Content uploaded by Aurora Petan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aurora Petan on May 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
MARISIA
ARCHAEOLOGIA
HISTORIA
PATRIMONIUM
Târgu Mureș
2021
3
In memoriam dr. István Bajusz (1954–2021)
E M | www.edituramega.ro
e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Tiberius BADER (Hemmingen, Germany)
Elek BENKŐ, Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities (Budapest, Hungary)
Marius-Mihai CIUTĂ, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu (Sibiu, Romania)
Zoltán CZAJLIK, Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences (Budapest, Hungary)
Ciprian FIREA,
Romanian Academy, Institute of Archaeology and Art History (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
András KOVÁCS, Babeș-Bolyai University (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
Zsolt VISY, University of Pécs (Pécs, Hungary)
CORRESPONDENCE
Muzeul Judeean Mureș / Mureș County Museum
CP 85, str. Mărăști nr. 8A, 540328 Târgu Mureș, România
e-mail: marisiaedit@gmail.com
Cover: István KARÁCSONY
e content of the papers totally involve the responsibility of the authors.
ISSN 2668–7232
EDITORIAL BOARD
Executive Editor:
Koppány Bulcsú ÖTVÖS
Editors:
Sándor BERECKI
Zalán GYŐRFI
János ORBÁN
Szilamér Péter PÁNCZÉL
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Tiberius BADER (Hemmingen, Germany)
Elek BENKŐ (Budapest, Hungary)
Marius-Mihai CIUTĂ (Sibiu, Romania)
Zoltán CZAJLIK (Budapest, Hungary)
András KOVÁCS (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
Zsolt VISY (Pécs, Hungary)
ISSN 2668-7232
CORRESPONDENCE
Muzeul Judeţean Mureş / Mureş County Museum
CP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328 Târgu Mureş, România
e-mail: marisiaedit@gmail.com
www.edituramega.ro
mega@edituramega.ro
Cover: István KARÁCSONY
e content of the papers is the responsibility of the authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Executive Editor:
Koppány Bulcsú ÖTVÖS
Editors:
Sándor BERECKI
Zalán GYŐRFI
János ORBÁN
Szilamér Péter PÁNCZÉL
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Tiberius BADER (Hemmingen, Germany)
Elek BENKŐ (Budapest, Hungary)
Marius-Mihai CIUTĂ (Sibiu, Romania)
Zoltán CZAJLIK (Budapest, Hungary)
András KOVÁCS (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
Zsolt VISY (Pécs, Hungary)
ISSN 26687232
CORRESPONDENCE
Muzeul Judeean Mureș / Mureș County Museum
CP 85, str. Mărăști nr. 8A, 540328 Târgu Mureș, România
e-mail: marisiaedit@gmail.com
www.edituramega.ro
mega@edituramega.ro
e content of the papers totally involve the responsibility of the authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Executive Editor
Zoltán SOÓS
Editors
Sándor BERECKI
Zalán GYŐRFI
János ORBÁN
Szilamér Péter PÁNCZÉL
Cover: István K
e publication was nancially supported by:
CONTENTS
Sándor B
An Anthropomorphic Figurine Belonging to the Coofeni Culture from Sângeorgiu de Mureş 7
Tibor-Tamás D
Crescent Rising. Semi-Circular-Shaped Pendants from Bronze Age Funerary Contexts of the
Eastern Carpathian Basin 15
József P – Lóránt D
Late Bronze Age Pottery Deposits from the Site of Sâncrăieni / Csíkszentkirály–Kőoldal (Harghita
County, Romania) 51
Aurora P
Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County). e File of a Forgotten Archaeological Site 79
Szilamér-Péter P – Mátyás B
Searching for the North-Eastern Angle Tower of the Auxiliary Fort of Călugăreni / Mikháza 99
Szilamér-Péter P – Katalin S – Orsolya S
e Excavations at the North-Eastern Angle Tower of the Auxiliary Fort of Călugăreni / Mikháza 111
László S – Szilamér-Péter P
Roman Rotary Querns from Călugăreni / Mikháza 143
Dorottya N
When a Long-Lost Inscription (CIL III, 944) Suddenly Grows. About a Manuscript Regarding
Roman Discoveries from Călugăreni / Mikháza 165
Beáta B
Germanic Stamped Pottery Vessels from Early Avar Age Cemeteries in Transylvania 191
Mária-Márta K
A Tentative Reconstruction of Two Dispersed Sets of 17th Century Beakers 203
Miklós S
Attila deasupra orașului. Programul iconograc al grupului statuar realizat de József Róna pe
faada Muzeului Industrial Secuiesc 211
A 231
MARISIA , , p. –.
GRĂDIŞTEA DE MUNTE–SUB CUNUNI (HUNEDOARA COUNTY).
THE FILE OF A FORGOTTEN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
Aurora PEAN*
A. PEAN
e archaeological site at Grădiștea de Munte-Sub Cununi is located in the vicinity of Sarmizegetusa Regia,
the capital of the Dacian Kingdom. As early as the rst half of the 19th century, Dacian and Roman relics
were mentioned in this area. e ruins of some buildings made of shaped stones and bound with mortar
drew the attention, being at that time above ground level. e place became notorious aer two Roman
votive altars were discovered; they were dedicated to goddess Victoria Augusta, respectively to Apollo
Augustus by two governors of Roman Dacia from the latter half of the 2nd century AD.Several interpreta-
tions were given with respect to the Roman presence in this region: summer residence (villa), Roman camp
or statio, fortied dwelling, civil settlement related to iron processing, sanctuary or commemorating monu-
ment (tropaeum) or even Decebalus’ royal residence. e place was related either to the end of Trajan’s wars
against the Dacians (identied by some historians with Ranisstorum, where Trajan had his camp in 106
AD when king Decebalus killed himself), or to the events around 158 AD, when the rst inscription is dated.
Despite its importance, the site never beneted from systematic archaeological research. e vestiges are no
longer visible nowadays and their localization is uncertain. is paper brings together all the documentary
information available as well as a recent LiDAR dataset, which help in making some aspects clear and invite
to starting o the eld research.
Keywords: Sub Cununi, Roman Dacia, votive altars, Victoria Augusta, Ranisstorum, Trajan, Antoninus
Pius
Cuvinte-cheie: Sub Cununi, Dacia romană, altare votive, Victoria Augusta, Ranisstorum, Traian,
Antoninus Pius
LOCATION
e place known as Sub Cununi is located
in South-West Transylvania, in the Șureanu
Mountains, at about 9km NW from Sarmize-
getusa Regia, the capital of the Dacian King-
dom (Pl. I/1). e name Sub Cununi or Sub
Cunună refers to a few households which were
once making up a hamlet belonging to the vil-
lage of Grădiștea Muncelului (today Grădiștea
de Munte), in commune Orăștioara de Sus,
Hunedoara County. e hamlet is spread
over several articial terraces on the S-E hill
slope of Vârtoape, on the right bank of Valea
Anineșului, close to the place where it ows into
the Grădiștea River. e name comes from the
limestone ridge that borders the settlement to
the north, just like a wreath [Cunună = wreath].
is sunny place is crossed by a plentiful
stream, which makes it appropriate for dwell-
ing. e hill slope was levelled by the Dacians
in several places, which resulted in perfectly at
terraces, arranged in steps (Pl.I/2). Such ter-
races are to be found in the hundreds or even
* Study Centre of Dacica Foundation, RO, aurora.petan@dacica.ro
A. P
thousands1 around Sarmizegetusa Regia, as well
as near other fortresses and fortications in the
area. All of them date from the same period
(mid-rst century BC – the beginning of the
2nd century AD) and they represent civil settle-
ments around the aristocratic centres repre-
sented by the fortresses. In no other epoch were
such terracing works done, so that assigning
them to the Dacian epoch is doubtless. In fact,
aer the Roman conquest, it seems that the area
was evacuated for the most part, and later on
the dwelling continued rather sparsely, includ-
ing probably only modest pastoral households.
It was not until the 19th century that the area
started to be populated again. e toponym Sub
Cununi was mentioned for the rst time in 1803,2
but without any information related to house-
holds at that time. e main sources for the demo-
graphic evolution in this area are represented by
the Josephin topographic survey. In the rst top-
ographic survey (Josephinische Landesaufnahme),
performed between 1763 and 1787 (the data for
the Great Principality of Transylvania were col-
lected in the period 1769–1773), the area appears
uninhabited. e second topographic survey
(Franziszeische Landesaufnahme), performed
between 1806 and 1869 (for Transylvania, the
data were collected in the periods 1853–1858 and
1869–1870), signalled a few households. Hence,
one can deduce that the repopulation of the area
known as Sub Cununi started no earlier than the
rst half of the 19th century.
Modern habitation occupied the old Dacian
terraces, which have been preserved in almost
perfect condition until today and could be used
for the placement of households. Today, the
largest terraces from Sub Cununi are used as
1 I.A.Oltean and J. Fonte estimate that around Sarmizegetusa Regia there were about 2000 articial terraces, made by
the Dacians (O–F 2019, 259).
2 J 1971, 441.
3 O–H 2017, 435–438.
agricultural elds and gardens, while some of
them are being used as grasslands and mead-
ows. Every year, the ploughs bring up Dacian
ceramics, but also Roman materials.
is area has outstanding strategic valences,
as it is located at the crossroads of important
communication ways. Sub Cununi lies above
the actual centre of the village of Grădiștea de
Munte, which represents the gateway to Sarmi-
zegetusa Regia. It is only from this point that
Grădiștea Valley is accessible, downstream being
a wild gorge, which in antiquity was almost cer-
tainly impassable. All mountain routes were
converging towards this point, wherefrom
could be controlled: 1) Valea Anineșului, 2) the
road from Dealul Muncelului to Feele Albe and
Muncel, 3) Grădiștea Valley upstream towards
Sarmizegetusa Regia, 4) the important cross-
roads from Prihodiște, which make the connec-
tion with Piatra Roșie fortress and with the great
ridge road leading eastwards to Poiana Omu-
lui and westwards to Târsa and the fortresses
of Costești-Blidaru and Costești-Cetăuie and
5) the access to the north ridge road coming
from Prisaca and leading to Muncel (both for-
tied peaks), through the recently discovered
fortication of Cornu Pietrii,3 located near Sub
Cununi (Pl.I/3). Visibility was wide from this
point (the position above the valley enabled its
widening) and it included the important points
from Muncel, Prihodiște and even Comărnicel
(position occupied by the Romans during
their advance towards the capital), important
portions of the ridge roads and even Dealul
Grădiștii. Denitely, for the Dacians this was a
crucial point and losing it to the Romans would
have meant the end.
RESEARCH HISTORY
e rst written mentioning of the vestiges
from Sub Cununi (and of the toponym itself!)
belongs to the tax inspector Paul Török, who,
on 26 August 1803 drew up a rich report in
Latin, related to the antique fortications
around Grădiștea Muncelului, occasioned by
an inquiry of the discovery of antique trea-
suries in the area. e local people who were
81Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
interrogated pointed to an area on the western
side of Culmea Anineșului as the discovery
point of some Lysimachos-type gold coins. On
inspecting the zone, Török reaches Sub Cununi
(La Kununy), where he sees shaped stones and
pieces of roof tiles.4
Most information comes from the writings
of some scholars who visited the ruins of the
fortress at Grădiștea Muncelului in the second
quarter of the 19th century: Saxon priest Michael
Ackner, Doctor András Fodor from Hunedoara
and diplomat J.F. Neigebaur, former consul of
Prussia in the Romanian Principalities. e rst
two reached Grădiștea Muncelului for the rst
time in 1838, respectively in 1844, and then, in
1847, the three of them took part in an impor-
tant expedition to the ruins of the fortress at
Dealul Grădiștii and around.5 On all these occa-
sions, they also investigated the area known
as Sub Cununi and Vârtoape and they made
known their discoveries, as well as the informa-
tion gathered from others.
Another important set of data is oered by
Téglás Gábor, who visited twice the area from
Sub Cununi together with his brother, towards
4 J 1971, 441.
5 e expedition was organized by Fodor András, see P 2018, 148 sqq.
6 K . 1902, 146–148.
7 T 1923, 21.
8 D–F 1951, 30.
9 http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=gradistea-de-munte-orastioara-de-sus-hunedoara-situl-arheologic-de-la-gradis-
tea-de-munte-sub-cununi-dosul-vartoapelor-cod-sit-ran–90397.05
10 L 2008, 83 and 89.
11 An even older piece of information could be the one related to a “golden serpent” which would have belonged to the
treasury discovered in 1543 in the riverbed of the Strei and ended up in possession of cardinal Martinuzzi, cf. S
2006, 85–86.
the end of the 19th century, the most important
information being published at the beginning
of the next century.6 A eld survey carried out
by D.M. Teodorescu at the beginning of the
20’s7 and another one by C.Daicoviciu around
19508 oer the latest information on this site.
ere have never been made any archaeologi-
cal excavation and neither any other kind of
investigation.
e site is registered in the National Archeo-
logical Repertoire (code 90397.05) as belonging
to the La Tène epoch (the 1st centuryBC – the
beginning of the 2nd century AD, Dacian settle-
ment and hearths for iron ore reduction) and
to the early Roman epoch (the 2nd century AD,
fortied settlement, possibly Ranisstorum for-
tication, the place where emperor Trajan was
at the end of the second Dacian war).9 e two
components have the status of class A historic
monuments (code HD-I-m-A-03194.01 and
HD-I-m-A-03194.02). In the Archaeological
Repertoire of Hunedoara County, at the point
Sub Cununi is registered a coin hoard discov-
ered in 1847, traces of iron exploitation and
possibly a Roman commemorative sanctuary.10
TRACES OF THE DACIAN EPOCH
ere is no doubt that at Sub Cununi there was a
ourishing Dacian settlement. e articial ter-
races dug into the hillside are the rst clue in this
sense. Also, there is a lot of information related to
the pieces dating from the Dacian epoch found
there in the 19th century. e most numerous are
the coins, both golden and silver, and then the
iron pieces and the ceramic fragments.
On the occasion of his visit at Sub Cununi,
Fodor András learned from a forester about
a large, golden bracelet (“pretzel”) – a most
valuable proof, which seems to be among the
earliest information related to golden multi-
spiral bracelets that surfaced only recently,
as of 2007.11 In the forester’s storehouse there
was an iron anvil, found in the same area. It
was rectangular, weighed 85 pounds and its
legs were as thick as a thumb. is piece was
seen and drawn by Fodor (Fig.1/1). Neige-
baur also reminds this anvil that might have
A. P
been 6½ inches and 88 Austrian pounds and
could be found in the forester’s storehouse,
alongside two pieces of iron in course of pro-
cessing; ese discoveries made him believe
that at that place there was a metallurgical
workshop.12
e existence of iron ore at Sub Cununi has
oen been mentioned in written documents.
e Austrian Tax Authority delegated in 1826
geologist P. Partsch to carry out geological
exploration in order to identify ore deposits in
Transylvania, south Orăștie area included. e
manuscript of his detailed report remained in
the Viennese archives, but a protocol of the
Forest District reveals that the research was
resumed in 1831, right next to Sub Cununi
hamlet, where a 2m thick iron ore deposit was
found – it being insucient for a protable
modern industrial exploitation, but probably
valuable for the antique exploitations.13 Téglás
G. also claims that there are antique traces of
iron ore processing all along Valea Anineșului.
On 13 July 1847 a coin hoard was discov-
ered, consisting of about 500 Republican and
Imperial Roman denars. Neigebaur claims that
most of the coins were from Vespasianus, Titus
and Domitianus, and some from Trajan, carry-
ing the epithet Germanicus, therefore before
12 N 1851, 97, nr. 10–11.
13 D . 1989, 39.
14 N 1851, 97.
15 A 1856, 99. See also M 1945, 106, n. 42.
16 W 1982, 90, g.15.
17 N 1851, 97.
Dacia’s conquest.14
M. Ackner is the one who
mentions the most details about this hoard:15
the diggings had been done by forester (Erdosz)
Boer “among the ruins of an old town” and they
had led to the discovery of a treasury of 500 very
well preserved Roman silver denars, among
which 148 Republican denars: Iulius Caesar 15;
Octavianus Augustus 10; Antonius and Lepi-
dus 2; Tiberius 3; Agrippina 2; Germanicus 4;
Agrippa 3; Caligula 16; Claudius 4; Titus 69;
Domitianus 109; Nerva 15; and Trajan 2. He,
too, noticed that the coins from Trajan were
dated before Dacia’s conquest. Among his man-
uscripts there is also a sketch of the discovery
spot and of the vessel that contained the coins
– seemingly a Dacian jar-vessel with buttons
(Fig.1/2).16 It seems that the vessel ended up in
Ackner’s property, and Neigebaur describes it: it
was small, beautiful, reddish, and well burned,
with ¼ inch thick walls.17 e treasury was bur-
ied in the context of the war with the Romans.
It is interesting to notice that the discovery spot
is among some ruins: the only ruins known at
Sub Cununi are the Roman ones, but the ter-
race where they lie was previously levelled and
inhabited by the Dacians.
According to Fodor and Neigebaur, on the
Vârtoape plateau, about half hour’s walk from
1 2
Fig.1. 19th century drawings of pieces discovered at Sub Cununi.
1. e anvil (F Mss, VI, 47m.); 2. e jar with the coin hoard (aer W 1982, 90, g. 15.).
83Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
Sub Cununi, were discovered golden coins
marked ΛΙΣIΜΑΧ and ΚΟΣΝ and some silver
coins imprinted ΜΑΚΕΟΝΙΟΝ ΠΡΟΤΗΣ.
Fodor also says that the Lysimachos-type coins
were discovered above a cave located at the edge
of the plateau. He thinks an important Dacian
or Roman town used to lie there.
18 D–F 1951, 30.
19 A 1844, 23–24.
20 F 1844, 304.
21 F 1844, 77.
22 F 1847, 346.
23 N 1851, 96–97.
24 K . 1902, 146.
25 T 1923, 20.
26 D–F 1951, 30.
On the Vârtoape, C. Daicoviciu identied
a wide Dacian settlement, between the heights
931–936 m. He, too, mentions remnants of
Dacian civilization at the very Sub Cununi, on a
terrace located east of the road and on another
one, in a neighbouring garden, 200 steps
eastwards.18
TRACES OF THE ROMAN EPOCH
e site of Sub Cununi became notorious due
to the Roman epoch vestiges, whose presence
in such a place, on a mountain slope, is surpris-
ing. Almost all those who made it to this place
noticed the antique construction ruins.
Following his visit to the ruins on Dealul
Grădiștii in 1838, M.Ackner also wrote a few
lines about the site at Sub Cununi. He mentions
the diggings carried out on the grassland from
Valea Anineșului, which revealed buildings,
numerous fragments of wall bricks and clay pot-
tery, as well as a stone with inscriptions.19
A. Fodor saw there, in 1844 remnants of
Roman buildings20 and he even did some dig-
gings and found a construction with three rooms
opening to one another and a “collapsed cellar”,
all of which had walls of about half a fathom
high (approx. 1m), as well as Roman roof tiles
and bricks and pieces of ceramic vessels.21 e
crumbled walls of some Roman buildings and
the “empty cellars” are also mentioned aer the
1847 trip.22
J. F. Neigebaur23 did some diggings at Sub
Cununi on 14 July 1847 and he found by the
stream a signicant piece of wall made of quarry
stones solidly bound with mortar. Stone blocks
were spread all over the hill and one of them was 5
feet long and over 2 feet wide. In the same area, the
author found many Roman roof tiles and bricks,
red pieces of ne ceramics and rough pieces of
grey pottery. Among these, are mentioned several
small bricks, 4 ⅓ inches long and 2¼ inches wide,
a large brick, whose surface is over 2 square feet
and the thickness is about 3 inches.
e same ruins are also mentioned by G.Tég-
lás, who says they were located on a terrace on
the right of the way up the rocks that give the
name of the place. Among the wall ruins he
found pavement bricks, roof tiles and Roman-
type building bricks. He thinks a Roman sum-
mer residence used to lie there.24
e rst archaeologist to reach Sub Cununi
is D. M. Teodorescu, during a eld survey
whose results were briey made public in 1923.
He identies the traces of a settlement “on the
third terrace” and mentions bricks, roong tiles
and river stones cemented together with lime
and sand. He considers them more likely to be
Roman, but adds that, according to tradition,
numerous Dacians were once living there.25 e
place is imprecisely indicated, as there is a large
number of terraces there and the author does
not mention the landmark where he started
counting from.
In 1951, C.Daicoviciu gives a more precise
location: on the rst, westernmost terrace there
are traces of a Roman settlement, consisting in
mortar bound walls, roof tiles and bricks.26
A. P
To all the above, one can add that south of
this terrace, at about 125m straight to the south,
there is a smaller terrace, whose corner was
ruined quite recently by digging a ditch meant
for placing a drainage pipe. e digging revealed
several large roof tiles, 4cm thick, apparently of
Roman origin (Pl.II/1).
e ruins of these Roman constructions
are related to the discovery of two important
inscriptions placed by two governors of the
Roman province of Dacia: the former, dedicated
to Victoria Augusta for the health of Emperor
Antoninus by Marcus Statius Priscus (157–158
AD), the latter dedicated to Apollo Augustus by
Lucius Aemilius Carus (172–177 AD).
Victoriae
Aug(ustae) pro sa-
lute imp(eratoris)
Antonini
5. aug(usti) M(arcus) Sta-
tius Pris-
cus legatus
eius pr(o) pr(aetore)27
and
A[p]ollin(i)
Aug(usto) L(ucius) Ae-
m[i]l(ius) Car[us]
[legatus] aug(usti)
5. pr(o) p[raetore)
[II]I Da[c(iarum)]28
27 CIL III 1416 = IDR III/3, 276. Pl.II/2a–b.
28 CIL III 1415 = IDR III/3, 275.
29 A 1844, 23–24.
30 A 1856, 99.
31 A–M 1865, 48, no.201. Towards the end of the 19th century, the house where the inscription was imbed-
ded belonged to the heirs of a doctor called Gohn (K . 1902, 146). In 1887, when the 3rd volume of CIL was
published, the address of the house was Marktgasse 54 (CIL III 1416). Today, the address is Nicolae Bălcescu no.7 (for-
merly 56) (Pl.II/3).
32 F 1844, 77.
33 N 1851, 96.
34 F 1847, 364.
35 F I, 43; II, 47 (74); IV, 52; VII, tab.IIIb.
Aer his 1838 trip in the area, M.Ackner men-
tions the existence of a sole inscription found
among the ruins of Sub Cununi, the one dedi-
cated to Victoria. e source of this information
was young architect Daniel Zekelius, who had
drawn, measured and described it. According to
him, the piece was found at Sub Cununi dur-
ing some diggings, on a sunny terrace, not far
from the ruins of a rectangular building.29 In an
article about the 1847 expedition, Ackner says
the piece was going to be transported to Vienna,
at prince Lobkowitz’s will.30 A few years later, in
his famous compendium of Roman inscriptions
published together with Fr. Müller, he claims
that the piece was found around year 1837 by
Daniel Zekelius, in Anineșului Valley, and was
brought to Orăștie and mounted in blacksmith
Acker’s yard.31
A. Fodor too, knew just one inscription
in 1844, and he thought it had been sent to
Vienna32, this piece of information being also
taken over by J. F. Neigebaur.33 In 1847 he
found out more details: the piece would have
been found by prince Lobkowitz when he was
in Transylvania on an inspection of the mines.
He would have come to Sub Cununi and would
have done some diggings that lead to the dis-
covery of the engraved altar, which was trans-
ported to Orăștie, with the intention of sending
it to the museum of Vienna. But this did not
happen because the prince died and the piece
remained in Orăștie, in the possession of an
ironmonger called Friedrich Acker, who built
it into the wall of his house.34 In 1847, it could
already be seen imbedded into the wall of that
house. e inscription is most accurately cop-
ied by Fodor, and the drawing is kept among his
manuscripts35 (Pl.II/2c). G. Téglás claims that
85Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
the altar was made of limestone extracted from
Călan quarry.36
e prince that Fodor and Ackner are talk-
ing about must have been August Longin von
Lobkowitz (1797–1842). He was governor of
Galicia starting 1826, and in 1832 he was called
back to Vienna and assigned the newly created
oce of director of the Chamber for Coinage
and Mining (Hoammer für das Münz- und
Bergwesen).37 In 1834 Lobkowitz inspected the
mines from Maramureș, as proven by a Latin
inscription to be found on a plate in mine Bor-
cut from Baia Sprie, which was dedicated to him
in the month of September of the same year.38
Most probably, at the same time, he made it to
Hunedoara County, as proven by the two schol-
ars mentioned above.
However, the piece must have been dis-
covered earlier than Ackner and Fodor think,
because the inscription was published for the
rst time in 1831, by Anton Steinbüchel von
Rheinwall,39 director of the Imperial Numis-
matic and Antiquities Cabinet from Vienna. It is
known that he had asked, in 1830, the governor
of Transylvania, baron Jósika János, to have his
subordinates from the administrative units send
to the Cabinet of Vienna copies of all the Roman
and mediaeval inscriptions from Transylvania.40
e governor asked them to carry out Stein-
büchel’s request, and that the drawings be made
by border engineers (topographers). e draw-
ings were sent to Vienna in the next year and,
among them, was the transcription of the piece
found at Sub Cununi, which was published in
the same year. erefore, it must have been
discovered before 1831. Young Daniel Zeke-
lius (1806–1877) might have been the one who
drew the piece, not the one who discovered it. It
36 K . 1902, 146.
37 B 1956, 58.
38 K–I 2007.
39 e inscription was published in the supplement Anzeige-Blatt für Wissenscha und Kunst of Wiener Jahrbücher
magazine, no.55, 1831, 36 [non vidi].
40 L 1968, 137 sqq.
41 e piece appears only in the Hungarian versions of the manuscript, and it is included in the chapter about Sub Cununi
together with the inscription dedicated to Victoria. It is interesting that in the German version, which was meant to be
printed, is included only this last one, with localization „Bross” (Orăștie). F I, 43; II, 47 (74); F 1847, 364.
42 K .1902, 147–148.
43 H 1848, 163.
44 For the inaccurate character of some information oered by Fodor cf. R 1972, 648, n. 5 and S 2020, 153.
is interesting to mention that, in the letter to the
governor, Steinbüchel expressed his desire to
have all the inscriptions imbedded in the outer
walls of churches, so that everybody could read
them and in order to prevent their destruction.
It would not be unlikely that the piece under
consideration should have been imbedded in a
wall as a result of this recommendation.
e aforementioned data lead to the con-
clusion that the altar was discovered neither
by Zekelius, nor by Lobkowitz, but they both
had contingency with its story: one of them
drew it and the other one tried to transport it to
Vienna. e circumstances and the date when
the inscription was found remain unknown. It
may have been revealed on the occasion of the
geological prospection from Sub Cununi in
1826 or even in 1831, if not earlier, under dier-
ent circumstances.
e information about the second inscrip-
tion, dedicated to Apollo Augustus, is only
given by A.Fodor, in a manuscript and in an
article from 1847 in which he claims it was
found many years before the one dedicated to
Victoria Augusta and was taken to Vienna.41 He
gives a transcription of it, but he never mentions
where he copied the text from. Fodor seems to
be the only one knowledgeable of this inscrip-
tion. From him, the transcript was taken over by
Loreni József, counsel in Orăștie, who, in turn,
passed it over to eodor Mommsen, through
Bardóczy Elek.42 It was published for the rst
time in 1848.43 e piece has disappeared. e
scarcity of data related to this inscription, the
fact that nobody saw it and that nobody knows
where the transcript comes from, raises some
questions as to the place of its discovery.44
Finally, A.Fodor claims that he saw a silver
A. P
coin from Antoninus at one of the inhabitants of
the hamlet of Sub Cununi,45 one more argument
45 F 1844, 305.
46 We do not know exactly which Antoninus is involved, but it is quite likely that this be the very Antoninus Pius, from
whose time is dated the inscription dedicated to Victoria.
47 I thank the company Primul Meridian, to which I owe the set of LiDAR data.
for the Roman presence aer the conquest in
that zone.46
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROMAN SITE
If Dacian habitation on the articial terraces
from Sub Cununi is doubtless, the Roman site
has not been unquestionably identied yet. Nev-
ertheless, there are enough indications in this
sense. J. F.Neigebaur saw an antique wall near
a stream, an important landmark, for there is
just one stream in the region, and it ows along
a large articial terrace. G.Téglás says that the
terrace is on the right of the upward trail, and
C.Daicoviciu says it is the rst terrace, the most
westward one. According to these indications,
the site under consideration is now on a terrace
lying westwards from the road, at the altitude
of 690 m, coordinates 45°38’17’’ N, 23°13’19’’
E. e terrace is oval shaped, slightly curved
towards the North and its dimensions are about
70 × 26m (Pl.III/1–2). To the west of it ows
the above-mentioned stream, the most impor-
tant in the area.
On the edge of the terrace, towards the val-
ley, there are numerous fragments of carved
blocks made of quarry oolitic limestone, simi-
lar to that extracted from the antique quarry
of Măgura Călanului for the Dacian fortresses
(Pl. III/3). ey were probably dumped there
from the central area of the terrace aer succes-
sive ploughing. Other similar blocks can also be
noticed below, on the slope under the terrace.
e blocks surely come from the antique con-
structions that existed on the terrace. As shown
before, two centuries ago, the walls were about
1 m high. As a result of the diggings done in
those days they must have been ruined even
more, then covered by vegetation and nally
levelled by ploughing. Yet, the surface of the ter-
race is not perfectly at; one can notice a bump,
like a attened mound, where there is probably
a more signicant concentration of vestiges.
e location of the Roman site is conrmed
by a set of LiDAR data collected in 2018,47 which
show a complex of constructions or a larger con-
struction with several rooms all over the surface
of the terrace (Pl.IV). e layout of the walls
is better distinguishable in the centre and in its
western half. e relatively low resolution of the
scanning and the disruption of the terrain by
diggings during the previous centuries prevent
a clear planimetry, but the presence of ruined
constructions at that place is beyond any doubt.
On one terrace located east of this one stands
out a square construction with 11m sides, but
its origin can only be determined by excavation.
Several nearby terraces are in the same situa-
tion; they were inhabited by the Dacians, but
they could have been reused by the Romans.
INTERPRETATIONS
e existence of some Roman vestiges at Sub
Cununi raised the interest of the historians, but
without systematic archaeological research, the
interpretations will still come down to supposi-
tions. It is beyond any doubt that at that place
there is a Roman-epoch site, but its location and
the nature of the two inscriptions have been a
puzzle for the researchers who could not agree
whether we are talking about a civil, a religious
or a military settlement.
G.Téglás supposed that at Sub Cununi there
was a Roman summer residence and a trip
destination. He thought that governor Lucius
Aemilius Carus inspected that forested rural
87Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
area and was so fascinated by the beauty of the
landscape that he dedicated an altar to Apollo.48
He also claims that the iron reserves in the area
were exploited not only by the Dacians, but also
by the Romans, aer the conquest. is idea
was taken over by I.Glodariu and E.Iaroslavs-
chi, who claim that, being rich in iron ore, the
area continued to be exploited economically
even aer the conquest, which determined the
appearance of a Roman settlement.49
C.Daicoviciu is the rst to state that besides
a Roman settlement, there was also a sanctu-
ary there, which is the only explanation why
the two governors dedicated votive inscriptions
at that place.50 M.Macrea and C.H. Opreanu
developed this hypothesis. e former believes
that there was a Roman sanctuary there as
early as Dacia’s conquest, where sacrices were
being brought on an annual basis, maybe, and
the inscription dedicated to goddess Victoria
was connected with a Roman victory under
Antoninus Pius, against the free Dacians, a vic-
tory that might have evoked Trajan’s.51 Opreanu
supposes that the area of the ancient capital
was isolated and forgotten half a century aer
the conquest and that the only explanation for
the two inscriptions would be the existence of
a commemorating sanctuary or an altar erected
by Trajan aer having defeated Decebalus.52
I.Oltean and W. Hanson too, speak of a “high-
prole commemoration of military success tak-
ing place up to seven decades aer the area had
been conquered”53. Finally, Cs. Szabó points out
that, although it is not clear whether there is a
sanctuary there or a triumphal monument dedi-
cated to Trajan, the presence of Victoria Augusta
and Apollo Augustus shows clearly the Imperial
authority; the place would have been a symbolic
48 K . 1902, 148.
49 G–I 1979, 22. Recently, the fortication from Cornu Pietrii, which is not far from Sub Cununi,
has also been connected with a possibly metallurgical activity in that area, during the Roman epoch see O–
H 2017, 443–445.
50 D 1933–1935, 246, n. 4.
51 M 1969, 55.
52 O 2000, 85–86.
53 O–H 2017, 443.
54 S 2018, 145.
55 IDR III/3, p. 275.
56 S 2005, 618–619.
one for the Dacians, and the Romans purposely
turned it into a sacred memory of the victory.
e maintenance of this sanctuary or memorial
for over half a century might have led, according
to Szabó, to the purposeful transformation and
elimination of the indigenous presence as well
as of the Dacians’ cultural memory.54
ere are also hypotheses related to the pos-
sibly military character of this site. Its strategic
position, on the communication line between
Valea Mureșului and the former capital, through
the auxiliary camp from Orăștioara de Sus was
an argument for choosing that place, consid-
ered to be a stage point (some kind of statio).55
A. S. Stefan considers it necessary to have an
intermediary stage between Luncani–Târsa (or
the opposite fortication from Prisaca) and the
settlement from Feele Albe, which is thought
to have been conquered during the campaign
of 102 AD. At Sub Cununi would have been
the most comfortable place in the vicinity of
Sarmizegetusa Regia for setting up such a base.
It is also here that the troops coming along
the ridge route Blidaru–Luncani could rejoin
those coming along the valley, from the camp
of Orăștioara de Sus. It is also from here, says
Stefan, they could attack the fortress of Vârful
lui Hulpe and the settlement from Feele Albe,
maybe in collaboration with the column com-
ing on the ridge road from Prisaca. Also, from
Sub Cununi they could advance towards Sarmi-
zegetusa Regia along the valley, up to the conu-
ence of Valea Albă with Valea Godeanului, and
from there, along the ridge of Dealul Grădiștii.56
e debates related to the military role of the
settlement from Sub Cununi have been stimu-
lated by the discovery of Tiberius Claudius
Maximus’s funeral stele from Grammeni
A. P
(Macedonia), where is mentioned the Dacian
named place Ranisstorum. Maximus claims
that he would have caught king Decebalus and
brought his head to Trajan at Ranisstorum,
where the emperor allegedly had his headquar-
ters at the end of the war.57 Most probably, this
is the place depicted on Trajan’s column in scene
CXLVII, where Trajan shows the king’s head to
the soldiers, announcing the victory. M.Speidel
says it is a legion camp, that took its name from
an important Dacian town located nearby,
identied as Piatra Craivii-Apoulon.58 I. Glo-
dariu contests this interpretation, showing that
it is more likely the site of Sub Cununi, which
is more suitable for an emperor’s camp at that
stage of the confrontations with the Dacians. He
thinks the place was far enough from the capi-
tal to bear another name.59 But the identica-
tion with Ranisstorum implies the existence of a
camp at Sub Cununi.
On the contrary, K. Strobel thinks that Sub
Cununi belongs to Sarmizegetusa and that
there, or somewhere upstream would have
been Decebalus’s Regia (the royal residence):
this would explain the existence at that place of
a commemorative monument erected by Tra-
jan.60 He says that the barrage fortication from
scene LXXXIV on Trajan’s Column might have
been on the heights in front of the site from Sub
Cununi and would have been meant to block
the mid and upper course of Valea Anineșului
and Valea Mică.
Since the site has not been systematically
explored yet, its dating from Trajan’s time does
57 S 1970. C.H. Opreanu translates Ranisstoro as from Ranisstorum, not to Ranisstorum, and considers that that
could be the place where the king killed himself, not the place where Trajan was (O 2000, 86). e translation
is erroneous: it would have needed the preposition a (a Ranisstoro) in order for such an interpretation to be justied.
58 S 1971, 515.
59 G 1981.
60 S 2019, 279.
61 For his career, see P 1993, 66–73.
62 CIL III 1061 = IDR III/5, 181.
63 S 2019, 285.
64 SHA, Vita Pii, 5, 4: Per legatos suos plurima bella gessit. Nam et Britannos ... vicit et Mauros ad pacem postulandam
coegit et Germanos et Dacos et multas gentes atque Iudaeos rebellantes contudit per praesides ac legatos.
65 CIL VIII 20242; CIL VIII 12513. See also K 1996, 135. is epithet is no longer mentioned in the posthumous
edition of Kienast’s book (K . 2017, 129).
66 K 1969, 97, who admits, nevertheless, that epithets had a real basis, represented by the conicts successfully
solved at the northern border of Dacia.
67 G 1972, 643.
not benet from archaeological arguments, but
of conjectural ones (the closeness to the former
capital, the interpretation of some scenes from
Trajan’s Column). e two inscriptions are about
50, respectively 70 years later and the presence
of the two governors on a site founded by Trajan
needed explanations. e arguments focused on
the years 156–158 AD, when many researchers
think there were confrontations with the free
Dacians from outside the province, who were
defeated by Dacia’s governor Marcus Statius
Priscus,61 and the monument from Sub Cununi
would have marked the end of these confronta-
tions. A second inscription, placed at Apulum
by the same governor,62 would support the same
idea. Priscus’s appointment as consul honorarius
for 159 is considered to be a high honour, quite
unusual for a former eques and it would repre-
sent a reward for the victory of 158.63 But what
happened in that year?
Most historians consider that there were
confrontations between the Romans and the
free Dacians (and the Iazyges Sarmatians) at the
western border of the province. ey invoked
in this sense a piece of information from His-
toria Augusta, which mentions rebellions of
the Dacians during Antoninus Pius.64 To this is
added the (unocial) epithet of Dacicus given
to this emperor in 157 or 158 and mentioned
in two African inscriptions,65 which gave some
troubles to the researchers. Some considered
that such epithets are adulatory,66 others that
they are completely erroneous,67 and some
ascribe them to the presence in North Africa of
89Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
some soldiers from the Dacian troops.68 Nev-
ertheless, it has been mentioned that, in the
same context, the emperor is also called optimus
maximusque princeps, which, obviously points
to Trajan’s image: was Antoninus Pius seen as a
second Trajan who defeated the Dacians again?
Possibly. An outdated argument in favour of a
strain on limes is the bringing of north-African
troops to the western border of Dacia, which
is inferred from a military diploma from 158
AD:69 a later discovery conrmed that these
troops were in Dacia as early as 146.70
M. Macrea believes that the conicts took
place on the eastern border of the province and
involved the eastern free Dacians, namely the
Costoboci. He invokes in this sense the burial of
two large coin hoards in Viştea (Cluj County)
and Sălașuri (Mureș County) whose last coins are
from 156, respectively 157 AD.71 D.Benea agrees
that the Dacians attacked from east to west.72
C. C. Petolescu thinks that there are no
arguments for ghting against the free Dacians
68 P 2014, 313.
69 P 1993, 70 sqq, with earlier bibliography.
70 E–P 2014, 271 sqq. See also S 2019, 285, n. 476.
71 M 1969, 55–56.
72 B 2010, 166 sqq.
73 P 2007, 110.
74 IDR III/3, 277. D.R (2003, 124) wrongly attributes this interpretation to M.Macrea and claims that it is dicult
to accept the idea of a Dacian revolt in the area of the former fortresses, because this very area had been evacuated aer
the conquest.
75 M 1997, 478–482.
76 M. Bărbulescu is against this interpretation: he considers that these simultaneous repairs were determined by the
anniversary of the semi-centennial of Dacia’s conquest (B 2006) or by the peace that was established aer the
border conicts were put an end to (B 2010, 80).
in that period and that the year 158 is not an
important one in the history of Roman Dacia.73
Other voices claim that the reason of this
inscription would have been a successful mili-
tary action against the rebel Dacians in the very
area of the former fortresses from the Orăștiei
Mountains.74 e information from Historia
Augusta and the emperor’s epithets are also valid
for this variant of interpretation; moreover, the
phrase Dacos rebellantes would hint to a revolt
of the subdued Dacians rather than to an attack
from the free Dacians (although their synchroni-
zation is not excluded). According to B.Mitrea,
the hidden coin hoards (at Gherla, Sighișoara,
Cașol, Viștea) suggests troubles in 156–157
inside, not outside the province.75 Finally, a
rather unusual phenomenon takes place in 157–
158 in the province: simultaneous repairs to edi-
ces in Apulum, Porolissum and Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa; they were explained by Mitrea
as an outcome of the destructions resulted from
the attacks of the revolted Dacians.76
SHORT CONCLUSIONS
e data given above lead to a few observations,
whose provisional character is obvious, consid-
ering the lack of systematic research.
1. e Roman site seems to be larger than it
was thought so far. On at least one more terrace
there is a possibly Roman construction. On other
neighbouring terraces one can notice rectangular
foundations of buildings, but only eld investiga-
tion can establish if they are Dacian or Roman.
2. e Roman building identied in the 19th
century does not seem to be characteristic for
a tropaeum. Fodor András’s descriptions and
the LiDAR data show that it has several rooms
(at least three of them were visited and seen by
Fodor), but one cannot exclude the existence
of several buildings on the same terrace, one of
which could have had a religious function. e
only argument for its interpretation as a tem-
ple is represented by the votive altars, but such
pieces can be found in other contexts, as well.
3. At present there are no clear indications
of a fortication at Sub Cununi. No enclosure
A. P
walls, vallums or ditches have been identied,
either on the spot or by LiDAR data analysis.
e hypothesis of a camp or of a fortied settle-
ment remains questionable. However, there are
some features in the eld in some places, which
will have to be checked in the future. Beyond
any doubt, the position is a strategic one, as
from there the access to the former capital could
be controlled.77
All the data point to the fact that the site
from Sub Cununi is an outstanding one: it is
the nearest Roman site to the Dacians’ former
capital and, at the same time, it seems to be the
only place in the entire province that is neither
a town, nor a camp (at least from what we know
so far), but where a governor (or two) dedicated
votive altars to gods. Hence, the place must have
had a really high signication for the Romans.
Most historians connected the 158 AD inscrip-
tion to a victory of the Romans over the free
Dacians from the western or eastern border of
the province, but it is questionable why Dacia’s
77 e nearest known permanent Roman camp is about 15km downstream, at Orăștioara de Sus, see M 2009, 147
sqq, with bibliography. A Roman garrison was located at the very Sarmizegetusa Regia aer 106, but only for a few years
(the latest discussions on this topic: O 2000; S 2005, 323 sqq; O–H 2017, 439 sqq).
governor made this thankful gesture towards
gods at Sub Cununi, at a great distance from the
place of the victory. We may wonder if there was
a monument there, marking the Roman victory
over the Dacians in 106 AD, as most people
think, and if a new victory over this population
had to be celebrated in the same place. Was that
a highly important strategic place controlled by
the Romans? Or was it a sacred place for the
Dacians and the Romans tried to wipe out its
memory, as Szabo thinks? Or was there even
Decebalus’ residence, as Strobel thinks? Or,
maybe, there were revolts in the area of the for-
mer fortresses half a century aer the conquest
and the Roman site dates back from those times
only? Systematic investigation of the site at Sub
Cununi will clear up the role of the Roman
presence in this place and could bring valuable
information related to crucial moments of the
Dacian history and of the Roman province. We
can only hope that this research will start as
soon as possible.
REFERENCES
A 1844
M.Ackner, Reisebericht über einen eil der südlichen Karpaten, welche Siebenbürgen von der
Kleinen Walachei trennen, aus dem Jahre 1838, AVS L I Band, II He, 1844, 1–33.
A 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, 93–103.
A – M 1865
M.J. Ackner – H. Müller, Die römischen inschrien in Dacien (Wien 1865)
B 2006
M.Bărbulescu, Un „semicentenar al Daciei” în anii 157–158?, in: D.Benea (ed.), Simpozionul
Internațional „Daci şi romani. 1900 de ani de la integrarea Daciei în Imperiul Roman (Timișoara
24–26 martie 2006)” (Timişoara 2006) 126–134.
B 2010
M.Bărbulescu, Dacia romană. Cap. III.Istoria politică, in: Protase, D.– Suceveanu, A.(eds.),
Istoria românilor, vol.II.Daco-romani, romanici, alogeni (București 2010) 73–97.
B 2010
D.Benea, Despre războaiele cu dacii din timpul lui Antoninus Pius (anii 144/147, 155/157),
91Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
in: V. Rusu-Bolinde – T. Sălăgean – R.Varga, Studia Archaeologica et Historica in honorem
magistri Dorin Alicu, (Cluj-Napoca 2010) 154–180.
B 1956
H. Benedikt, Werfner Eisen (Fortsetzung), in: Nagler, J., Blätter für Tehcnikgeschichte (Wien
1956) 34–76.
D 1933–1935
C.Daicoviciu, Dacica. În jurul unor probleme din Dacia romană, AISC 2, 1933–1935, 240–256.
D – F 1951
C.Daicoviciu – A.Ferenczi, Așezările dacice din Munții Orăștiei (București 1951)
D . 1989
H. Daicoviciu – I.Glodariu – Ș. Ferenczi, Cetăți și așezări dacice în sud-vestul Transilvaniei,
vol.I (București 1989)
E – P 2014
W. Eck – A. Pangerl, Zwei neue Diplome für die Truppen von Dacia superior und Dacia
Porolissensis, ZPE 191, 2014, 269–277.
F 1844
Fodor A., Római régiségek Hunyad vármegyében, Hon és Külföld, 1844, 300–304, 305–307.
F 1847
Fodor A., Utazás nemes Hunyadvarmegyében régiségek kinyomozása végett, Hon és Külföld,
1847, 346–348, 351–352, 355–356, 358–360, 362–364.
F
Lugosi Fodor András Kézirata [Date arheologice din Transilvania], vol. I-VIII, Biblioteca
Centrală Universitară Cluj-Napoca, Colecii Speciale, cota 754 (mss).
G 1981
I.Glodariu, Din nou despre Ranisstorum, Apulum 19, 1981, 51–55.
G – I 1979
I.Glodariu – E.Iaroslavschi, Civilizația erului la daci (Cluj-Napoca 1979)
G 1972
N.Gostar, Les titres impériaux Dacicus Maximus et Carpicus Maximus, in: Hakkert, A.M.(ed.),
Actes de la XII-e Conférence Internationale d’Études Classiques “Eirene”, Cluj-Napoca, 2–7 octo-
bre 1972 (Bucarest – Amsterdam 1975) 643–649.
H 1848
W. Henzen, Antichità della Transilvania, BICA 3, 1848, 161–166.
J 1971
S.Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la Grădiştea Muncelului în anii 1803–1804
(II), ActaMN 8, 1971, 439–455.
K–I 2007
C.Kacsó – D.Iştvan (2007). Monumentul epigrac din galeria de mină Borcut de la Baia Sprie,
in: R.Ştefănescu – I.Bauman – L.Savu (eds.), Studia in honorem Florea Costea (Braşov 2007)
385–394.
K 1996
D.Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie2 (Darmstadt
1996)
K . 2017
D. Kienast – W. Eck – M. Heil, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen
Kaiserchronologie. 6., überarbeitete Auage (Darmstadt 2017)
A. P
K 1969
P.Kneissl, Die Siegestitulatur der römischen Kaiser. Untersuchungen zu den Siegerbeinamen des
ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts (Göttingen 1969)
K . 1902
Kuun G.– Torma Zs. – Téglás G., Hunyadvármegye története (Budapest 1902)
L 1968
N.Lascu, Știri din arhivele clujene referitoare la inscripiile romane din Transilvania, ActaMN
5, 1968, 137–142.
L 2008
S.A.Luca (ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al județului Hunedoara (Sibiu 2008)
M 1969
M.Macrea, Viața în Dacia romană (București 1969)
M 1995
J. Makkay, e treasures of Decebalus, OJA 14, 3, 1995, 333–343.
M 2009
F.Marcu, e internal planning of Roman forts of Dacia (Cluj-Napoca 2009)
M 1945
B. Mitrea, Penetrazione commerciale e circolazione monetaria nella Dacia prima della con-
quista, EDR 10, 1945, 3–154.
M 1997
B. Mitrea, Contribuii numismatice la cunoașterea problemei luptei împotriva stăpânirii
romane în Dacia, Carpica 26, 1, 1997, 467–484.
N 1851
J. F. Neigebaur, Dacien. Ueberresten des klassischen Alterthums, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf
Siebenbürgen (Kronstadt 1851)
O – H 2017
I.A.Oltean – W. S.Hanson, Conquest strategy and political discourse: new evidence for the
conquest of Dacia from LiDAR analysis at Sarmizegetusa Regia, JRA 30, 2017, 429–446.
O – F 2019
I.A.Oltean – J. Fonte, Microtopographies of Dacian upland settlement strategies and commu-
nity aggregation trends in the Orăştie Mountains, Romania, in: D.C.Cowley –M.Fernández-
Götz – T.Romankiewicz – H. Wendling (eds.), Rural Settlement. Relating buildings, landscape,
and people in the European Iron Age (Leiden 2019) 251–261.
O 2000
C.H. Opreanu, e Roman fort at Grădiștea Muncelului (Sarmizegetusa Regia). Its chronology
and its historical meaning, in: Daker und Römer am Anfang des 2. Jh. n. Chr. im Norden der
Donau. Daci și romani la începutul secolului al II-lea d. Hr. la Nordul Dunării, BHAUT, II, 2000,
79–95.
P 2007
C.C.Petolescu, Contribuții la istoria Daciei romane, I (București 2007)
P 2014
C.C.Petolescu, Dacia. Un mileniu de istorie (București 2014)
P 2018
A.Pean, Sarmizegetusa Regia. 1. Redescoperirea cetăţii (Alun 2018)
P 1993
I.Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae. I.Die senatorischen Amtsträger (Bonn 1993)
93Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
R 2003
D.Ruscu, Provincia Dacia în istoriograa antică (Cluj-Napoca 2003)
R 1972
I.I.Russu, Periegheza epigracă a lui eodor Mommsen în Transilvania (Recticări la SCIV,
23, 1972, 1, p. 125–132), SCIV 23, 4, 1972, 647–650.
S 2006
D.Spânu, Misterioasele descoperiri de monede şi podoabe de aur dacice din secolul al XVI-lea.
Contribuie la istoricul descoperirilor dacice din Munii Orăştiei, Argesis XV, 2006, 77–90.
S 1970
M.Speidel, e Captor of Decebalus, JRS 60, 1970, 142–153.
S 1971
M.Speidel, Ranisstorum, ultimul punct de sprijin al lui Decebal, ActaMN 7, 1970, 511–515.
S 2005
A.S.Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: architecture militaire, topographie,
images et histoire (Rome 2005)
S 2019
K. Strobel, Südosteuropa in der Zeit von Republik und Principat: Vorgeschichte, Etablierung
und Konsolidierung Römischer Herrscha, in: F. Mitthof – P.Schreiner – O.Schmitt (eds.),
Herrscha und Politik in Südosteuropa von der Römischen Antike bis 1300 (Handbuch zur
Geschichte Südosteuropas, Band 1) (Berlin/Boston 2019) 131–322.
S 2018
Cs. Szabó, Sanctuaries in Roman Dacia. Materiality and religious experience (Oxford 2018)
S 2020
O. Szilágyi, e Contributions of András Lugosi Fodor to the Research of Roman Dacia,
Marisia–AHP 2, 2020, 149–156.
T 1923
D.M.Teodorescu, Cercetări arheologice în Munții Hunedoarei (Cluj 1923)
W 1982
V.Wollmann, Johann Michael Ackner (1782–1862). Leben und Werk (Cluj-Napoca 1982)
A. P
Plate I.1. Location of the site Grădiștea de Munte–Sub Cununi; 2. Sub Cununi area.
Aerial view from the south-east; 3. Ancient roads, fortresses and camps around Sub Cununi.
95Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
Plate II.1. Fragments of roof tiles at Sub Cununi; 2. e inscription dedicated to Victoria Augusta:
a. IDR III/3, 276, g. 208; b. Author’s photo (2021); c. FODOR MSS.VII, tab.IIIb.; 3. e current
location of the inscription dedicated to Victoria Augusta in Orăștie, N.Bălcescu street no 7.
A. P
Plate III.1–2. Aerial and ground view of the “Roman terrace”; 3.
Fragments of limestone blocks on the “Roman terrace”.
97Grădiştea de Munte–Sub Cununi (Hunedoara County)
Plate IV.1. Sub Cununi area and “the Roman terrace”. LiDAR-based Digital Terrain Model; 2.
“e Roman terrace”. LiDAR-based slope shading analysis (vertical exaggeration: 30).
ABBREVIATIONS
ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis
AISC Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice Cluj
Aluta Aluta. Studii și cercetări
AnB Analele Banatului (Serie nouă 2006–)
Angustia Angustia. Muzeul Carpailor Răsăriteni
AnnUA-Hist Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica
Antiquity Antiquity. A Quarterly Review of Archaeology
Apulum Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis
ArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő
ArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica
ArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
ArchSlovMonComm Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae: Communicationes
Argesis Argesis. Studii și comunicări
AVS L Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde
Banatica Banatica, Muzeul Banatului Montan
BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal
BCȘS Buletinul Cercurilor Știinice Studenești
BeitUfGMMKR Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes
BerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission
BICA Bullettino dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica = Bulletin de l’Institut
de correspondance archéologique
BHAUT Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis
BJ Bonner Jahrbücher
BMA Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis
BMM Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis
BudRég Budapest Régiségei
CA Cercetări Arheologice
Carpica Carpica. Muzeul Judeean Iulian Antonescu
CCAR Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
CH Cahiers d’Histoire. Publiés par les Universités de Clermont-Ferrand
CommArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae
Dacia (N. S.) Dacia. Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–
1948), Nouvelle série (N. S.): Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene
DDMÉ A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve
DissArch Dissertationes Archaelogicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de
Rolando Eötvös Nominatae
DM Dissertationes et monographiae Beograd
DolgKolozsvár (Ú.S.) Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, (Új sorozat
2006–)
DolgSzeged Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből
EDR Ephemeris Dacoromana
EMúz Erdélyi Múzeum
M. S
EphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis
HOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve
IA Internationale Archäologie
ICA Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology
IPH Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae
JAHA Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology
JAAH Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History
JASc Journal of Archaeological Science
JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
KM Keresztény Magvető. Az Erdélyi Unitárius Egyház Folyóirata
KuBA Kölner und Bonner Archaeologica
Lymbus Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények
Marisia Marisia (V–XXXV): Studii şi Materiale
Marisia-AHP Marisia: Archaeologia, Historia, Patrimonium
MCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice
MFMÉ (StudArch) A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, (Studia Archaeologica 1995–)
MGLDMS (N. F.) Magazin für Geschichte, Literatur und alle Denk- und Merkwürdigkeiten
Siebenbürgens, Neue Folge
Mousaios Mousaios. Muzeul Judeean Buzău
MSVFG Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
MűvtÉrt Művészettörténeti Értesítő
NuclInstMethPhys-Sect. B
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Section B
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
PAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa
PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde
Radiocarbon Radiocarbon. An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research
ReiCretActa Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta
RégFüz Régészeti Füzetek
RevBis Revista Bistriei. Complexul Judeean Muzeal Bistria-Năsăud
Sargetia (S.N.) Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis
SBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
SCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–)
SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia
StCl Studii Clasice
StComSibiu Studii şi comunicări. Muzeul Brukenthal
StComSM Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare
SUBB-Historia Studia Universitatis Babeş–Bolyai, series Historia
StudUCH Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis, Series Historica
Terra Sebus Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis
raco-Dacica raco-Dacica. Institutul de Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan” Centrul de Tracologie
Tisicum Tisicum. A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve
Tyrag e tia Tyragetia. e National Museum of History of Moldova
U PA Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie
VAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
WMMÉ A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve
ZPE Zeitschri für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
MARISIA. ARCHAEOLOGIA, HISTORIA, PATRIMONIUM
With a publishing tradition since 1965, in 2019 the annual of the Mureș County Museum initiated a new
series entitled:
Marisia. Archaeologia, Historia, Patrimonium
. The publication provides a panel for new
research results in archeology, architecture and material heritage of the history of arts and culture. The
studies mainly focus on the inner Transylvanian region that encompasses also Mureş County. Beyond local
valuable contributions, the annual aims at a regional and global concern that is relevant for the whole
of Transylvania. Among the annual’s missions is to provide mutual interpretation of the research results
produced by the Romanian and Hungarian scientific workshops. Therefore, the annual articles are mainly
in English but based on the field of research and the approached topic studies in German, Romanian or
Hungarian are also accepted.
Cu o tradiție din anul 1965, anuarul Muzeului Județean Mureș s-a relansat în 2019 sub titlul
Marisia.
Archaeologia, Historia, Patrimonium
. Această publicație se descrie ca o platformă științifică care cuprinde
rezultatele cercetărilor în domenii precum: arheologia, arhitectura și patrimoniul material din zona istoriei
artelor și a culturii, studii localizate în regiunea centrală a Transilvaniei, din care face parte județul Mureș.
In extenso, anuarul își propune să ofere un spațiu unitar contribuțiilor științifice valoroase, relevante din
perspectiva geografică a ceea ce înseamnă întreaga regiune a Transilvaniei. Una dintre misiunile publicației
este aceea de a oferi tuturor celor interesați spațiul de schimb pentru cele mai noi rezultate din atelierele
științifice românești și maghiare. Articolele anuarului sunt scrise în general în limba engleză, existând
totodată articole scrise în germană, română și maghiară, în funcție de specificul domeniului și a temei
abordate.
A Maros Megyei Múzeum 1965 óta megjelenő évkönyvének 2019-ben útjára bocsátott új sorozata, a
Marisia.
Archaeologia, Historia, Patrimonium
elsősorban a mai Maros megyét is magába foglaló belső-erdélyi
régió régészeti, épített és tárgyi örökségére, nemkülönben az ezekhez kapcsolódó művészettörténeti,
művelődéstörténeti kérdésekre vonatkozó újabb kutatások tudományos fóruma. A lokális perspektíván túl
igyekszik kitekinteni a regionális és univerzális összefüggésekre, így a tágan értelmezett Erdély területére
nézve is közöl kiemelkedő értékkel bíró tanulmányokat. Küldetésének tekinti a hazai román és magyar
tudományos műhelyekben született eredmények kölcsönös tolmácsolását. A dolgozatok nyelve főként az
angol, de szakterülettől és témától függően német, román vagy magyar nyelven is közöl írásokat.
