See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335096895

Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

Article · January 2013

CITATION READS

1 98

1 author:

Aurora Petan
West University of Timisoara
58 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Istoria limbii române View project

Sarmizegetusa Regia and other Dacian Fortresses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aurora Petan on 10 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN
ISTORIE VECHE ȘI ARHEOLOGIE

ReDIVA

THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNAL

OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY

I / 2013

CLUJ-NAPOCA
2013
 CONTENTS

Foreword 7

Alexandru Berzovan
Some remarks on the Dacian silver hoard
found at Gura Văii (Pleşcuţa Town, Arad County) 9

Aurora Peţan
Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804 29

Szabó Csaba
The Mithraic Statue of Secundinus from Apulum 45

Dan Deac
Being an Isiac in Potaissa. Short remarks on
Ricis 616/0102 (= cil iii 882) 65

Boda Imola
Torma Károly (1829-1897) and the archaeological
research in Roman Dacia. Case study: Ilişua 75

Ion Ceban
Archäologische denkmäler in der gemeinde Slobozia Mare,
Bezirk Cahul, Republik Moldau 107

Vladimir Ovtcharov
Countermarked coinage of Dobrudja.
A detailed investigation (Case report) 129

5
 SARMIZEGETUSA REGIA
IN THE AUSTRIAN MAP OF 1804

Aurora PEŢAN
PhD Candidate, „Babeş-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, RO
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. During the excavations carried out in 1803-1804 at Grădiştea

Muncelului by the Austrian tax authority, regular reports were issued
containing valuable information about the investigated site. At the same time,
the cartographer Andras Szőts drew up the first known plan of the ruins. He
delineated the fortress, placing it in the geographical context, but he also recorded
the main excavated spots. The plan of 1804 has remained unused so far. This
paper aims to bring to light archive data concerning this plan and to recover the
information recorded on it, corroborating them with those of the reports. The
importance of this approach is not only a historiographical one, but it also resides
in the fact that the information from the beginning of the nineteenth century
record a conservation status of the monuments sometimes higher than today.
Keywords: Dacian fortresses, Sarmizegetusa Regia, cartography,
historiography, Austrian tax authority’s excavations.

The first intentions of elaborating a plan containing the location

of Grădiştea Muncelului’s ruins belong to the Transylvanian
authorities, and came to light shortly after word began to spread
about the discovery of hoards in the area. After the beginning of the
official excavations, in the summer of 1803, the fulfilment of this plan
became a priority. However, several delays stepped in and the first
plan was elaborated only in the autumn of 1804, before the end of the
excavations1.
1
In 1803 the excavation was carried out between 21 July and 1 September,
and in 1804 between 5 May and 27 October. By the end of 1804, the Imperial
Chamber decides to put the excavations to an end, arguing that the spent amount
of money was greater than the profit. During the excavations reports were issued,
they were bi-monthly during the first campaign, and weekly in the following
year, published rather late by S. Jakó (Jakó 1968; Jakó 1971; Jakó 1972; Jakó 1973),
but left unused until now. See Peţan 2012, p. 81-82.

ReDIVA I/2013, p. 29-43

 Aurora PEŢAN

Following the report of the tax procurator Paul Török, of 4 July

1803, the Mining and Monetary Treasury ordered, in the assembly
of 7 July, the same year, that the mining supervisor, Bernard Aigler
from Săcărâmb, should go to Grădiştea Muncelului accompanied
by miners and day labourers, in order to begin the research. At the
same time, Iosif Bodoki, a mining inspector, was ordered to go on-site,
once every 14 days, in order to prepare the reports regarding the state
of the research and to make a sketch of „what is worth seeing”. And
if Bodoki would not have had drawing skills, says the document of
7 July, someone competent was to be sent at the right time2. Following
Aigler and Bodoki’s reports of 6 August, drafted after the first two
weeks of work, the Treasury ordered again, on 25 August, sketches of
the artefacts and of the ruins discovered.
Probably these kinds of sketches, more or less clumsy, were made
from the first year of diggings, but only in the autumn of 1804 an expert
cartographer arrived at Grădiştea Muncelului, namely the former
artillery petty officer Andras Szőts, who, at that time, was mapping
the forests of the Imperial domain. Following the talks carried out,
during the month of August, by the director of the Imperial Collection
of Antiquities, Franz de Paula Neumann, and the treasurer Joseph
Bethlen3, the Imperial Chamber insisted, in a document dating back to
26 September, on urging the elaboration of the plan and on 5 October
the domain administration replied that these works were already in an
advanced stage4. The absence from the plan of the great stone „double
circle”, which was excavated only following the Treasury’s orders of
12 October5, gives us an insight on the date when Szőts was in Grădişte.
Therefore, we can state that the cartographer finished the plan and the
sketch before this date.
Szőts drew two plates. On one of these two he depicted, in its upper
half, Grădiştii hill, the citadel’s disposition and the main areas where
2
Jakó 1968, p. 4.
3
The Archive of the Antiquities Collection, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna,
158/1804, v. Jakó 1973, p. 629.
4
Jakó 1973, p. 629.
5
Jakó 1973, p. 617. The Treasury demands him to carry out excavations there
where „the forest cartographer Szőts was busy recording and drawing, where one can see
those awkward pieces of columns, and there where a church was assumed to have been”.
It does not mean that Szőts registered this monument as well, but that he was
drawing in that area. It is likely for him to have stayed in the area of the great
circular sanctuary when he draw the pentagonal tower, which is situated nearby,
including, in one of the plates, both the plan and sections of this tower.

30
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

excavations had been carried out, and in the lower part, the building
south of the precinct and the pentagonal tower, both being drawings
in plan and section. The second plate includes objects found during
the excavations: ceramic pipes, low-reliefs, „the inscription with
arms”, stone shrines, scarps of columns, letters from wall blocks et al.
In this article I will only discuss the main plan of the ruins in Grădiştea
Muncelului.
The areas where excavations had been carried out were numbered
with capital letters, and the spots where the most important artefacts
had been discovered, were numbered with lowercase letters, - all of
them being explained in a very brief caption, which seems to have the
same starting point as Anton Bögözi’s summarizing report of 1805.
After the Court expressed, on 14 November, the desire to see again the
plates, they were submitted to the Treasury, on 31 December 1804, by
the tax procurator J. Zörnlaib and by A. Bögözi, having as prescription
to be sent as soon as possible to Vienna, and mentioning the fact that
a duplicate was retained6. Lastly, the Baron von Reichenstein, the
president of the Imperial Chamber, presented them to the Chamber
on 13 February 1805, along with a short paper. The report signed by
Bögözi, in which the elements on the plates were explained, arrived
with delay, only on 25 April 18057.
Unfortunately, the two plates drawn by the cartographer have
not come down to us (or at least they were not identified yet in
the archives). However, there were at least two contemporary
copies. One of them was made by a certain captain Kulyan, and
it was a copy made of both plates, which reached Count Joseph
Mitrovsky’s document collection (Count who was at that time
supreme military commander of Transylvania), accompanying
M. Péchy’s report, who was at that time major of the engineering
corps and inspected the ruins from Grădiştea in 18058. The two
plates are now at Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, in Vienna, in
the war archive (Kriegsarchiv, Karten­a bteilung KVIIk 403 I/2).
A microfilmed copy of these plates is to be found in Bucharest, at
the National Archives of Romania, copy obtained from the Viennese
archives in the 1980s (Austria fund, roll 198). The second copy was

6
Jakó 1973, p. 624.
7
Jakó 1973, p. 628.
8
Jakó 1973, p. 636. The plates reproduced by Jakó are listed, in his article, as
annexes of the report dating back to 31 December 1804. In fact they are annexes
from M. Péchy’s report of 1805, and copies of the report of 31 December 1804.

31
 Aurora PEŢAN

made by a Chamber scribe named Friedrich Wagner, and it is located

in the National Archives of Romania – Cluj County Directorate,
Transylvanian Mining Treasury fund, but only the plate depicting
artefacts is reproduced (original 2406/1805, microfilm roll 1238/1805).
We cannot know if the duplicate in question, in the document dating
back to 31 December, is the one made by Kulyan, or the one made by
Wagner, or a third copy.
Jakó reproduced Kulyan’s copy, but its quality is so poor that almost
nothing can be interpreted from the fortress plan. To this circumstance
adds also the technique of cartographic representation of that time,
tributary to the fashion of the Josephine maps, through which the wooded
areas were represented by tree pictographs, drawn at a close range one
from another, such as the structures situated in the forest were hardly
distinguished on the plan. The caption is also illegible in this reproduction
and Jakó did not provide a transcription of it. Şt. Ferenczi regretted, two
and a half decades later, the poor quality of this reproduction9.
Doina Benea, paging through the excavation reports of the Austrian
Treasury published by Jakó, mentions the information according to
which the making of the map was requested, adding the fact that she
regrets that this map has not yet been found, saying that one must
look in the archives of the Kunsthistorische Museum10. The map was
however published by Jakó in the same article quoted by Benea.
Kulyan’s plate is difficult to construe. I managed to recover the
plan copied by Kulyan after having consulted the plates located in the
Viennese archives and after processing the image’s contrast based on
a scanned copy, of high quality, obtained due to the kindness of the
Viennese archives (fig. 1).
This plate includes the entire Grădiştii hill, with the two water flows
from north and south, denominated Râul Alb (currently Valea Albă)
and Pârâul Alb (currently Valea Godeanului), with Muncel and Godeanu
peaks situated roughly to the north and north-east and with other
three mountains south the hill: Berg Mele, Berg Tyityava, Berg Stsava –
probably Meleia, Titiana and Ştevia (or Şteaua, but this is located further
north).
The fortress is situated in the upper part of the hill and occupies a
very scant surface of the overall map, the cartographer allotting much

9
Daicoviciu et al. 1989, p. 131.
10
Benea 2004, p. 18.

32
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

more attention to the area’s geography than to the emplacement of

the relics. This aspect is partially balanced by the plans of the two
buildings, marked with B and D, represented under the map. Szőts
saw the excavations exactly before they took an end; consequently his
drawings rendered faithfully what had been excavated. Unfortunately,
the copy which was preserved does not faithfully reproduce the
original, fact suggested by the additional details in the caption, which
make reference to points that are not on the map. Therefore, we cannot
fully rely on the accuracy of Kulyan’s copy.
The Kulyan’s representation has an eastward deviation from
true north averaging 8 degrees. On the map the precinct is oriented
NNE-SSW and has an approximate and simplified contour. His shape
is rectangular, with rounded corners (fig. 2). The total length of the
walls is of 391 fathoms (= round 739 m), close to the real one11. In fact
the precinct is an irregular hexagon and is oriented NNW-SSE (fig. 4).
From the succinct caption on the plan it results that the main areas
where excavations took place are:
A. The interior of the precinct, where an earthenware pipe was said to
have been found (m-n) and a wall fragment (o), both of them being
absent from the plan; the dimensions of the enclosure’s sides are:
ab (= the northern side) 56 fathoms (105.84 m);
ac (= the western side) 132 fathoms (249.48 m);
cd (= the southern side) 95 fathoms (179.55 m);
db (= the eastern side) 108 fathoms (204.12 m).
B. The building south the citadel, passed subsequently for a Roman
bath by archaeologists, represented in a more detailed manner
under the general plan.
C. The granary area, where burnt cereals were found (x) and a
beautifully worked stone block (y), with a length of 2 ½ feet (0.75 m)
and the thickness of 62 inches (1.57 m).
D. The pentagonal building with the adjacent walls which elongate
significantly towards north and west; below the map it is figured
in detail, in plan and in section.

11
I have not found in modern papers the precise dimensions of the precinct. In
Daicoviciu et al. 1951, p. 100, the dimensions are set out only for two of the fortification’s
sides (240 m, respectively 152 m). Călinescu 1982, p. 17 says that the length of the wall
is „about 800 m”. The measurements I took with a GPS Garmin Montana 650 provided
me round 784 m for the enclosure’s perimeter (measured on the interior).

33
 Aurora PEŢAN

E. The swampy area, where excavations were made (today known

under the name of “at Tău”).
On the inside of the citadel, the highest terrace, on which assiduous
excavations were carried out in 1803, but also in 1804, is as well
highlighted.12
The access routes represented on the map are:
1) a footpath (Fussweeg) which begins at the confluence of two
valleys, crosses over the civilian settlement, passes south the
pond, arrives at the enclosure, it cuts it, passing through two gates
(western and eastern), then it goes eastwards, crossing what today
is known as the sacred area and leading to Godeanu mountain;
2) the ancient road (der alte Weeg) which comes from the Valea Godeanului
and also crosses the civilian settlement on a route that largely
coincides with the modern path, but passes south building B, arrives
at the eastern gate and joins the footpath mentioned above; 13
3) a path leads to building B, east the citadel, intercrossing the two
foregoing roads;

12
„Plan von der Berg GRADISTE und den alten ausgegrabenen Gebauden samt ein
Theil von den umliegenden Gebürgen. ERKLAERUNG:
A. Am Situations Plan, ist einfach eingeschrengter Raum mit lauter quadrat Steinen
gewesenen Mauerwerk wo von just nur der Grund vorraget, und ist durchaus mit
10 bis 14 W. Kl. Hohen Buchbaumen auch jungen Nachwachs überströmt. Der
obere Theil der Ringmauer ab ist 56 ac 132 cd 95 db 108 W. Klaf. Lang.
In diesem eingeschlossenen Raum in m und n örter sind die in der Reihe noch gut
zusammen verbundenen Wasserröhre ausgegraben worden, und in o ein stuck Mauer.
B. Ist der ort wo das nach grösserem Maßstabe im Grund und Durchschnitt samt dem
rund gezeichneten Gebau Fig. B steht. Dieses ist von quadrat hin und herlänglichen,
und blatten sandsteinen auf gestelt worden.
C. Ist der ort wo das verbrannte Frucht in der Erde y vergraben dann in x 2 ½ W.
Schu. lang 62 Zoll in quadrat diecke schön aus gearbeiten Steinen in der Reihe nur
aufgestelt gefunden worden.
D. Das nach grösserem Maßstabe im Grund und Durchschnitt gezeichnetes Gebau in
Fünfeck von gleichen quadrat Stein aufgefuhrt.
E. Ein sumtiger ort wo auch gegraben worden ist.
Alle sonst mit Carmin bezeichneten Orten am Stituations Plan bedeuten vorragen der
alten Mauerwerke, die mit hochen und jungen Buchenbaumen vermachsen sind. G.d.C.
Kulyan.” Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Kriegsarchiv, Kartenabteilung KVIIk 403 I/2.
13
This important Dacian road is represented only here and on Finály’s map
(Finály 1916, p. 36, fig. 7). The unique published modern map of the civilian
settlement does not differentiate between the Dacian road and the recent footpath
(Daicoviciu et al. 1952, p. 303, fig. 26). For the ancient access ways to Sarmizegetusa
Regia see Glodariu et al. 1996, p. 85-88.

34
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

4) a road which sets off from the eastern wall of the citadel, from its
northern half, and leads in a straight line eastwards, to Godeanu
mountain.
To the sketchy data from the caption adds the information included
by Bögözi in his report of 25 April 180514. Hence, we find out that the
enclosure’s wall has a thickness of 2 ½ feet (0.75 m)15 and a height of
5-9 feet (1.5-2.7 m)16, and its total length is indeed of 391 fathoms. On
the inside of the precinct, close to the wall, a pipe made out of well
burnt clay was found, boarded with 10-12 inches (25.40-30.48 cm)
planks. The depth at which it was found is of 4-5 feet (1.20-1.50 m), the
conduits have 3 feet (0.90 m) in length, the thickness of the wall is of
1 ½ inches (3.81 cm), and the inner diameter is 15 inches (38.10 cm). The
total length of the excavated pipe, which was found undamaged in the
ground, is of 11 fathoms (20.79 m)17.
At B, says Bögözi, are the remains of a building covered by earth,
where no gate was identified, but which had the entrance from the
upper side. On the inside of the building much lead ore, cinder, blast
vessels, broken glass, bricks of different sizes, ceramic fragments and
human bones were found. Hereunder, several stone blocks were found,
on which there were letters, nicely polished columns and stones with
drawings and symbols.18
14
Jáko 1973, p. 629 sqq.
15
This size is definitely wrong. Four decades later, Andras Fodor, who
undertook excavations there, gave 9 feet (2.70 m), much closer to the real size
(Fodor 1844, p. 302). According to the measurements made at the beginning of the
systematic excavations, the wall thickness was of 3.20 m (Daicoviciu et al. 1951,
p. 162). Today the wall is rebuilt.
16
If these numbers are correct, it means that at that time the walls were
preserved significantly higher than today. In 1980 the maximum height of the
wall was of three rows of stone blocks (round 1.20 m), see Călinescu 1982, p. 17.
However, in 1851 it is mentioned only a height of 6 feet (1.80 m), see Neigebaur
1851, p. 99, no 2.
17
The information is extremely valuable and until now it was left unused
by archaeologists. It proves the fact that in the precinct there is a third water
catchment, besides the one from the sacred area and the one at Tău, fact assumed
already by Iaroslavschi 1995, based on the finding of a pipe fragment south the
precinct, close to the building considered as a thermal edifice, and later proved by
the discovery of some pipe fragments on terraces III (Glodariu et al. 2003; Glodariu
et al. 2004) and IV (Florea et al. 2012, p. 63). Iaroslavschi placed the catchment on
terrace IV, but further discoveries show that the source must have been placed on
an upper terrace. See the debate at Peţan 2013.
18
Regarded as Roman bath by M. Péchy (Jakó 1973, p. 634), as theatre by
F. Neigebaur (Finaly 1916, p. 27) and M. Ackner (Ackner 1856, p. 98), as temple

35
 Aurora PEŢAN

At C and E burnt cereals were found, at a depth of 2-3 feet (0.60-0.90 m)

under the earth.19
Either in area B, either in area C and E (Bögözi’s account is not
clear)20 potsherds of great dimensions with walls having the thickness
of a finger, and a maximal capacity of 20-24 measures were found, as
well as Lysimachos and Koson coins21. The two places where burnt
cereals were found are situated at 400 fathoms (756 m) one from
another and the cereals were found directly on the ground, without
traces of jars or storehouses, at a depth of 12-20 inches (30.48-50.80 cm).
Between the cereals there were also some burnt peas and beans22.
At D we are only told that it is a building with five corners and the
side of 2 fathoms (3.78 m).23
These are the information which adds up to Szőts’ map, preserved
only in the copy of Kulyan. We cannot know how much did Kulyan
leave out or distorted while transferring the information.
There is another sketch, very similar to Szőts’ plan, copied by count
Jozsef Kemény and kept in the manuscript collection (fig. 3). It was
published by Finály Gabor in 1916 and it was attributed to Abbot Eder24.
by G. Finály (Finály 1916, p. 38), as palace by Al. Ferenczi (Daicoviciu et al. 1989,
fig. 18), and again as a Roman bath by C. Daicoviciu (Daicoviciu et al. 1951, p. 106).
I will discuss the XIXth century excavations at this building in another paper.
19
Further researches have confirmed the existence of burnt grains and vegetable
beads in the two areas, but also on other terraces, see Suciu 2009, p. 353, with the
associated bibliography. The swamp area, where there is one of the Dacian water
catchment, was investigated in detail later, see Daicoviciu et al. 1951, p. 121-122;
Daicoviciu et al. 1952, p. 296-297; Glodariu et al. 2003.
20
After displaying the area B, Bögözi describes the finds from C and E, then he
comes back to B, in order to discuss about the stones with signs, then he says that
“in this area as well” the potsherds and the coins were found.
21
For the monetary findings during the campaigns of the Austrian Tax
Authority from 1803 to 1804, see Peţan 2012.
22
Peas are well documented at Grădiştea de Munte, but common beans are
unknown: it might have been mistaken for broad beans, also found there by
archaeologists, see Suciu 2009, p. 353.
23
The pentagonal tower was excavated between June and October 1804 (see the
reports from Jakó 1972 and Jakó 1973) and later investigated by the team of C. Daicoviciu,
see Daicoviciu et al. 1952, p. 291-292. The archaeologists were very surprised to discover
in 1966 the two adjacent walls, without knowing that they had already been unearthed
in 1804 and recorded on this map (Daicoviciu et al. 1973, p. 68).
24
Finály 1916, p. 18, fig. 1. Daicoviciu et al. 1989, fig. 34, wrongfully credits
Eder with a different plan, mentioning the same manuscript of Kemény; however
that plan belongs to I. Marţian, see Marţian 1921, fig. 26.

36
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

Before seeing Kulyan’s plates in the Viennese archives, I considered25

that the plan published by Finály must have fundamentally had a
version made by Bögözi and afterwards attached to his report of
25 April 1805. Since Eder wrote in 1803, Bögözi should have drawn that
plan in 1803 as well, during the first excavation campaign. Bögözi’s
plan is now lost, Jakó did not succeed to find in the archives but the
report’s text, in which it was said that a plan is attached26.
After having consulted Kulyan’s plates, I have determined that the
plan published by Finály, and ascribed to Eder, is very similar to the
one drawn by Szőts in the autumn of 1804. We might have assumed
that Szőts used a sketch prior to Bögözi’s, made in 1804 and known
also by Eder, and attached subsequently to the 1805 report, but it
would have been less likely that Bögözi, a metalworker, could have
made alone that plan, and the cartographic expert copied only Bögözi’s
plan. An examination of Kemény’s manuscripts confirmed me the fact
that the mistake lay in Finály’s text: the plan copied by the count does
not belong to Eder, but it actually represents precisely the subsequently
lost annex of Bögözi’s compendious report of 25 April 1805. Eder’s text
is placed, in Kemény’s manuscript, 3 leaves before the Bögözi’s report,
between the two being inserted the texts of Aigler, Bodoki and Pribila,
and the plan is drawn at the end of Bögözi’s report27. There is no doubt
that this is the plan copied by Bögözi in 1805 after Szőts’ plate.
In Bögözi’s plan the names of the rivers and mountains, the
orientation of the enclosure, the numbering of the excavation spots and
the main access ways are the same as in Kulyan’s map. The outline of
the enclosure is rendered a little more precisely, in a pentagonal shape.
It is possible that the inspector have reproduced the Szőts’ drawing
more accurately than Kulyan. The pentagonal tower is also clearly
drawn, but without the two extended walls.
The Austrian plan of 1804 remained unknown and unused in the
age. Not even the sketchy copy made by Bögözi, saved by Kemény
and published by Finály, was used by those who researched, before the

25
Peţan 2012, p. 82, n. 8.
26
Jáko 1973, p. 631.
27
Mss. J. Kemény, Collectio Maior Manuscriptorum Historicorum, vol. XXXIV,
Varia, fol. 135, Romanian Academy Library, Cluj-Napoca Department, the Kemény
collection. It is possible that the confusion was not due to Finály, but to an error
intervened during the preparation of the manuscript for printing. Reproducing
Bögözi’s report, Finály makes reference to fig. 1 for the report’s annex, but below
fig. 1 he quotes Eder.

37
 Aurora PEŢAN

Second World War, the relics at Grădiştea Muncelului28. The plan was
ignored after the opening of the systematic excavations as well, even
though it had already been published by Jakó (it is true, in poor graphic
conditions) and was brought microfilmed in Bucharest. A thorough
research of this plan, together with the information in the summary
report of 1805, may provide archaeologists valuable supplementary
information. Furthermore, it would be of great importance to find the
original plan drawn by Szőts, which includes the emplacement of the
pipeline and, possibly, some other details left unknown until now.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackner 1856 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.
Benea 2004 Doina Benea, Istoricul cercetărilor arheologice de la Grădiştea
de Munte, in A. Pescaru, I. V. Ferencz (eds.), Daco-Geţii.
80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile
dacice din Munţii Orăştiei, Deva, 2004, p. 9-37.
Daicoviciu, C. Daicoviciu, Al. Ferenczi, Aşezările dacice din Munţii
Ferenczi 1951 Orăştiei, Bucureşti, 1951.
Daicoviciu et al. C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, P. Duka, E. Chirilă, Şt. Ferenczi,
1951 V. Manoliu, I. Pop, M. Rednic, M. Rusu, H. Teodoru,
Studiul traiului dacilor în Munţii Orăştiei (Şantierul
arheologic de la Grădiştea de Munte. Rezultatul cercetărilor
făcute de colectivul din Cluj în anul 1950), Studii şi Cercetări
de Istorie Veche, II, 1, 1951, p. 95-126.
Daicoviciu et al. C. Daicoviciu şi colaboratorii, Şantierul Grădiştea
1952 Muncelului. Studiul traiului dacilor în Munţii Orăştiei,
Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche, III, 1952, p. 281-307.

28
See the almost circular representation of the enclosure at M. Ackner (Ackner
1856, taf. VI; Wolmann 1982, fig. 35), A. Fodor (mss. Andras Fodor Lugosi Kézirata
[Date arheologice din Transilvania], BCU Cluj-Napoca, Special collections, no
754, vol. VI, page 48, plate XLIX, with explanations in vol. I, 32 and II, 36-37;
Wollmann 1982, fig. 54), J.F. Neigebaur (J. Kemény, Collectio Maior Manuscriptorum
Historicorum, volume XXXIV, Varia, fol. 138, BAR, Cluj-Napoca department,
Kemény collection; Finály 1916, p. 26, fig. 2), I. Marţian (Marţian 1921, fig. 26).
Finály is the first to give a realistic plan of the fortress (Finály 1916, p. 36, fig. 7,
drawn by Lang Nandor).

38
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

Daicoviciu et al. C. Daicoviciu, I.H. Crişan, Ş. Ferenczi, Şantierul arheologic

1973 dacic din Munţii Orăştiei, jud. Hunedoara (1960-1966),
Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, X, 1973, p. 61-85.
Daicoviciu et al. H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, Şt. Ferenczi, Cetăţi şi aşezări
1989 dacice în sud-vestul Transilvaniei, vol. I, Bucureşti, 1989.
Finály 1916 G. Finály, A Gredistyei dák várak, Archeologiai Értesítő,
36, 1916, p. 11-43.
Florea et al. 2012 G. Florea, L. Suciu, E. Iaroslavschi, G. Gheorghiu,
P. Pupeză, R. Mateescu, C. Bodó, 28. Grădiştea de Munte,
com. Orăştioara de Sus, Jud. Hunedoara [Sarmizegetusa
Regia], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.
Campania 2011, Târgu Mureş, p. 62-63.
Fodor 1844 Andras Fodor, Római régiségek Hunyad vármegyében, Hon
és Külföld, 1844, p. 300-304.
Glodariu et al. I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, A. Rusu-Pescaru, F. Stănescu,
1996 Sarmizegetusa Regia, capitala Daciei preromane, Acta
Musei Devensis, Deva, 1996.
Glodariu et al. I. Glodariu, G. Florea, L. Suciu, D. Sima, R. Mateescu,
2003 C. Toma, D. Cioată, M. Sacalâş, E. Iaroslavschi, G.
Gheorghiu, R. Crişan, A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, 86. Grădiştea de
Munte, com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara, [Sarmizegetusa
Regia], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.
Campania 2002, http://www.cimec.ro /Arheologie/
cronicaCA2003/rapoarte/086.htm (retrieved: 18.10. 2013).
Glodariu et al. I. Glodariu, G. Florea, L. Suciu, D. Sima, R. Mateescu,
2004 C. Toma, P. Pupeză, D. Cioată, M. Sacalâş, E. Iaroslavschi,
G. Gheorghiu, A. Pescaru, C. Bodó, G. Trohani, R. Oanţă-
Marghitu, S. Oanţă-Marghitu, 81. Grădiştea de Munte,
com. Orăştioara de Sus, jud. Hunedoara, [Sarmizegetusa
Regia], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.
Campania 2003, http://www.cimec.ro/ Arheologie/
cronicaCA2004/text/081.htm (retrieved: 18.10. 2013).
Iaroslavschi 1995 Eugen Iaroslavschi, Conduits et citernes d’eau chez les daces
des Monts d’Orăştie, Acta Musei Napocensis, XXXII, 1995,
p. 135-143.
Jakó 1966 S. Jakó, Cercetări arheologice la cetatea Grădiştea Muncelului
în anii 1803-1804, Acta Musei Napocensis, III, 1966,
p. 103-119.
Jakó 1968 S. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la
Grădiştea Muncelului în anii 1803-1804 (I), Acta Musei
Napocensis, V, 1968, p. 432-443.

39
 Aurora PEŢAN

Jakó 1971 S. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la

Grădiştea Muncelului în anii 1803-1804 (II), Acta Musei
Napocensis, VIII, 1971, p. 439-455.
Jakó 1972 S. Jakó, Date privitoare la cercetările arheologice de la
Grădiştea Muncelului în anii 1803-1804 (III), Acta Musei
Napocensis, IX, 1972, p. 587-602.
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.
Marţian 1921 I. Marţian, Urme din războaiele romanilor cu dacii.
Studiu arheologic cu 39 schiţe şi desemnuri, Cluj, 1921.
Neigebaur 1851 J.F. Neigebaur, Dacien. Ueberresten des klassischen
Alterthums, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Siebenbürgen,
Kronstadt, 1851.
Peţan 2012 Aurora Peţan, Coin finds at Grădiştea Muncelului during the
excavation campaigns of 1803-1804, Acta Musei Napocensis,
47-48/I, 2010-2011 (2012), p. 81-90.
Peţan 2013 Aurora Peţan, The water supply of Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
precinct, in „Simpozion ArheoVest. Interdisciplinaritate în
arheologie şi istorie. In memoriam Liviu Măruia. Timişoara,
7 decembrie 2013”, Timişoara, 2013, forthcoming.
Suciu 2009 Liliana Daniela Suciu, Habitat şi viaţă cotidiană în Dacia
preromană, „Babeş-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca,
unpublished PhD thesis, 2009.
Wollmann 1982 V. Wollmann, Johann Michael Ackner (1782-1862). Leben
und Werk, Cluj-Napoca, 1982.

40
Fig. 1. The map of A. Szőts (copy by Kulyan). Source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Kriegsarchiv, Kartenabteilung KVIIk 403 I/2.
41
Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

Fig. 2. Detail from the map of A. Szőts (copy by Kulyan). Source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv,
Kriegsarchiv, Kartenabteilung KVIIk 403 I/2.
42
Aurora PEAN

Fig. 3. The plan of A. Bögözi. Source: mss. J. Kemény, Collectio Maior Manuscriptorum Historicorum,
vol. XXXIV, Varia, fol. 135, Romanian Academy Library, Cluj-Napoca Department, Kemény collection.
 Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804

Fig. 4. The Sarmizegetusa Regia’s plan according to Glodariu 1996 (but with
the north direction correctly pointed; in Glodariu’s plan the north arrow has
an eastward deviation of about 40 degrees from the true north).

43

View publication stats