 19th century,
Revista doctoranzilor în Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, II,
2014, p. 28-40.
Peţan 2014b A. Peţan, „Baia romană” de la Sarmizegetusa Regia.
1. Istoricul cercetărilor, în S. Forţiu, A. Cîntar (eds),
Simpozion ArheoVest, nr. II. In honorem Gheorghe
Lazarovici. Interdisciplinaritate în arheologie,
Timişoara, 6 decembrie 2014, JATEPress Kiadó, Szeged,
2014, p. 427-455.

118
Aurora PEŢAN
Fig. 1. Location of the construction on Fodor’s sketch

119
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
Fig. 2. Location of the construction on Neigebaur’s sketch
Fig. 3. The canal of the ”cold water bath”.
(Manuscript) drawing by Fodor András

120
Aurora PEŢAN
Fig. 4. Location of the construction (in red)
on the actual sketch of the sacred zone

121
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of 19th century
Fig. 5. The actual route of the spring (photo October 2013)
Fig. 6. The place where the “cold water bath”
is supposed to have been (photo July 2014)

122
Aurora PEŢAN
Fig. 7. Proposal of reconstruction of the “cold water bath” ruins researched by Fodor András in 1844.
Drawing by arch. Marian Coman